Fargo Moorhead Dam | FMDam.org

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

February 2, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

…it seems strange that homes and farms that in some cases were established 140+ years ago are not worth saving for historical and cultural purposes if not for the sake of the families that live there. Since our settlements were developed by immigrant populations rather than native populations, does that make their value less significant? Do not our laws protect our heritage, as well? I have hoped that the planners of this Flood Control Project would come to realize that this sacrifice asked of the Comstock-Hickson Communities, the surrounding townships of Holy Cross and Pleasant and the farms and homes on the 54,000 areas to be flooded is more than should be asked of anyone.

Trana Rogne Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 29, 2012January 20, 2013Admin2Leave a Comment

Bought and Paid For: The Corps planning documents show no analysis of why the Northern Inlet is not a practicable alternative. The basic premise that the local non-federal sponsor determines the specific alignments to be considered and the level of flood protection to be provided is deeply flawed. Planning based on this premise leads to an unwise use of billions in tax dollars. We have no evidence that the process of planning this project has been fair or reasonable. The FEIS does not address adequately the concerns raised by our lawyers in their comments on the SDEIS.

Doug Lingen Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 29, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

Dr. Mahoney talks about how Fargo has given up 400 or so houses that were built by the river at 36 or 37 feet. How high is the level around Davies high school? They are still issuing building permits at these same levels banking on the diversion aren’t they? If the Corp has not determined this cost or possible impacts how can you proceed with a project not knowing the possible outcomes and still say this is the best plan when not all is know.

Arden Breimeier Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 28, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

“If their lips are moving, they’re lying! When the diversion project was first advanced, Oxbow asked to be included within its protection. We were refused but also assured that the project would not affect us, that it wouldn’t change our situation, either for better or for worse. We could live with that and proceeded to build flood protection for ourselves.

Curt Bjertness Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 26, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

The current alignment of the proposed diversion and water staging is such that it protects a growth area of Fargo that is currently a natural waterway for overland flooding during most flood events. The sacrifices that the upstream communities are being told to endure are immense. The proposal to protect that area for development and push that water onto areas that historically have not had flooding is not only arrogant and unethical but should be illegal.

ND State Senator Larry Luick Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 26, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

This correspondence is in regard to the proposed diversion and dam in the Fargo, ND area. From the plans that I have seen, this is way oversized, overpriced, and only assists the Fargo/West Fargo/Moorhead communities. But to decide that this community has more “rights” than the communities that will be effected by this proposed structure is wrong, very wrong. Don’t let this go through until there is a plan to help upstream and downstream areas and communities.

Rhoda K. and Martin B. Ueland Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 26, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

Fargo refuses to deal internally to solve their personal long-term flooding issues. “Let’s destroy others to protect ourselves” is basically the Local Sponsors motto, as acknowledged by the Army COE. Aaron Snyder of the US Army COE, St. Paul, Mn District, has stated the Army COE “likes big projects”. Apparently the reason that the only method they are willing to consider is a diversion is that it is the biggest, most expensive option available.

City of Horace Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 25, 2012January 20, 2013admin2 Comments

The City of Horace hereby reiterates its vigorous opposition to the proposed North Dakota diversion project for all of the reasons originally advanced in correspondence relating to the “DRAFT FEASIBILITYREPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT” dated July 26,2010. None of the original issues have been adequately addressed thereafter.

Ray Holzhey Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 24, 2012May 30, 2013adminLeave a Comment

I am writing to you in opposition to the July 2011 FEIS for the Locally Preferred Plan. This plan presents many concerns regarding negative effects on the residents, farmers, and economy of the region. Because my comments for the SDEIS were not adequately addressed I expanding on them for this comment period. This plan has been developed exclusively for the benefit of a small portion of the region and does not include benefits for, nor does it consider the economic impacts to not only the local region but to the whole Red River valley.

Wayne Hoglund Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 23, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

In a period of time when the government is very deeply in debt, to spend money for a very complicated and expensive diversion is almost ridiculous; especially when the Army Corps of Engineers declared their first choice as the Minnesota diversion. To choose this expensive, complex Fargo diversion; it seems very logical that it is not the best solution, but a land grab by Fargo…