Part of the Process?

This is a forced relocation of “several hundreds or thousands” of people. When I asked the panel about giving up our land, homes, everything in exchange for land for Fargo to develop, Dr. Mahoney responded that Fargo had given up many homes for flood protection. So, Dr. Mahoney, the process is that we give up our homes so your homes (and homes that haven’t even been built yet) don’t flood?

Continue Reading

Does the Fargo Moorhead Diversion and Dam violate Executive Order 11988?

The USACE and Fargo have not exercised due care in performing their duties pursuant to Executive Order 11988. Viable alternatives exist, however, have been procedure-ally disregarded. The current LPP calls for willful destructive development of the natural flood plains both south and north of Fargo for future economic development.

Continue Reading

Claire Askegaard Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

I am writing you today to inform you of my opposition to the North Dakota Alignment commonly referred to as the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP). I cannot support a plan which is not economically viable or needed and does a grave injustice to not only the communities and farms in the proposed water staging area but also the entire Red River Basin. By choosing the LPP, you are doing a grave injustice for not only the citizens of my hometown and its surrounding communities, but also for the nation.

Continue Reading

Why was the current alignment selected?

The current alignment was selected by the non-federal project sponsor to protect Fargo’s future development interests. The design intent was to benefit as much existing development as possible, without respect to Executive Order 11988. Land developers south of Fargo, to be named later, will realize exponential financial benefit as a result of their lobbying efforts of County, City and Corps officials.

Continue Reading

Bette J. Stieglitz Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

The problem is not the water, it is the greed of developers and Fargo city officials that encouraged new neighborhoods near the river, or in flood prone low lying areas. I am serious when I ask “Just what are we thinking?” First of all our community has dealt with a number of floods in the past few years. We do know the high water mark. Finish the “buy outs” necessary, and learn from those mistakes.

Continue Reading

Concerns over F-M diversion project brought to Polk County Board

The USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers uses procedure to their own detriment. 20 months ago, the Crookston Daily Times ran an article by author Natalie J. Ostgaard, which lends an insight into the Corps adherence to procedure to ensure that ZERO progress is made with interactions they have with the very taxpayers […]

Continue Reading

Who does the Corps of Engineers answer to?

In face to face meetings, the United States Army Corps of Engineers refuses to provide answers to valid questions from citizens and has attempted to procedure-ally sidestep FOIA – Freedom of Information Act requests. The taxpayers that are expected to shoulder the tax burden for the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management plan need and deserve real answers.

Continue Reading

Sherri Smith Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

In total, three North Dakota communities and hundreds of homes will be erased from the map. As we understand the plan, the diversion along with holding areas of water would inundate our property with 7 to 8 feet of water that we did not previously have to deal with. We, however, cannot support the current plan to use our home as the sacrificial lamb to increase the comfort level of the metro area without knowing where we stand relative to a potential buyout, land usage, and opportunities/costs related to whether or not we will be able to afford to continue the lifestyle we chose to live outside of the FM Metro Area in the 1st place.

Continue Reading

Joyce Hendrickson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

I oppose the above mentioned proposal for many reasons. Obviously, upstream communities were not asked to participate in the decision making process. I know alternatives do exist that address flooding basin wide. These have not been studied or addressed by the Corp nor have areas affected by the issue been included in the planning stages. Although the Corp acknowledges that there will be impacts outside the 33,390 acre staging area, these issues have not been assessed and these costs are not included in the project.

Continue Reading