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

Archive for FM Diversion

You are browsing the archives of FM Diversion.

The Black Cloud, Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Labeling and profiling is the easy way for media to sway public sentiment. Despite the financial falterings the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion “is” and “will continue to” experience, the uneducated belief that a Dam and Diversion is the “only solution” for Fargo Moorhead underscores how little proponents have read the FEIS and really how […]

Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion Tax Vote

Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion Tax Vote

Currently, taxpayers are on track to spend at minimum $36,825 per residential and business structure in the metro area for the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion. If this project passes taxpayers will be saddled with the burden of funding the equivalent of more than 37.5 FargoDomes in 2012 dollars!

Lori Propp-Anderson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Lori Propp-Anderson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

I do not oppose the plan for personal reasons. No, the reason that I oppose this dam/diversion is because it is not the best solution for the Red River Valley. This plan is being pursued for one reason and one reason only. It is greed which is motivating this choice, and nothing else. I would like to know how this ND dam/diversion plan can reconcile against FEMA’s Executive Order 11988.

Alan and Patricia Otto Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Alan and Patricia Otto Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

The initial plan took quite some time to develop but the final plan was pushed through very rapidly without input from the communities that will be adversely impacted. The alignment of the Diversion has been chosen by the local sponsors to accommodate the city of Fargo’s current future plans for development. It is not based on sound engineering principles or with the intent of minimizing the costs of the project as much as possible but rather to remove land that is in the existing flood plain for development.

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.