Why are upstream impacts rather than downstream impacts being proposed?

<<< Return to FAQs >>> Short answer, to benefit Fargo’s future plans for economic development. Excerpt from USACE FEIS Appendix C 3.9 Project Performance, Risk and Uncertainty Given the uncertainty associated with the various hydraulic, hydrologic, and economic relationships used in the flood damage analysis, there is likewise some uncertainty regarding a project’s ability to […]

Continue Reading

Marcus Larson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

The USACE previous responses to Violations of EO11988 are insufficient. This suggests a conflict of interest and lack of representation to affected taxpayers and areas outside the protected area. Darrell Vanyo’s testimony is self-evident that Fargo is pursuing this project for future flood plain development which is a direct violation of EO11988. 43 feet of protection in Fargo is a game changer and all previous cost benefit ratios are no longer valid.

Continue Reading

Why is the North Dakota diversion channel the selected plan, when the Minnesota diversion channel would have been cheaper?

<<< Return to FAQs >>> Fargo and Cass County ND officials, influenced the Diversion Board of Authority to adopt a ND based diversion despite the more cost effective alternatives presented by the USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). Fargo and Cass County ND officials, collaborated with key influential players and developers to foster the […]

Continue Reading

How does the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion violate Executive Order 11988?

<<< Return to FAQs >>> EO-11988: Federal agencies are required to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. The USACE and the non-federal sponsor of Fargo […]

Continue Reading

Is the real, hidden purpose for the staging area to serve as a water supply for Fargo?

The factual project purpose, as illustrated by the Corps of Engineers in its reports, is to develop a project that will accommodate the city of Fargo’s current future plans of development. Which is illustrated in Value Engineering Study 1 and Value Engineering Study 2 and both directly and in-directly violates Executive Order 11988.

Continue Reading

Is it true that property in the proposed buyout area has no value and cannot be sold?

Each property has value and that value shall be determined as though no project were considered. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide just compensation to the owner of the private property to be taken. What is unique about the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion is the unjust relocation of the natural floodplain, in violation of Executive Order 11988, causing new potential flood impacts onto property owners, many of whom, that derive their lively-hood from the land being force-ably taken.

Continue Reading

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

Fred Schumacher Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

A small group of Fargo/Cass County individuals has been operating in a feedback loop with the St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop the Fargo Diversion. “… the ND alignment is a locally preferred alignment… to accommodate the city of Fargo’s current future plans of development…” This statement is a smoking gun that proves the Fargo Diversion, the Locally Preferred Plan, is all about development of the floodplain on the far south side of Fargo, which recently built a new south side high school in it in anticipation of future development. Although public hearings have been held, these have been strictly pro-forma, with no comments recorded. The general public has been blocked out of the decision making process.

Continue Reading