by INFORUM
East gets the edge: Corps chooses diversion path closer to metro
January 13, 2011 at 6:00 pm in INFORUM
But future study could lead to western options
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will move forward with an eastern alignment of the proposed Fargo-Moorhead diversion, but a path 1½ miles to the west is not off the table. Continue Reading
I am beginning to think that this whole diversion is going to cost way more than the benefit. I think maybe a permanant levee the entire length of the city might be the best option. I think we could buyout all properties that are currently along the river and build a levee. For some reason wealthy folks like being along the prestine red river but they are going to have to give up their prestine view for the greater good. If they don’t want to they will have to be living on the wet side of the levee.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
3
It’s the government. They do what they want. Anyway I think the whole business is a moot point. If this wet cycle doesn’t let up we’re all going to be living in Lake Agassiz before any projects can be completed. I’m sure Devil’s Lake will be wound up in planning and red tape for years, and if we get the Sheyenne backing up the river system we’re screwed.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
I think that at this point all sides (Oxbow,Fargo and West Fargo) need to declare that they will all work together to raise their respective levees in their jurisdiction.
This would mean that the plan would be amended to include BOTH the Diversion alignment, and to also buyout all properties south of 52nd and east of US 81(University). We need to make sure we are solving this issue 110%, and if Fargo shows it has skin in the game by committing to creating a large levee with a huge setback for flood years. We need to stop allowing Fargo to grow or expand anymore south of that location. Fargo needs to be much more vocal in how agressive they will sacrifice homes/property in their city, in order to save their businesses that everyone here says is the “life blood” of the region.
Prove it Fargo. Prove you are serious about permanent flood protection for the majority, by razing all structures south and east of the above location. Declare a broad vision for a huge city park in that location, that doubles as flood overflow floodplain during spring floods. Show us fellow county citizens you realize you need to be a leader by boldly declaring a vision that puts some serious skin in the game.
Right now, it appears that Fargo is doing nothing but telling others what is best for them. If they wanted an alignment further west they could put their considerable weight behind the idea, and tell the Corps that there are important and legitimate reasons to have an alignment further west.
And I don’t see Fargo being the “leader” they were declared to be in all of this.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
If this is all about flood protection and has nothing to do with future growth, than perhaps Fargo will be willing to donate some of the undeveloped property along it’s western and southern borders/extraterritorial area to Horace, West Fargo and other communities directly affected by the Diversion’s path as a compromise for those cities have to sacrifice?
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Question I wish I knew the answer to….. Are the four areas identify at risk of flooding today (with no diversion) or will the eastern diversion route backup water to the west and put these four areas at risk of flooding. Anyone know if they have had to deal with flooding in the Willow Creek or Hayden Heights subdivisions?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Those areas flood now as a result to the existing WF diversion. The water stands and sits on that land until June now until it can drain into the diversion. The expanded on will just push that water futher west and prolong the flooding. This is one topic I haven’t heard once from the core or this “work group”
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Has a study been done to verify where the water is coming from and why? You know like wholesale draining of farm fields and dealing with that. Maybe stopping or slowing it at its source? Holding ponds, big versions of what Fargo has all over town.
Naaa, of course not, that would be dealing with the root cause. That would not be just diddling with the symptoms. It is against American principals to deal with the root cause. I think it is in the Constitution somewhere that we can’t deal with the root cause of anything of importance. Something about saving tax payer money and not making the rich richer, if we do that.
So they are going to build a diversion to get the water around Fargo faster so those down stream, like Grand Forks will have to contend with even more water in a shorter time frame.
We almost lost Grand Forks once, less try again. Then they can sink more money into Grand Forks diversion and points North.
With any luck, we can overwhelm Winnipeg’s Diversion project and flood Winnipeg and whip up another international incident. That should make somebody some money.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
Draining of farm fields now does nothing more unless the culverts under the roads get bigger. Plus when those fields are under 1′ of water in the spring anyway and then just flow over the road on the north side, does the ditching, that mostly helps in the summer, really make it worse?
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Calling field drainage a root cause is speculation. That drainage may (or may not) have actually helped to some extent by removing water during the wet fall before it froze.
The main root cause is moisture and temperature patterns, and a quick look at history shows that.
That’s not to say field drainage has no impact at all, but mostly I think it makes for a convenient scapegoat. If anybody has any evidence to show it is a major contributing factor to our flooding, I’d like to see it. And if these same people could detail the economic impacts to the farming industry by not allowing the drainage, I’d also like to see that. Because like it or not, farming is a pretty critical part of our economy in this region.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
The water is coming from the sky.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Does it really make any difference? West Fargo and Cass County are currently allowing development on the wrong (spillover) side of the Sheyenne diversion. What assurances have they given that they will no longer allow such stupidity with a west route?
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
All I see now is Fargo throwing everyone else under the bus and saying we need to get this done. “Right now, however, it’s paramount to keep the project on track”, said Tim Mahoney, Fargo city commissioner. Fargo doesn’t care who loses as long as they win. Just goes back to me saying before, quit voting for taxes, diversions, etc. until you know what the hell is going on. Mattern got pushed into supporting this thing by Fargo and now he is going to screw West Fargo. Is he really the mayor of W Fargo or a liason to Fargo. He should be doing what his residents want and it wan’t a diversion. If they are going to screw up West Fargo growth, what makes this diversion better than the Minnesota side diversion? Besides that it will cost more on the N. Dakota side.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Has anyone on the Diversion Commission taken Devils Lake water into account for this Easter alignment? In other words, have they added in the total amounts of water from the Sheyenne normally, and then also added the additional flows from a Devils Lake outlet, AND considered the additional flows of an uncontrollable natural overflow that is certain to be coming in the next 5 years? Devils Lake is now within 3 feet of flooding over into the Sheyenne naturally, and if it breaches, the natural power of water will cut a trench over the breach, and start gushing 1000′s of CFS into the Sheyenne for at least a year.
