January 30, 2011 at 6:00 pm in INFORUM
20% reduction decreases F-M water levels by 1.6 feet
A goal of reducing peak flows on the Red River enough to drop flood stages 2 feet in Fargo during a 1997 magnitude flood appears realistic. Continue Reading
Tags: Fargo, Flood, Moorhead, Red River 5 Comments »
Finally some sanity. Retention is an important part of the solution, and I never understood the opposition to it from the time I started suggesting it.
Like or Dislike: 8 1
will it help to put a notice on KEEPITLOCAL.COM
Like or Dislike: 2 0
From the article: “By contrast, a diversion could reduce a 100-year flood, 42.4 feet, by almost 12 feet, resulting in a stage of 30.6 feet, according to corps figures.”
I don’t understand how the City of Fargo, Cass County Commissioners and everyone else who thinks that this diversion is the only solution can justify wiping out the south-east corner of Cass County so that during a 100 year flood they can sit back in their lounge chairs and not worry about a thing. The media has everyone so “ramped up” that everytime the river gets close to coming out of its banks the city is going to go under. If everyone works together we can spread this all out to manageable levels. The problem is that Fargo doesn’t want to deal with any of it while protecting the area south for future development. If the diversion discussions continue, I’d like to see it moved north to around where the new high school is. As it stands, Fargo gives up nothing and gains thousands of acres for future development.
The city also needs to be thinking about future water needs. We’re in a wet cycle right now, what happens when the rivers run low. Where are you going to get the water? What is that going to cost us? And of course, that would need to be a county-wide issue as well so that we can all pay for it. Good grief. Put your thinking caps on folks, let’s look at the big picture.
Like or Dislike: 5 1
Because a 100-year flood is NOT what the diversion is planned for. It is planned for a flood of 46.5 feet. Then, with the diversion running, the flood levels in Fargo approach 40 feet (don’t recall the exact number). This is all from the Environmental Impact report the Corps put out earlier this year.
That said, I think we need to be looking more broadly than just a diversion. With water retention as this article discusses.
Like or Dislike: 1 0
So if this can reduce the flow by 20%, how much money could that save us by going with a smaller diversion? I’d like to see a comprehensive plan with some dollar amounts.
This is an interesting idea. But not a comprehensive one.
The ironic thing is that Charlie has been responsible for a lot of the field drainage so many people like to complain about every time a flood rolls around.
Like or Dislike: 0 0
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company