FM Diversion | FMDam.org

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.

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.

PLEASANT TOWNSHIP PETITION OPPORTUNITY

February 8, 2012May 30, 2013adminLeave a Comment

Submitted by: Daniel Rugroden Reasons for this petition include the following points but do not exclude other relevant valid points. Many people in Pleasant Township have verbally expressed other reasons for de-annexation from Cass County. • WHEREAS, the new district voting lines now have Pleasant Township part of and tied to Richland County townships in […]

The Black Cloud, Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

February 8, 2012March 1, 2012Marcus LarsonLeave a Comment

Labeling and profiling is the easy way for media to sway public sentiment. Despite the financial falterings the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion “is” and “will continue to” experience, the uneducated belief that a Dam and Diversion is the “only solution” for Fargo Moorhead underscores how little proponents have read the FEIS and really how […]

Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion Tax Vote

February 6, 2012January 18, 2016Marcus LarsonLeave a Comment

Currently, taxpayers are on track to spend at minimum $36,825 per residential and business structure in the metro area for the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion. If this project passes taxpayers will be saddled with the burden of funding the equivalent of more than 37.5 FargoDomes in 2012 dollars!

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.