ExhibitB
[ Click Image for Full Size View ] Original 100yr vs 500yr Flood Outline of Fargo, ND Cited Source: 2008 Reconnaissance Study Views: 337 Tweet
Continue ReadingAuthor: admin
Douglas Christianson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
Minot flooded and Fargo took that ball and ran. Saying look what could happen. Fargo hasn’t had a 100 year flood yet but now they want to be protected to 500 year, do they even know what number a 500 year flood is. Moorhead has been doing a good job of protecting themselves. Fargo is working on it and maybe have most done before this project can even get started. I hope they weren’t just looking at it as a stimulus project to create a lot of jobs to help the economy.
Continue ReadingRachel Roen Morgan Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
Residents and farmers south of Fargo Moorhead should not have to be punished for the mistakes of those who chose to build in a flood plain in the Fargo-Moorhead area. Consider options of widening, straightening, dredging the river, erecting permanent flood walls, or erecting a ring dike around the city. We have a small family cemetery high on the riverbank of our property from my great-grandfather’s days. With the diversion, this would be flooded. And if the Eagle Valley cemetery is affected, the adjacent newly built Eagle Valley Evangelical Free Church along the Red River two miles east of Christine, ND would also be affected by the diversion.
Continue ReadingFred Schumacher Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
A small group of Fargo/Cass County individuals has been operating in a feedback loop with the St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop the Fargo Diversion. “… the ND alignment is a locally preferred alignment… to accommodate the city of Fargo’s current future plans of development…” This statement is a smoking gun that proves the Fargo Diversion, the Locally Preferred Plan, is all about development of the floodplain on the far south side of Fargo, which recently built a new south side high school in it in anticipation of future development. Although public hearings have been held, these have been strictly pro-forma, with no comments recorded. The general public has been blocked out of the decision making process.
Continue ReadingDavid Ness Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
There are a few THOUSAND people who live on farms and small communities south of Fargo Moorhead who are going to lose their homes and livelihoods or have them become unusable/inaccessible. The Fargo dam project as put forth by the Corp of Engineers has a moral problem in both environmental and human terms which will leave behind a legacy of acrimony. The DNR is not in favor of this project. A great, albeit unappreciated, resource will be destroyed.
Continue ReadingDiversion Supporters Ignore Sensible, Cheaper Alternatives
I witnessed the charade that was thrust upon the residents of Oxbow, Bakke Subdivision, Hickson, Christine, Comstock, etc., that what we thought even mattered. Good comments and proposals for alternative considerations were met with casual disregard, and it was readily apparent that nothing else was going to be considered because it would frustrate corps timelines for proposing their bizarre plan to Congress.
Continue ReadingEdmund Bernhardson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
Fargo, ND and the USACE may ignore concerns over National Register of historic buildings that would be destroyed by the construction and operation of the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion. “What are we willing to sacrifice for a project that won’t fully protect Fargo?” – Editorial Team
Continue ReadingUS Department of the Interior Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
Based on information available at this time and the impact analysis outlined in the Final Fishand Wildlife Coordination Act Report (July 2011 ), the FWS recommends that, should the Corps and the local project sponsors proceed with the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Flood Risk Reduction Project, the Federally Comparable Plan (FCP or MN 3SK Alternative) Diversion Channel Alternative be the selected Alternative. Adverse ecological impacts will occur with any of the Diversion Channel Alternatives. For the following reason, however, the FCP Alternative would result in less severe ecological impacts than the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) Diversion Channel Alternative:
Continue ReadingLynn Larsen and Richard “Red” Geurts Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
Fargo leaders have left a paper trail that clearly indicates that the diversion is not flood protection but a long range growth plan. This growth plan takes established communities and wipes them away to ensure that Fargo has no competition for development. If Fargo wanted to protect the residents they would not have allowed recent development in high flood risk areas. The charter of the Army Corps of Engineers does not allow work done to promote growth of one community over another.
Continue ReadingOn the Wild Rice, a Plea for a Culture
Grand Forks Herald reporter, Chuck Haga explores negative impacts caused by Fargo’s bad policy of “flood thy neighbor.” 112th Congress may have to weigh the economic and social impacts caused by Fargo’s intrusion into the natural floodplain in violation of Executive Order 11988. “Fargo feels they’re in control and they can do as they please,” Fargo should use the floodplain just to the city’s south for water storage at times of flooding, “instead of draining it to build houses.” “If we’re going to take their water, we need to have some say. As it is, Richland County is to be a holding pond for Fargo, and we don’t think that’s fair.”
Continue Reading