ExhibitB
[ Click Image for Full Size View ] Original 100yr vs 500yr Flood Outline of Fargo, ND Cited Source: 2008 Reconnaissance Study Views: 314 Tweet
Continue ReadingTag: Fargo
Richland and Wilkin Counties Unanimously Form JPA
Fargo, Cass County and the USACE may have overplayed their misinform, divide and conquer hand. The USACE, Cass County and Fargo will need to come to the table with previously excluded opponents and provide answers to defiencies and impacts evident in the current FEIS. A tough pill to swallow for those that have routinely marginalized opponents with denigrating disregard: “They had no place there. Why would diversion supporters who are trying to get the project funded invite project foes whose goal is to scuttle the project? They were not invited for good cause.”
Continue ReadingDavid Ness Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
There are a few THOUSAND people who live on farms and small communities south of Fargo Moorhead who are going to lose their homes and livelihoods or have them become unusable/inaccessible. The Fargo dam project as put forth by the Corp of Engineers has a moral problem in both environmental and human terms which will leave behind a legacy of acrimony. The DNR is not in favor of this project. A great, albeit unappreciated, resource will be destroyed.
Continue ReadingDiversion Supporters Ignore Sensible, Cheaper Alternatives
I witnessed the charade that was thrust upon the residents of Oxbow, Bakke Subdivision, Hickson, Christine, Comstock, etc., that what we thought even mattered. Good comments and proposals for alternative considerations were met with casual disregard, and it was readily apparent that nothing else was going to be considered because it would frustrate corps timelines for proposing their bizarre plan to Congress.
Continue ReadingEdmund Bernhardson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
Fargo, ND and the USACE may ignore concerns over National Register of historic buildings that would be destroyed by the construction and operation of the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion. “What are we willing to sacrifice for a project that won’t fully protect Fargo?” – Editorial Team
Continue ReadingUS Department of the Interior Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
Based on information available at this time and the impact analysis outlined in the Final Fishand Wildlife Coordination Act Report (July 2011 ), the FWS recommends that, should the Corps and the local project sponsors proceed with the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Flood Risk Reduction Project, the Federally Comparable Plan (FCP or MN 3SK Alternative) Diversion Channel Alternative be the selected Alternative. Adverse ecological impacts will occur with any of the Diversion Channel Alternatives. For the following reason, however, the FCP Alternative would result in less severe ecological impacts than the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) Diversion Channel Alternative:
Continue ReadingLynn Larsen and Richard “Red” Geurts Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
Fargo leaders have left a paper trail that clearly indicates that the diversion is not flood protection but a long range growth plan. This growth plan takes established communities and wipes them away to ensure that Fargo has no competition for development. If Fargo wanted to protect the residents they would not have allowed recent development in high flood risk areas. The charter of the Army Corps of Engineers does not allow work done to promote growth of one community over another.
Continue ReadingOn the Wild Rice, a Plea for a Culture
Grand Forks Herald reporter, Chuck Haga explores negative impacts caused by Fargo’s bad policy of “flood thy neighbor.” 112th Congress may have to weigh the economic and social impacts caused by Fargo’s intrusion into the natural floodplain in violation of Executive Order 11988. “Fargo feels they’re in control and they can do as they please,” Fargo should use the floodplain just to the city’s south for water storage at times of flooding, “instead of draining it to build houses.” “If we’re going to take their water, we need to have some say. As it is, Richland County is to be a holding pond for Fargo, and we don’t think that’s fair.”
Continue ReadingUnequal Protection
Fargo has found a way, with the help of the Corps. By protecting the “natural flood plain” and moving the water south to flood their neighbors, they will have created an area for growth. Their problem is now to make everyone believe their ”flood control plan” is the only way Fargo can have “flood protection” and hide the fact it is crafted to provide for Fargo’s future growth, in reality an economic development based plan.
Continue ReadingColleen Israelson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
The Corps has been hired by Fargo to protect Fargo, a hired gun. Get whoever you need to get out of the way and do what we have hired you to do. Fargo hasn’t flooded, yet they claim it will take more acreage then exists in the city limits to protect it. This may be nothing more then Fargo’s plan for growth — get this thing started wait for the land to devaluate and take all of it for Fargo’s future growth.
Continue Reading