Why aren’t they considering this HUGE risk to all involved more seriously! Why can’t they consider adding $$$ from mitigating Devils Lake (you know the other seperate Corps project), into this Diversion project, and select the Western route, and make the channel wider and deeper to address catastrophic potential for more water than this Diversion is currently slated to address.
I’m concerned that the powers that be are missing a HUGE part of the equation by neglecting to also factor in Devils Lake water in all of this. There is more water in that basin than all the flooding we’ve had in the past 5 years combined. It has the potential to wipe Kindred off the map literally.
Wake up Corps!
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Probably because it isn’t economically feasible to protect ourselves (and every other downstream city) from that, so there is no sense in worrying about it. We’ll just have to rely on them solving the problem at the source.
And to clarify, it is not 3 feet from spilling over. It has a 50/50 chance of raising 3′ and getting within 3.4′ this year. It is currently 6.4′ away.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I’ve been waiting for the Forum to do a story about the Federal funding obstacles to this diversion. When a retired Corp of Engineers offical talked about them at NDSU on Wednesday I thought, good, now the story will be told. Not a word in the Forum. The guy put it right out there, but would not quite say there is no chance. He went through the reality instead. It would require something like 5% of the money available for the entire United States for several years. We have the fewest Electoral College votes in the US. That is at current funding levels which may fall, rather than rise. And, it is the kind of project this Administration is trying to steer funding away from, not toward. It seems to me like we are playing sweet music on a violin while Rome burns.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
We’re from the federal government….WE know what you need…we’re here to help you….you can trust us….
Seems to be the message the Corps is giving. Options may still be on the table, but they’ll be on the bottom of a big stack of papers probably never to be reviewed or revisted.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
John its simple why they didn’t do it.. It doesn’t fit in with their new theme of being the Fargo Enquirer.. It wasn’t sensational enough.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
I believe a lot of time is being wasted talking about a project that will likely never get off the ground. Facts are still facts and the fact is, those in charge at Fargo have successfully prevented Fargo from becoming a Grand Forks by building permanent and temporary levees which have, for the most part, protected the city from flooding, year after year. We never hear any talk about plans which Fargo may have that will address their own flooding issues without destroying other peoples property either upstream or downstream. So are we to believe that Fargo absolutely cannot solve their own flooding issues without sacrificing their neighbors??
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
The Corps is going to “continue to study the western alignment”. Maybe “Continue to give West Fargo hope so they don’t come out opposed to the Fargo Diversion” is more accurate.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
There was a news blip on the radio the other day, where a former director of the Corps of Engineers said that North Dakota getting federal funding for this project is slim at best, because it is a traditional type of plan vs the way the government is heading on these types of issues. Supposedly the current strategy is to buy out the homes along the flooding area.
This brings up several points.
1) We are technially planning for the “500 year floods” are we not?
2) If we are planning on 500 year flood idea, where does that put Fargo and surrounding communities in general?
3) Will our current congressmen be able to garner any support for this type of a traditional project without throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
Many things to ponder. I do know i’m very unhappy with the sales tax passing when we have all of this new information coming to light.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Our current congressmen have absolutely no power whatsoever so Fargo’s chance of getting anything is slim to none.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In 2009 Winnepeg didnt even use their diversion because they were afraid the ice jams would damage the diversion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
And what did Winnipeg do with all that water? They had no choice, the Red gets so high, it is automatic. It overflows into their diversion.
With all the water we sent them, it is not something they can choose or not choose to use.
I’m kind of remembering they had to sandbag parts of the Red up there, but they did most definitely use their diversion.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“If we didn’t have all our flood protection systems in place, we would be evacuating 100,000 people in Winnipeg,” he told Canada AM Thursday.
“We have the floodway diversion, we had people sandbagging last night in low, outlying areas for another 100 homes.”
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20090416/flood_mba_090416/
This from the Comments section:
“Craig who’s Dry in Winnipeg said
Just read another line of fiction. Operating the flood way does not add additional water to area’s north of Winnipeg. If you have 100,000 cfs (Cubic feet p/second going up the Red river, it trashes Winnipeg and still go’s North. If you have 40,000 go thru the flood way and 60,000 thru the city it still equals 100,000 cfs. Simple mathematics for the Einsteins spouting gibberish on this article. If anything the water is less forceful coming from 2 points than slamming 100,000 CFS thru a river bed that in summer is lucky to have 15,000. Learned that in school and not University my ill informed friends”
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
You might want to talk to the folks north of the Winnipeg Floodway. They have quite a different story. http://floodprotectionnorth.wordpress.com/#comment-30
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
The CORPS classifies a diversion in the category of Increased Conveyance. While the total quantity of water that flows through the Red after the diversion is the same, the timing of it is what increases crests downstream. The water that goes through the diversion gets to the end of the diversion faster than the water that stays within the river. This is what creates higher crests downstream as well as the crests happening sooner than without a diversion.
It’s like how you’re supposed to have 3 glasses of milk per day but instead of spacing them out, you have them all for breakfast.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Why is the CORPS studying a retention project south of Fargo? Because the downstream impacts are so great they can’t find where they end. Two feet increases at Thompson and Climax. Impacts past Drayton into Canada.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0