Fargo Diversion and the ND Game and Fish

[benjamins]

I grew up on a farm south of Fargo so I am obviously 100% against the diversion. The only hope we have of changing the location of the dam depends on the study that the Minnesota DNR is doing. My question is, why do we only hear about the Minnesota DNR wanting to see what impact it will have on the wildlife? Where is the North Dakota game and fish? Why don't they care about it?

 

[Duckslayer100]

Because it's the RRV...an ecological wasteland of black dirt. The deer and turkeys that are around everyone hates because they eat their well-manicured lawns and trophy rose bushes.

 

[johnr]

As a former Fargoan I would think that drain tile would be the correct solution.

I sat at the local saloon last evening with a couple of friends who make their living in the patch, they are nervous about their future employment, and I would think they should be. This makes me think that our state would also be "nervous" about the billions of dollars that the western oilfields produced for our state not being there either.
How is this Fargo diversion being paid for? is it a state/federal project? Is it just a local deal? Either way it will be expensive, but needs to be done, as Grand Forks somehow made this all happen 20 years ago.

I think Minnesota should foot 50% of the bill, or maybe we build our side 4 ft higher and just let them worry about the rest.

 

[Davey Crockett]

As a former Fargoan I would think that drain tile would be the correct solution.

I sat at the local saloon last evening with a couple of friends who make their living in the patch, they are nervous about their future employment, and I would think they should be. This makes me think that our state would also be "nervous" about the billions of dollars that the western oilfields produced for our state not being there either.
How is this Fargo diversion being paid for? is it a state/federal project? Is it just a local deal? Either way it will be expensive, but needs to be done, as Grand Forks somehow made this all happen 20 years ago.

I think Minnesota should foot 50% of the bill, or maybe we build our side 4 ft higher and just let them worry about the rest.

 

[Kentucky Windage]

Minnesota believes that it's wildlife and land are more important than human life. Didn't you know that?

 

[lunkerslayer]

Now this is political topic that effects our conservative values of wildlife habitat. Carry on

 

[benjamins]

I agree that it will be ridiculously expensive and if it happens Minnesota should foot half the bill. The problem is Moorhead has been spending money on other, less destructive ways of flood protection so why would they spend $100s of millions on something that they don't need anymore?

And to say that no one along the red river cares about wildlife is ridiculous. If people didn't like deer and turkeys you should be able to go up to anyone and ask to hunt and they should say yes. Go try that in Richland county and see how many people will let you on their land.

 

[SupressYourself]

Because it's the RRV...an ecological wasteland of black dirt. The deer and turkeys that are around everyone hates because they eat their well-manicured lawns and trophy rose bushes.

Agreed. Good luck finding any wildlife around here. There are a few deer around the Red and Sheyene rivers, but otherwise it's dirt and (maybe) 2-row shelter belts. You gotta drive 40 miles E,W, or S to even find a hill, and then you may also find some habitat and wildlife.

 

[Tommyboy]

As a former Fargoan I would think that drain tile would be the correct solution.

I sat at the local saloon last evening with a couple of friends who make their living in the patch, they are nervous about their future employment, and I would think they should be. This makes me think that our state would also be "nervous" about the billions of dollars that the western oilfields produced for our state not being there either.
How is this Fargo diversion being paid for? is it a state/federal project? Is it just a local deal? Either way it will be expensive, but needs to be done, as Grand Forks somehow made this all happen 20 years ago.

I think Minnesota should foot 50% of the bill, or maybe we build our side 4 ft higher and just let them worry about the rest.

I thought the flood was in 1997? :;:huh

 

[Davey Crockett]

From the very first time I heard of the diversion I imagined a long narrow park with trees, fishing areas , camping area ,beaches , volleyball , horseshoes, more fishing areas, Model airplane flying.
If the project is worth doing, it's worth doing well . If we don't want to get fancy and build a park at least have fishing ,trees and primitive camping.

- - - Updated - - -

FWIW my opinion isn't an East/West thing . My opinion would be the same if it was Williston planning the diversion.

 

[benjamins]

Agreed. Good luck finding any wildlife around here. There are a few deer around the Red and Sheyene rivers, but otherwise it's dirt and (maybe) 2-row shelter belts. You gotta drive 40 miles E,W, or S to even find a hill, and then you may also find some habitat and wildlife.

Exactly my point. The wildlife that is there is 90% dependent on rivers and the habitat around them. After flooding all the river habitat what will be left for them? It just bothers me that the MN DNR wants to at least look into it but the NDGF couldn't care less.

