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

The USACE previous responses to Violations of EO11988 are insufficient. This suggests a conflict of interest and lack of representation to affected taxpayers and areas outside the protected area. Darrell Vanyo’s testimony is self-evident that Fargo is pursuing this project for future flood plain development which is a direct violation of EO11988. 43 feet of protection in Fargo is a game changer and all previous cost benefit ratios are no longer valid.

Continue Reading

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

<< Read and Download Original Wayne & Lori Rheault Comment Letter >> To the army corps of engineers; We would like to address this Fargo diversion/dam, we live just south of Fargo in Hickson an area that has never been flooded. Our concerns are that you are going to sacrifice our area to save a […]

Continue Reading

Why is the North Dakota diversion channel the selected plan, when the Minnesota diversion channel would have been cheaper?

<<< Return to FAQs >>> Fargo and Cass County ND officials, influenced the Diversion Board of Authority to adopt a ND based diversion despite the more cost effective alternatives presented by the USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). Fargo and Cass County ND officials, collaborated with key influential players and developers to foster the […]

Continue Reading

Wallace Tintes Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

I am not in favor of this project as it has been written about to date; my reasons are listed below. The damage to cities, farms, roads etc due to such a large wide project. The cost of this project when the federal government is worse than broke. I have no idea on how you expect to find the funds to pay for such a large project.

Continue Reading

How does the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion violate Executive Order 11988?

<<< Return to FAQs >>> EO-11988: Federal agencies are required to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. The USACE and the non-federal sponsor of Fargo […]

Continue Reading

Is the real, hidden purpose for the staging area to serve as a water supply for Fargo?

The factual project purpose, as illustrated by the Corps of Engineers in its reports, is to develop a project that will accommodate the city of Fargo’s current future plans of development. Which is illustrated in Value Engineering Study 1 and Value Engineering Study 2 and both directly and in-directly violates Executive Order 11988.

Continue Reading

Sandy Meyer Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

<< Read and Download Original Sandy Meyer Comment Letter >> Nov. 6, 2011 Dear U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, I’m writing in regards to your proposal for a diversion in the Fargo – Moorhead area. As a taxpayer and teacher of Minnesota, I highly OPPOSE of this plan. This plan is not in the best […]

Continue Reading

Charles Christianson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Remember Fargo keeps building in low area and they expect the people on higher ground to sacrifice homes and business so some body can make money on development and there growth. Why does Fargo want to keep building in a low area behind a big body of water this would be.

Continue Reading