Opposed | Opposition | FMDam.org

Richland County Water Resource District Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

February 11, 2012May 30, 2013admin1 Comment

The protection for Fargo and Moorhead should not be at the detriment of Richland County residents. The Richland County Water Resource Board feels it is imperative that the US Army Corps of Engineers provide due diligence in addressing these issues. The Board requests those upstream and downstream of the Fargo-Moorhead project be given due consideration because of the impacts they will experience as a result of this project.

We Choose Not To Pay Fargo’s ‘DAM’ Tax

February 9, 2012January 20, 2013Editorial TeamLeave a Comment

Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion hurts more than just upstream property owners. Business owners can thank Dennis Walaker, Tim Mahoney and Darrell Vanyo for influencing customers to purchase big ticket items elsewhere. A windfall for business owners outside the metro area and for online storefronts.

Lori Propp-Anderson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

February 4, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

I do not oppose the plan for personal reasons. No, the reason that I oppose this dam/diversion is because it is not the best solution for the Red River Valley. This plan is being pursued for one reason and one reason only. It is greed which is motivating this choice, and nothing else. I would like to know how this ND dam/diversion plan can reconcile against FEMA’s Executive Order 11988.

Alan and Patricia Otto Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

February 4, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

The initial plan took quite some time to develop but the final plan was pushed through very rapidly without input from the communities that will be adversely impacted. The alignment of the Diversion has been chosen by the local sponsors to accommodate the city of Fargo’s current future plans for development. It is not based on sound engineering principles or with the intent of minimizing the costs of the project as much as possible but rather to remove land that is in the existing flood plain for development.

Leah Rogne Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

February 3, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

Scientists have raised concerns about these soils, and it makes no sense to move toward authorization when we have no idea of what kinds of supports will be required or how deep they need to go to carry the structures safely. This project has been rushed through the planning process and is not ready to go to Congress for authorization. Alternatives have not been properly considered, and the public and agencies have not been given sufficient time to evaluate the Final EIS.

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

February 2, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

…it seems strange that homes and farms that in some cases were established 140+ years ago are not worth saving for historical and cultural purposes if not for the sake of the families that live there. Since our settlements were developed by immigrant populations rather than native populations, does that make their value less significant? Do not our laws protect our heritage, as well? I have hoped that the planners of this Flood Control Project would come to realize that this sacrifice asked of the Comstock-Hickson Communities, the surrounding townships of Holy Cross and Pleasant and the farms and homes on the 54,000 areas to be flooded is more than should be asked of anyone.

Crack in the FM Diversion: Will it Break Under Pressure

January 31, 2012January 20, 2013Marcus LarsonLeave a Comment

Take any single aspect of the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion, scrutinize the data and the findings don’t pan out. When one considers the lack of a real 500 year flood threat versus the impacts and benefit to cost ratios the entire document that the proposed Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion is being based upon, […]

Trana Rogne Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 29, 2012January 20, 2013Admin2Leave a Comment

Bought and Paid For: The Corps planning documents show no analysis of why the Northern Inlet is not a practicable alternative. The basic premise that the local non-federal sponsor determines the specific alignments to be considered and the level of flood protection to be provided is deeply flawed. Planning based on this premise leads to an unwise use of billions in tax dollars. We have no evidence that the process of planning this project has been fair or reasonable. The FEIS does not address adequately the concerns raised by our lawyers in their comments on the SDEIS.

Doug Lingen Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 29, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

Dr. Mahoney talks about how Fargo has given up 400 or so houses that were built by the river at 36 or 37 feet. How high is the level around Davies high school? They are still issuing building permits at these same levels banking on the diversion aren’t they? If the Corp has not determined this cost or possible impacts how can you proceed with a project not knowing the possible outcomes and still say this is the best plan when not all is know.

Arden Breimeier Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

January 28, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

“If their lips are moving, they’re lying! When the diversion project was first advanced, Oxbow asked to be included within its protection. We were refused but also assured that the project would not affect us, that it wouldn’t change our situation, either for better or for worse. We could live with that and proceeded to build flood protection for ourselves.