 

[Duckslayer100]

Exactly my point. The wildlife that is there is 90% dependent on rivers and the habitat around them. After flooding all the river habitat what will be left for them? It just bothers me that the MN DNR wants to at least look into it but the NDGF couldn't care less.

Maybe they see it as spending from limited funding on something that has very little impact? If the RRV was covered in grasslands, ponds and groves of trees, I'd totally hear what you are saying. But it's a black grease stain that stretches 30 miles east and another 30 miles west with more plastic tubes, drains and pumps than you can count. The biggest irony is that the largest concentrations of wildlife are INSIDE the city limits. Let that soak in for awhile...

 

[johnr]

I thought the flood was in 1997? :;:huh

You are correct, my former father in law had a home on river drive south Fargo, we sandbagged for must have been 2 weeks, and ran pumps on the leaky spots for 10 days. I remember it well, but apparently my math is off.

It should have read 18 years ago...haha

It was 20 years ago in my mind, and my back.


Moorhead is neat

 

[Lycanthrope]

Shouldnt this be in the political section? Why would a farmer be against a diversion? Totally agree with doing our side and let MN worry about their's.....

Seriously think this is much like the flood a few years here in Bismarck, if you are dumb enough to build/buy in a flood prone area, you should have to pay for repairs yourself when it floods... If you choose to live in Fargo, there is a risk associated with that decision. Maybe consider moving to Bismarck (outside of the flood prone areas)!

 

[Tommyboy]

You are correct, my former father in law had a home on river drive south Fargo, we sandbagged for must have been 2 weeks, and ran pumps on the leaky spots for 10 days. I remember it well, but apparently my math is off.

It should have read 18 years ago...haha

It was 20 years ago in my mind, and my back.


Moorhead is neat

Just giving you a little grief johnr. I was thinking back to a couple of months ago when I got called out by some neat folks (and nearly crucified) when I said "15 years ago" when it was really only about 10.

 

[Zogman]

I grew up on a farm south of Fargo so I am obviously 100% against the diversion. The only hope we have of changing the location of the dam depends on the study that the Minnesota DNR is doing. My question is, why do we only hear about the Minnesota DNR wanting to see what impact it will have on the wildlife? Where is the North Dakota game and fish? Why don't they care about it?

Because in MN the DNR has the same power and responsibilities as the North Dakota Water Commission.
The NDG&F does not have those responsibilities because the NDWC does.

 

[benjamins]

Shouldnt this be in the political section? Why would a farmer be against a diversion? Totally agree with doing our side and let MN worry about their's.....

Seriously think this is much like the flood a few years here in Bismarck, if you are dumb enough to build/buy in a flood prone area, you should have to pay for repairs yourself when it floods... If you choose to live in Fargo, there is a risk associated with that decision. Maybe consider moving to Bismarck (outside of the flood prone areas)!

I would have put this in the political section if I was talking about how against the diversion I am, but I was more focused on the game and fish sitting on their hands.
Apparently I am alone in thinking our G&F should care about this, I just thought I'd see what everyone else's take was.

 

[dean nelson]

Exactly my point. The wildlife that is there is 90% dependent on rivers and the habitat around them. After flooding all the river habitat what will be left for them? It just bothers me that the MN DNR wants to at least look into it but the NDGF couldn't care less.

In what flood without the diversion did the river habitat not flood? That's sort of a no brainer that the trees and habitat along the rivers are going to flood one way or the other diversion or no diversion that's how floods work!

 

[benjamins]

In what flood without the diversion did the river habitat not flood? That's sort of a no brainer that the trees and habitat along the rivers are going to flood one way or the other diversion or no diversion that's how floods work!

We hunt/farm around the Wild Rice river. I would say a good 75% of our woods stayed above water in '09. With this dam it will completely flood out our entire woods. Do you not think that the diversion will cause higher water south of Fargo? Sorry, I didn't mean to make this about what the diversion will do, I just do not agree that all river habitat floods without the diversion so who cares if there is one.

 

[Norske]

The diversion plan includes a dam. Al Carlson and the other developers want the dam far enough south it will protect homes they want to build in southern Fargo. That means flooding as far south as Kindred. But Fargo has more votes in the ND House than Kindred. The real problem is Fargo allowed itself to get surrounded by developments so it has no where to grow unless it builds south and endangers everyone further to the south.