by INFORUM
Cities weigh growth against diversion protection
November 20, 2010 at 6:14 pm in INFORUM
The reality of what a North Dakota-side diversion will mean for future growth has settled in for some local leaders, but an eastern alignment favored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers muddied the water for other communities last week. Continue Reading
It’s for reasons like this (and others) that a plan should be put in place and then a vote should be taken. There’s probably a few people who would like to change their vote now.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
2
Corp of Engineers recommendations carry much weight when seeking federal dollars for flood protection, as cost vs. benefit decisions come into play. Many folks opposed the cadillac plan, as it moves too much water too rapidly around Fargo, and many of these also believed that water retention areas should be a part of the solution.
Now that it looks like Cass County and Fargo officials won’t get their way, it is time to look at turning retention areas into assets for recreation areas and parks.
Like or Dislike:
18 
4
If retention areas are turned into recreation areas and parks the people will not allow them to be drained again without having a big fit about it. Nothing gained.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
Mayor Walaker says that he had figured that the diversion would take this path for a while. Did he know this while he was campaigning to get people to vote yes for the county sales tax? At that time the talk was “the funding is important, don’t worry about the details”. But yet a fact like this was not important enough to share?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
2
I don’t get it – back in the spring of 1997, I recall hearing that prior to the flood crest there was some 60 square miles of water 3 feet deep south of Fargo, Isn’t there some way to install flood gates to regulate how quickly these fields drain off? The fields will flood no matter what we do – why not figure out some sort of sliding fee payment schedule to compensate farmers for late starts getting into the fields? Compensation would increase the longer it took for your fields to be drained with payments to be made upon harvest tallies…or whatever formulas we might come up with…retention should hopefully play a key role in the overall calculations.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
good point, but it didn’t long for fargo to forget about those 3 feet of water for 60 square miles; look at all the foolish building that has been done to the south of town since 1997. absolutely idiotic.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
Long term future growth HAS to be part of the equation or we will be revisiting this topic in another 20 years if not sooner. To implement a plan that without this in place is completely idiotic. But why should i expect anything less from a governmental organization who believes that there is no bottom to the supply of money!
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
I have one more idea. run the diversion all the way to the Canadian boarder and back into the red on the US side of the boarder.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
So now the plan to help Fargo basically screws West Fargo and Horace? Boy – I didn’t see that coming! (Unless you consider the land grabs of the past 10 years that have screwed West Fargo and Horace, that is.)
Like or Dislike:
13 
4
And Vanyo, Mattern and King Denny have lots of splaning to the citizens who were blindly led like sheep to believe that these people knew best. For all of you in Oxbow who blindlly followed these three amigos and voted “Yes” on a tax with no viable plan, I have no sympathy for you – you were lied to but didn’t care because that lie protected you (or so you thought).
So more lies, pay and trust us. I don’t believe for one minute these three didn’t know of this before the vote but kept it secret as they knew people would vote down the tax, so now you are stuck with. Oxbow, you got what you deserve on your “YES” vote.
Like or Dislike:
14 
6
If Fargo grows where will it grow? Basically into areas that constantly flood. Fargo needs to quit worrying about growth until it can protect the area it already has.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
This isn’t meant as a slam or anything.. But isn’t that what the planning and the diversion is supposed to be doing? Protecting what we have and our future needs? I’ve always thought that is what all the planning meetings etc were about.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
City of Fargo does need to give up more land. Let the river flow where it is and raise the banks around it….where it is. more impoundments need to be used too. Its ridiculous to build that big of a diversion and waste that many acres of land/money. Theres is a better way.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1