The point was made at the Richland and Wilkin County meeting with Diversion Authority was, Richland and Wilkin county residents, and some Cass and Clay county have not caused this problem to be put on themselves. Fargo has caused this problem to be put on Richland and Wilkin County Citizens.
The Fargo interest have built in the flood plain and expect us to pay for their bad judgment. This fact was not disputed by the Diversion Authority and Mr. Darrel Vayno. We are expected to sell out to Fargo interests so they can protect homes they built in the flood plain. What is most irritating they feel this is the right thing to do!
It is possible to have Fargo protected from flooding and not have Richland Wilkin Cass and Clay pay for it with their homes. Aaron Snyder refuses to consider a compromise proposal previously submitted by the Corps to protect Fargo from flooding and not flood out the upstream communities. The county commissioners from Richland and Wilkin counties said they will stand up for their citizens and the the Corps will have to condemn our land for the use of Fargo’s interests.
“A majority of the impacted acreage is already in the (flood plain), corps project manager said.” The Fargo developments are in the flood plain already, and are flooding. Fargo has built homes on it and now want others to pay for their mistakes.
The term “extra water” is in question as it is a Corps calculation, see comments to the FEIS and Appendix A-1b Hydrology. The “floodwater without the diversion project” a pure conjecture as many of the impacted area have never seen water and it hard to see how any water can be considered extra. It is getting harder and harder to see that this flood risk reduction project is just more than “Bought and Paid” for by Fargo to allow Fargo to grow by flooding out some one else.
Views: 25
What compromise proposal was submitted by the Corps, without flooding upstream communities?
Thanks.
June
The Mndak Upstream Coalition group has meet twice with Diversion Authority (DA) /Project Manager, etc. At these sessions the proposals for reductions to impacts to MnDak were presented.
The first proposal to the DA concerned the use of the flood plain, immediately south of Fargo to store flood water. We asked for the calculation to show the admitted reduction of down stream impacts. Appendix O, 8.4.2.16.
At the joint Richland Wilkin County & Corps etc. Aaron Snyder said they would not revisit Proposal #3 Northern Inlet. This request has been rejected.
When asked if he would follow the recommendation of Col. Price letter to the Dec. 13 Fargo Forum to look into the proposals he did not give a definite answer. He needed to review the letter?
The second proposal to reduce upstream impacts was to use Basin Wide Reduction to reduce the peak flow through Fargo to level acceptable levels in the FCP.
The DA have not responded to the proposals, We must take the lack of response as a rejection.
Both these proposals have been based on the MnDak Upstream Coalition basic stand “we will not accept more water than we have now.”
If the DA etc. were concerned with reaching a solutions they would be willing to discuss a solution.
Aaron Synder said this is a “take it or leave it”. The process has gone to far to go back.
We feel this is not a attitude to reach a solution.
MnDak will continue to explore a resolution and fmdam.org will be doing more on this issue.