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

<< Read and Download Original Marcus Larson Comment Letter >> General Grisoli Civil Works Review Board Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers 441 G. Street, NW Washington, DC 20314-1000 Dear General Grisoli: I respectfully request that you DO NOT release the final report of the LPP. The current LPP and SDEIS contains deficiencies that local […]

Continue Reading

Defending Richland and Wilkin Counties: Gallery

Fargo media minimizes, ignores and refuses to cover information unfriendly to Fargo plans to dam and divert the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The Daily News of Wahpeton and Breckenridge and its editorial team have generously offered a weekly column: “Defending Richland and Wilkin.” The purpose of these articles is to present the true facts […]

Continue Reading

Dallas Israelson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

As residents of Cass and Richland County, North Dakota, we are expected to pay the cost of a plan that benefits only the future growth of Fargo, North Dakota. Even if there was a risk of a huge flood there are several alternatives to protect Moorhead and Fargo that have not been explored or have been disregarded by the decision makers, primarily North Dakota leaders.

Continue Reading

Michael Hammond Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Fargo has continually forced decisions to be made based on its own interests and has even managed to obtain a supermajority (six of nine seats) on the panel that will be making decisions regarding the project. Nothing to date has provided any reason to believe that Fargo will not continue to act selfishly at the expense of others in the region.

Continue Reading

Phillip M. Henry Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

How is it possible, or even legal for the Corps to issue a pronouncement that upends the lives of family after family without any true concern for the damage, upheaval, and uncertainty it has caused? What is the point of creating a diversion that will have an annual maintenance cost that equals or exceeds the cost of protecting Fargo from flooding in some years, but not all?

Continue Reading

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

Sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the perceived needs of the many. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is not onboard with the proposed project because it negatively impacts the environment of the state of Minnesota. The city of Fargo has made the choice to build in a flood plain. Why should their decision to do so negatively impact the surrounding farms and communities?

Continue Reading

Dave Gingrey Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

The diversion should be constructed within the city limits of Fargo. It is unethical to expect county residents outside the City of Fargo to sacrifice their property and livelihoods for the benefit of Fargo and it is unethical for the Army Corps of Engineers to be part of any such plan.

Continue Reading

Mary K. Adams Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

In an era of rapidly growing world population, demand for food will remain paramount. Rich farmland is a premium investment and is being sought and bought allover the world. So for me the question remains, is the diversion, as proposed, an undertaking for the economic development of south Fargo, or is it purely for flood protection?

Continue Reading

Fargo’s Diversion Immoral, A Better Path Forward

The present plan is unreasonable, immoral and will ultimately be found to be unlawful. Fargo’s present leaders seek Fargo’s own future interests and future growth without regard for, and at the expense of, the rights and property of its neighbors. Fargo leaders fail and will be remembered, not for having brought permanent flood protection to Fargo, but by their arrogance and unreasonableness, for having failed at a staggering cost.

Continue Reading