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

Archive for Diversion

You are browsing the archives of Diversion.

Ruth Evert Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Ruth Evert Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

I’m Ruth Evert (90 years old). I’m appalled at the Fargo City Commissioners and Mayor and the Corp of Engineers for the Diversion they have planned south of Fargo around the Hickson area. It’s too drastic.

What is the anticipated annual operation and maintenance cost of the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion?

What is the anticipated annual operation and maintenance cost of the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion?

The United States Army Corps of Engineers indicates an annual operation and maintenance cost of $3,631,000 in 2011 dollars, Using 2011 as the benchmark year and the preceding decades inflation rate, the “estimated” annual operation and maintenance costs are as follows: year 2022 – $4,438,122.57

Delores & Jay Kleinjen Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Delores & Jay Kleinjen Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

The Army Corps has a history of not being accurate in their predictions. Several articles have been written verifying the Corps mistakes in mismanagement. The daily news detailed ineptness of the Corps management with regards to the Missouri River issues. The Army Corps knew they were going to use the upstream route prior to the Cass County sales tax vote. Our neighbor was approached by a Corps engineer about farm buyout costs in October 2010. Why was this hidden from the taxpayers until after the vote for the sales tax took place?Mike and Cindy Zick Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Mike and Cindy Zick Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Mike and Cindy Zick Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Whats wrong with Fargo? We do not understand why Fargo thinks they need the CADILLAC plan designed for a 500 yr flood event. But this ridiculous plan to install a dam on the Red River and flood all the communities, residences, and farms upstream because they are greedy and want to reserve future developments in south Fargo.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Douglas Christianson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Douglas Christianson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Minot flooded and Fargo took that ball and ran. Saying look what could happen. Fargo hasn’t had a 100 year flood yet but now they want to be protected to 500 year, do they even know what number a 500 year flood is. Moorhead has been doing a good job of protecting themselves. Fargo is working on it and maybe have most done before this project can even get started. I hope they weren’t just looking at it as a stimulus project to create a lot of jobs to help the economy.

Page 14 of 18« First...9101112131415161718