Defending Richland and Wilkin counties May 3rd, 2012

Richland-Wilkin Joint Powers Authority Original Publication Date: May 3rd, 2012 Republished with persmission from: Wahpeton Daily News View pdf Version A little more than a year ago, Fargo announced its intention to construct dams on the Wild Rice and Red rivers as part of a flood control project for Fargo-Moorhead. Since that time, the residents […]

Continue Reading

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

As residents of Cass and Richland County, North Dakota, we are expected to pay the cost of a plan that benefits only the future growth of Fargo, North Dakota. Even if there was a risk of a huge flood there are several alternatives to protect Moorhead and Fargo that have not been explored or have been disregarded by the decision makers, primarily North Dakota leaders.

Continue Reading

Michael Hammond Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Fargo has continually forced decisions to be made based on its own interests and has even managed to obtain a supermajority (six of nine seats) on the panel that will be making decisions regarding the project. Nothing to date has provided any reason to believe that Fargo will not continue to act selfishly at the expense of others in the region.

Continue Reading

Diversion Displaces Hundreds to Secure Fargo Moorhead’s Growth

Diversion Displaces Hundreds to Secure Fargo Moorhead’s Growth by author: Trana Rogne, KINDRED, N.D. Originally Published Grand Forks Herald Resubmitted to FMDam.org The U.S. House is to consider the funding of President Barack Obama’s 2013 budget request. The request includes $5 million for the Fargo-Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Reduction project. I would hope Rep. Rick […]

Continue Reading

Phillip M. Henry Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

How is it possible, or even legal for the Corps to issue a pronouncement that upends the lives of family after family without any true concern for the damage, upheaval, and uncertainty it has caused? What is the point of creating a diversion that will have an annual maintenance cost that equals or exceeds the cost of protecting Fargo from flooding in some years, but not all?

Continue Reading

FM Dam and Diversion Hardship Policy Needs and Suggestions

Hardship Policy Mitigation Buyout Submission Form: FMDam.org is providing this form to communicate specific Hardship Concerns and Suggestions to CH2M Hill, the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Metro Diversion Project manager – Tom Waters. You are encouraged to share how the proposed project negatively affects you, your property, your financial situation and overall well being.

Continue Reading

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

Sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the perceived needs of the many. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is not onboard with the proposed project because it negatively impacts the environment of the state of Minnesota. The city of Fargo has made the choice to build in a flood plain. Why should their decision to do so negatively impact the surrounding farms and communities?

Continue Reading

Submit a Tip About Government Waste

In three short years, the Fargo Moorhead Dam and FM Diversion nearly doubled in cost from $900 million to $2.04 billion. The USACE intentionally compartmentalizes projects to keep concerned taxpayers out of sync with the process to remain unfettered and unaccountable. Fargo, ND and Moorhead, MN along with Cass and Clay counties are placing impracticality […]

Continue Reading