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

Archive for Fargo

You are browsing the archives of Fargo.

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

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direct violation of EO11988. 43 feet of protection in Fargo is a game changer and all previous cost benefit ratios are no longer valid.

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

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

<< Read and Download Original Wayne & Lori Rheault Comment Letter >> To the army corps of engineers; We would like to address this Fargo diversion/dam, we live just south of Fargo in Hickson an area that has never been flooded. Our concerns are that you are going to sacrifice our area to save a […]

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

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.

Sandy Meyer Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Sandy Meyer Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

<< Read and Download Original Sandy Meyer Comment Letter >> Nov. 6, 2011 Dear U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, I’m writing in regards to your proposal for a diversion in the Fargo – Moorhead area. As a taxpayer and teacher of Minnesota, I highly OPPOSE of this plan. This plan is not in the best […]

Charles Christianson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Charles Christianson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Remember Fargo keeps building in low area and they expect the people on higher ground to sacrifice homes and business so some body can make money on development and there growth. Why does Fargo want to keep building in a low area behind a big body of water this would be.

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

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

I’m Ruth Evert (90 years old). I’m appalled at the Fargo City Commissioners and Mayor and the Corp of Engineers for the Diversion they have planned south of Fargo around the Hickson area. It’s too drastic.

Will not help pay for Fargo’s ‘dam’

Will not help pay for Fargo’s ‘dam’

Why would farmers, homeowners and rural residents threatened to be flooded by the Fargo dam (called a diversion) wish to pay a Fargo sales tax to hasten their own destruction?

What is the anticipated annual operation and maintenance cost of the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion?

What is the anticipated annual operation and maintenance cost of the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion?

The United States Army Corps of Engineers indicates an annual operation and maintenance cost of $3,631,000 in 2011 dollars, Using 2011 as the benchmark year and the preceding decades inflation rate, the “estimated” annual operation and maintenance costs are as follows: year 2022 – $4,438,122.57

Delores & Jay Kleinjen Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Delores & Jay Kleinjen Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

The Army Corps has a history of not being accurate in their predictions. Several articles have been written verifying the Corps mistakes in mismanagement. The daily news detailed ineptness of the Corps management with regards to the Missouri River issues. The Army Corps knew they were going to use the upstream route prior to the Cass County sales tax vote. Our neighbor was approached by a Corps engineer about farm buyout costs in October 2010. Why was this hidden from the taxpayers until after the vote for the sales tax took place?Mike and Cindy Zick Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Mike and Cindy Zick Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Mike and Cindy Zick Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Whats wrong with Fargo? We do not understand why Fargo thinks they need the CADILLAC plan designed for a 500 yr flood event. But this ridiculous plan to install a dam on the Red River and flood all the communities, residences, and farms upstream because they are greedy and want to reserve future developments in south Fargo.