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

Archive for Diversion

You are browsing the archives of Diversion.

Sandy Meyer Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Sandy Meyer Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

<< Read and Download Original Sandy Meyer Comment Letter >> Nov. 6, 2011 Dear U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, I’m writing in regards to your proposal for a diversion in the Fargo – Moorhead area. As a taxpayer and teacher of Minnesota, I highly OPPOSE of this plan. This plan is not in the best […]

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

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

Remember Fargo keeps building in low area and they expect the people on higher ground to sacrifice homes and business so some body can make money on development and there growth. Why does Fargo want to keep building in a low area behind a big body of water this would be.

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.

Page 14 of 18« First...9101112131415161718