<< Read and Download Original Colleen Israelson Comment Letter >>
US Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Brett Coleman
180 5th St. East, Suite 700 (PM-B)
St. Paul, MN 55101
Mr. Coleman:
The Corps has been hired by Fargo to protect Fargo, a hired gun. Get whoever you need to get out of the way and do what we have hired you to do.
The boundary for the diversion is based on school district lines, which had to be intentional; there is no coincidence that convenient.
Fargo built a new school, Davies, in the biggest flood prone area within Fargo city limits. Intentionally building in a flood plain, proving when the next flood comes they will be able to say we must protect our school you must support flood protection. Knowing it was a flood prone area, they built there anyway, is it a sacrificial lamb. Fargo feels upstream should flood knowing we are high and dry without the use of sandbags, ever, our elevation levels prove it. Fargo needs to be responsible and it hasn’t been. Deliberately voting to allow building closer to flood prone areas. If they really cared about Fargo they certainly wouldn’t do that.
All that remains to protect the people that stand to lose everything they love, are comments. Fargo is around 200,000 acres — the Corps/Fargo plan to flood more acreage then they are protecting. What sense does that make.
Fargo hasn’t flooded, yet they claim it will take more acreage then exists in the city limits to protect it.
This may be nothing more then Fargo’s plan for growth — get this thing started wait for the land to devaluate and take all of it for Fargo’s future growth. They can’t pay for the diversion, even with current projections they are 700 million short and history shows costs have always risen. This diversion may only be a plan “to protect Fargo’s growth” in anyway that can be achieved.
The plan for the diversion should be stopped, wasting government money, our money, in the current funding crisis situation for a diversion is unnecessary. Fargo is capable of protecting itself from flooding and the dollars needed to make this work aren’t there.
I am against the diversion because it appears it would be built for reasons other then protecting Fargo from flooding and I am against the current dam/diversion plan because Fargo is able to fight its own high water issues at a much lesser expense. I am also against it because there are other viable options to prevent flooding for everyone, not just Fargo.
Colleen Israelson
Views: 57