<< Read and Download Original Mary K. Adams Comment Letter >>
November 5,2011
To Whom It May Concern:
While I support concern for Fargo-Moorhead developing a permanent flood solution, I believe the utmost care must be taken to do so and in a responsible manner.
While admitting a limitation in the ability to decipher what the Corps of Engineers has proposed to date, what seems obvious and concerns me the most, is the permanent dissolution of potentially 6500 acres of choice Red River Valley farmland. In an era of rapidly growing world population, demand for food will remain paramount. Rich farmland is a premium investment and is being sought and bought allover the world. Yet the diversion, as currently proposed, reportedly, will permanently idle 6000+ acres. There must be a less invasive way. I challenge the Corps to find a better result for land stewardship.
In addition to concern for farmland stewardship; there are those who will incur private property losses and impacted livelihoods for which no measure can truly calculate; therefore, the golden rule must apply. Many people believe the diversion, as proposed, is really intended to ensure further economic development of south Fargo – but under the guise of flood protection. Is this true? And surely we can’t be so naive as to be unaware of the many, potential special interests that the diversion project creates. So for me the question remains, is the diversion, as proposed, an undertaking for the economic development of south Fargo, or is it purely for flood protection? The proposal comes with a monstrous cost – not only monetarily, but also to livelihoods, to farmland, and to the extinction of entire communities. While a flood can do the same, it only may happen whereas the diversion, as proposed, seems to ensure it. My hope is that the Corps will ultimately influence a more viable and less destructive alternative.
Respectfully,
Mary KAdams
111 Kellogg Blvd E. Apt. 703
St. Paul, MN 55101
Views: 61