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

Archive for Fargo

You are browsing the archives of Fargo.

Kevin Olsgaard Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Kevin Olsgaard Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

There must be a better way. The project would negatively affect my farming. It would also ruin the land where the tie-back levee goes in.

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties August 2nd, 2012

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties August 2nd, 2012

Missouri Rep. Carnahan on senate bill 2039 : “Instead of letting nature do what it is designed to do, this bill would set a precedent for other states, increasing catastrophic flood levels across the country,” There are alternatives that protect Fargo from flooding that do not also “induce growth” in the flood plain.

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties July 26th, 2012

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties July 26th, 2012

Benjamin Larson, candidate for the Minnesota House: Moorhead, Minn,“wake up and fight for the city’s future.” Moorhead is located on high ground, much higher than the flood plain south of Fargo, Moorhead is the natural choice for flood-free future development: both residential and commercial.

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties July 19th, 2012

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties July 19th, 2012

Fargo wants to take 40 square miles out of the flood plain immediately south of town – where the Wild Rice and Red Rivers meet – to provide future development room for Fargo. Should someone whisper that the emperor has no clothes?

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties July 12th, 2012

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties July 12th, 2012

How long will the Diversion Authority continue to push this illegal budget-busting boondoggle while people in need of reasonable flood protection remain at risk? The North Dakota Constitution was amended to provide that a public use or public purpose may not include: “… public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment or general economic health.”

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties July 5th, 2012

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties July 5th, 2012

Fargo cannot expand south as the land south of Davies High School is a natural flood plain that collects water when we have even moderate flooding. Fargo’s solution: protect the extra 40-square miles for development by building dams on the Red and Wild Rice and back up the water that would normally and naturally spread out into the floodplain.

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties June 28th, 2012

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties June 28th, 2012

Minnesota Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant funds were not intended to be Fargo development funds for flood- prone areas south of Fargo. There are better solutions that have been ignored, primarily because it may restrict Fargo expanding to the south. I would suggest 52 Street South in Fargo. In the past, that is where Fargo has successfully placed a temporary levee.

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

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!

John J Ready Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

John J Ready Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Why should Fargo’s poor planning and reckless development of a flood plain, caving into the economic interests of Fargo, Mayor Walaker, and his political cronies be rewarded? Their past development decisions have proven extremely negligent and stupid.

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

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 […]