Will the Fargo Moorhead Dam and FM Diversion provide protection from summer flooding and heavy rainfall events?

One of the big misconceptions about flood insurance, said Dave Kyner, a flood insurance specialist with FEMA, is that “people don’t need flood insurance.” “A 60-foot dike can’t protect you if it rains 17 inches on the wrong side of the dike”.

Continue Reading

Senate Bill 2039 exempts ND from floodplains building restrictions

Letter from: George Sorvalis Water Protection Network, Coordinator Dear WPN Listserve, Having already passed the Senate, we are very concerned about S. 2039 «Read More», which is scheduled for a House vote today (under suspension of the rules – which means limited debate and ¾ vote to pass). It is a stand-alone bill that would […]

Continue Reading

FM Dam and Diversion Hardship Policy Needs and Suggestions

Hardship Policy Mitigation Buyout Submission Form: FMDam.org is providing this form to communicate specific Hardship Concerns and Suggestions to CH2M Hill, the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Metro Diversion Project manager – Tom Waters. You are encouraged to share how the proposed project negatively affects you, your property, your financial situation and overall well being.

Continue Reading

If the North Dakota (LPP) removes additional land from the natural flood plain compared to the Minnesota (FCP) why is the USACE relying on Executive Order 11988 as an excuse to not consider the southern and western alignments?

<<< Return to FAQs >>> The USACE inconsistently applied EO 11988 as a result of “goal driven” findings pursuant to criteria set by the non-federal sponsor of Fargo, ND and Moorhead, MN. The current LPP ignores EO-11988 and relocates over 30+ square miles of natural flood plain for future development that benefits Fargo, ND while […]

Continue Reading

How can the project go all the way to Hickson, protecting undeveloped land, and be within the guidelines of EO11988?

The currently proposed LPP contained in the July 2011 (Sept 2011 release) directly and indirectly violates EO 11988. Over 200,000 acre feet of natural floodplain water south of the metro area will be displaced by Fargo, Cass County and the United States Army Corps of Engineers into areas that do not have a previous history of flooding.

Continue Reading

Why are upstream impacts rather than downstream impacts being proposed?

<<< Return to FAQs >>> Short answer, to benefit Fargo’s future plans for economic development. Excerpt from USACE FEIS Appendix C 3.9 Project Performance, Risk and Uncertainty Given the uncertainty associated with the various hydraulic, hydrologic, and economic relationships used in the flood damage analysis, there is likewise some uncertainty regarding a project’s ability to […]

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

ND State Senator Larry Luick Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

This correspondence is in regard to the proposed diversion and dam in the Fargo, ND area. From the plans that I have seen, this is way oversized, overpriced, and only assists the Fargo/West Fargo/Moorhead communities. But to decide that this community has more “rights” than the communities that will be effected by this proposed structure is wrong, very wrong. Don’t let this go through until there is a plan to help upstream and downstream areas and communities.

Continue Reading