Fargo Moorhead Dam | FMDam.org

David Ness Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

February 21, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

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.

Edmund Bernhardson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

February 16, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

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

US Department of the Interior Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

February 16, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

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:

Lynn Larsen and Richard “Red” Geurts Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

February 15, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

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.

Colleen Israelson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

February 15, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

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. 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.

Mark and Barb Askegaard Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

February 12, 2012January 20, 2013adminLeave a Comment

Your latest EIS does not adequately address the issue of BASIN-WIDE flood risk management as a tool which needs to be incorporated into the plan. The locally preferred plan is all about protecting a “future” Fargo and the land which Fargo wants to develop-it is not about providing flood protection for current Fargo-Moorhead which the much more economical Federally Preferred Plan accomplishes. Adequate analysis of impacted areas upstream from the water staging have also not been addressed sufficiently and their appropriate costs have not been stated.

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.

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.