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

Archive for FM Diversion

You are browsing the archives of FM Diversion.

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

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

Scientists have raised concerns about these soils, and it makes no sense to move toward authorization when we have no idea of what kinds of supports will be required or how deep they need to go to carry the structures safely. This project has been rushed through the planning process and is not ready to go to Congress for authorization. Alternatives have not been properly considered, and the public and agencies have not been given sufficient time to evaluate the Final EIS.

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

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

…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.

Crack in the FM Diversion: Will it Break Under Pressure

Crack in the FM Diversion: Will it Break Under Pressure

Take any single aspect of the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion, scrutinize the data and the findings don’t pan out. When one considers the lack of a real 500 year flood threat versus the impacts and benefit to cost ratios the entire document that the proposed Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion is being based upon, […]

Diversion a Flawed Proposal

Diversion a Flawed Proposal

We are disappointed that with so many intelligent people involved, so many years of planning as well as passing a tax in order to pay for this, that it would wipe out communities, ruin a school district as well as relocate two cemeteries, a church and destroy valuable farmland and historical sites. This plan disregards the rights of many people in order to concentrate solely on the Fargo-Moorhead area. We cannot and will not support the diversion plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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.

Richland Wilkin JPA?

Richland Wilkin JPA?

Fargo’s aggressive push to develop the natural flood plain south of Fargo, ND has commissioners from Richland County, ND and Wilkin County, MN reaching across the very river that Fargo is using in a sympathetic pitch for 2 billion plus dollars to bankroll a project that has a 99.98% chance of never being utilized to the capacity of a 500 year flood event. Fargo don’t park your problems on us.

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

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

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 Governor Jack Dalrymple Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

ND Governor Jack Dalrymple Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

This plan, which was proposed by Fargo and Cass County officials, would not only affect stakeholders in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area, but would also affect upstream and downstream stakeholders as well. To ensure the incerests of all stakeholders are considered, I request that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers carefully consider all comments submitted regarding the FEIS when selecting and implementing a final flood protection plan for the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan area.