Additional Content 1234567891011 Last »
FM Diversion and Dam Increases national debt

Still at it, rejecting solutions

Still at it, rejecting solutions - Letter to the Editor
Mr. Jack Zaleski has been one of my favorite writers in the area, not that we always agree, but I have been able to understand his viewpoint. As one of those who has moved back to the farm, we have a different perspective on this issue. I still do appreciate his viewpoints.

The focus on the historical interest in the generational farms that are to be destroyed for the “sake of progress” is not to achieve any special status for those farms. It is only to make the point that these farms have been in operation for many generations, not asking for protection from flooding and not asking the taxpayer for their continued existence.

The FM Metro areas is in dire need of flood risk reduction as they have built in the flood plain since they have run out of high ground. We need to look at the FM Metro Flood Risk Reduction project in terms of areas where the wise use of flood risk reduction is advantages and areas which don’t need flood risk reduction in order to be developed.

The key to resolution of the issues is the use of the natural flood plain to store flood waters, eliminating the need to flood your neighbors. This solution has been supported for many years in the form of a combination of retention and other flood risk reduction measures. The FM Metro plan acknowledges the potential of this kind of solution, but has rejected it because it can’t tap the federal government for a major portion of the costs. Fargo does not have the funds, although other funding is possible, but Fargo has devised a plan to take advantage of federal funding, without retention as a part of the solution.

The Red River Basin Commission and the Red River Retention Authority have worked for some time on the retention issues and will sooner or later have a basin wide solution. Until then, Fargo will remain under a high flood risk and the current plan will be meet with continued opposition from those impacted upstream. A solution has been presented by upstream interests and was rejected by the plan sponsors. This difference has led to the present stalemate . We, the upstream interests, are still willing to be part of the process to solve the problems for all.

Leave a Reply

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>