Richland Wilkin JPA Comments to DSEIS
It is absurd to suggest that this is a project that is designed to preserve protection, when in fact, it is designed to flood lands currently flood free, and build in the floodplain.
Continue Reading
Tag: LPP
Case Civil No. 13-2262 (D341) | US District Court, District of Minnesota (Motion to Reinstate USACE as an Active Defendant)
Richland Wilkin Joint Powers Authority file Motion to Reinstate USACE as an Active Defendant involving Fargo Dam and FM Diversion project case.
Continue ReadingCase Civil No. 13-2262 (D341) | US District Court, District of Minnesota (Motion for Permanent Injunction)
Richland Wilkin Joint Powers Authority file Motion for Permanent Injunctive Relief against Fargo Dam and FM Diversion project.
Continue ReadingCase Civil No. 13-2262 (D323) | US District Court, District of Minnesota
The FEIS clearly advances two other alternatives for serious consideration in the permitting phase. One of those alternatives would reduce the area of flood plain developed and protected, thereby reducing the volume of water diverted by the proposed project.
Continue ReadingIs the proposed diversion LPP considered a “high hazard” dam?
<<< Return to FAQs >>> Yes, according to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and Minnesota DNR guidelines, the Fargo Moorhead Dam and FM Diversion is considered a high risk or high hazard potential dam which includes: • probable loss of life or serious hazard, or • damage to health, • damage to main highways, • […]
Continue ReadingHow does the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion violate Executive Order 11988?
<<< Return to FAQs >>> EO-11988: Federal agencies are required to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. The USACE and the non-federal sponsor of Fargo […]
Continue ReadingUnequal Protection
Fargo has found a way, with the help of the Corps. By protecting the “natural flood plain” and moving the water south to flood their neighbors, they will have created an area for growth. Their problem is now to make everyone believe their ”flood control plan” is the only way Fargo can have “flood protection” and hide the fact it is crafted to provide for Fargo’s future growth, in reality an economic development based plan.
Continue ReadingRay Holzhey Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
I am writing to you in opposition to the July 2011 FEIS for the Locally Preferred Plan. This plan presents many concerns regarding negative effects on the residents, farmers, and economy of the region. Because my comments for the SDEIS were not adequately addressed I expanding on them for this comment period. This plan has been developed exclusively for the benefit of a small portion of the region and does not include benefits for, nor does it consider the economic impacts to not only the local region but to the whole Red River valley.
Continue ReadingWayne Hoglund Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
In a period of time when the government is very deeply in debt, to spend money for a very complicated and expensive diversion is almost ridiculous; especially when the Army Corps of Engineers declared their first choice as the Minnesota diversion. To choose this expensive, complex Fargo diversion; it seems very logical that it is not the best solution, but a land grab by Fargo…
Continue ReadingBruce A Hendrickson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion
I am writing in opposition to the April 2011 Locally Preferred Plan (North Dakota Diversion with storage and staging) for flood control in the Red River Valley. I know alternatives do exist that address flooding basin wide. These have not been studied or addressed by the Corp nor have areas affected by the issue been included in the planning stages.
Continue Reading