Red River Diversion Information Guide – What will the Diversion Cost You?

What will the Diversion Cost You? ** SHOCKING TAX ASSESSMENTS ** that officials have kept from property owners. Fargo-Moorhead can be protected without destroying Red River Basin communities. This plan will lead to the destruction of farms, communities and businesses south of the diversion channel, Clay and Cass counties and northern Richland and Wilkin counties. A Dam & Reservoir is not needed!

Continue Reading

Why was a diversion channel, rather than levees or water retention, recommended?

The question as presented, is speculative, leading and incorrect. The original flood reduction proposal located on the Minnesota side of the Red River included a diversion channel as a main feature to convey water from south to north of the metro area. The proposal released in the SDEIS and FEIS utilizes high risk dams, levees […]

Continue Reading

Dean and Paula Swenson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

I believe that the project, as put forth, is an unsustainable project. I don’t believe that the ACE is capable of either designing, building or maintaining a man built water system that will go over or under 5 different water sheds in a 36 mile man made route around a metro area.

Continue Reading

Senate Bill 2039 exempts ND from floodplains building restrictions

Letter from: George Sorvalis Water Protection Network, Coordinator Dear WPN Listserve, Having already passed the Senate, we are very concerned about S. 2039 «Read More», which is scheduled for a House vote today (under suspension of the rules – which means limited debate and ¾ vote to pass). It is a stand-alone bill that would […]

Continue Reading

Marcus Larson “Loss of Life” Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

The staging area presents a greater threat to the city of Fargo, ND due to excessive water levels held above the elevation of the entire city on historically unstable ground. It is generally accepted that populations that have permanent protection in place are less likely to evacuate because the flood protection offers an unwarranted sense of security that does not reflect a true flood risk specific to the given area.

Continue Reading

Hugh J. Trowbrige Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

<< Read and Download Original Hugh J. Trowbrige Comment Letter >> November 6, 2011 To: The Corp of Enginers Last week the city of fargo voted 3-2 to keep future building 450 feet from the center of the Red River. To get the third vote they have an exception clause. that is feet not yards! […]

Continue Reading

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