non-support | FMDam.org

Ray Holzhey Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 24, 2012May 30, 2013adminLeave a Comment

I am writing to you in opposition to the July 2011 FEIS for the Locally Preferred Plan. This plan presents many concerns regarding negative effects on the residents, farmers, and economy of the region. Because my comments for the SDEIS were not adequately addressed I expanding on them for this comment period. This plan has been developed exclusively for the benefit of a small portion of the region and does not include benefits for, nor does it consider the economic impacts to not only the local region but to the whole Red River valley.

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

January 23, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

In a period of time when the government is very deeply in debt, to spend money for a very complicated and expensive diversion is almost ridiculous; especially when the Army Corps of Engineers declared their first choice as the Minnesota diversion. To choose this expensive, complex Fargo diversion; it seems very logical that it is not the best solution, but a land grab by Fargo…

Bruce A Hendrickson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 21, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

I am writing in opposition to the April 2011 Locally Preferred Plan (North Dakota Diversion with storage and staging) for flood control in the Red River Valley. I know alternatives do exist that address flooding basin wide. These have not been studied or addressed by the Corp nor have areas affected by the issue been included in the planning stages.

Kindred School District Attorney Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 18, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

The District-along with local Townships (who independently maintain zoning control) and other cities in Cass and Richland Counties-were locked out of having any formal place at the table while USACE and local sponsors formulated and planned the flood protection plan.

Aaron Carlson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 17, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

I am writing to inform you that some information in Appendix G – Real Estate of the Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement dated July 2011 (Final Report) is incomplete and therefore inaccurate.

MN Center for Environmental Advocacy Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 16, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

We have followed the process and reviewed draft document prior to publication of the FEIS. We are also aware that MN DNR has a number of remaining and additional legitimate concerns with the FEIS including the benefit cost analysis, effects of the diversion and water staging on sediment transport and geomorphology upstream and downstream of the project area, and fish passage. We believe that these areas of concern warrant further clarification before this FEIS can be considered complete.

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

January 13, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

The corps of engineers and the local sponsors say there is no alternative but they the local sponsors meaning Fargo have chosen a level of flood protection far beyond that of any city in Minnesota and North Dakota and so they end up supporting a very expensive project that is unrealistic and serves only to support development of land in North Dakota that never should be built on.

Glen and Marilyn Libbrecht Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 12, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

As a local landowner and farmer, this project will have a very negative effect on me and fellow farmers and rural residents. When local city and state officials went to Washington to present their case for this diversion, were there any negative impacts mentioned? The impact of this project to the rural area has not been entirely considered.

National Wildlife Federation Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 12, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

The Corps has not taken sufficient measures to mitigate the harmful environmental impacts and increased threat of flooding to upstream and downstream communities. The current plan threatens the upstream communities, including Hickson, Oxbow, and Comstock, by placing them under feet of water in flood years.

Minnesota DNR Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 12, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

The locally preferred plan includes a water control structure that is classified as a high hazard dam, which requires preparation of Minnesota State EIS. As part of State EIS scoping, additional assessment and review will be necessary to demonstrate that the above mentioned criteria are fulfilled.