Why was a diversion channel, rather than levees or water retention, recommended?

The question as presented, is speculative, leading and incorrect. The original flood reduction proposal located on the Minnesota side of the Red River included a diversion channel as a main feature to convey water from south to north of the metro area. The proposal released in the SDEIS and FEIS utilizes high risk dams, levees […]

Continue Reading

Dean and Paula Swenson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

I believe that the project, as put forth, is an unsustainable project. I don’t believe that the ACE is capable of either designing, building or maintaining a man built water system that will go over or under 5 different water sheds in a 36 mile man made route around a metro area.

Continue Reading

Marcus Larson “Loss of Life” Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

The staging area presents a greater threat to the city of Fargo, ND due to excessive water levels held above the elevation of the entire city on historically unstable ground. It is generally accepted that populations that have permanent protection in place are less likely to evacuate because the flood protection offers an unwarranted sense of security that does not reflect a true flood risk specific to the given area.

Continue Reading

Hugh J. Trowbrige Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

<< Read and Download Original Hugh J. Trowbrige Comment Letter >> November 6, 2011 To: The Corp of Enginers Last week the city of fargo voted 3-2 to keep future building 450 feet from the center of the Red River. To get the third vote they have an exception clause. that is feet not yards! […]

Continue Reading

Marcus Larson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

<< Read and Download Original Marcus Larson Comment Letter >> General Grisoli Civil Works Review Board Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers 441 G. Street, NW Washington, DC 20314-1000 Dear General Grisoli: I respectfully request that you DO NOT release the final report of the LPP. The current LPP and SDEIS contains deficiencies that local […]

Continue Reading

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties June 21st, 2012

After successful prodding by the Fargo Mayor, voters approved an extension of a half-cent sales tax in Fargo. That means Fargo residents will only have to pay 60 percent of additional financing for the dam and ditch. But that will not be enough money. The diversion finance committee is now saying – after the election – they need the Water Resource District to levy special assessments. Good timing.

Continue Reading

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties June 14th, 2012

The Minnesota DNR calls the proposed dam a “high hazard dam,” where failure is likely to cause loss of life. So, now the plan is to dig clay out of a diversion channel, and build a 15-foot-high dam from Comstock to Horace, and expect to provide protection for the metro area. But the problem is the clay under our black topsoil is expansive clay, which means it’s capable of absorbing large amounts of water. The more water it absorbs, the weaker it becomes. When it dries, it contracts and shrinks in size.

Continue Reading

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties May 31st, 2012

The Fargo Moorhead Diversion Authority and its agent, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, continue to obscure the truth about the plan to dam our rivers and flood our farms and communities. They did this by discounting all the dry years prior to 1942 to inflate their average, then hired a few “experts” that agreed with them.

Continue Reading