Fargo Diversion and the ND Game and Fish

[Brian Renville]

It would surprise me if the ndgf hasn't looked into the impact already. We recently asked about repair to a existing boat ramp that had a corner sink and they said they were waiting on the environmental impact study. Nice way to inflate a budget.

 

[Yoby]

So living S of Fargo I have a real problem with the DAM. I have no problem with people protecting themselves. Another problem is that they are still issuing building permit for flood prone lots. In 2009 they had the dike and sand bags at 52nd AVE S. Now they have a high school (which wasn't voted on) and several developments going in S of 52nd. Pure BS iniversion, expand the primary channel, ect, fine. Dam it and flood out people to the south of them and protect undeveloped land for the tax purposes...... NOPE.....

To the original post. I have not heard where the NDGF has looked at this plan. It was purpose by Army Corps and Fargo. I think we all know what the Corps did with the Missouri in 2011..... I have serious doubts in their ability to evaluate actual implications of their actions.

As far as the black streak ( which for most people it is correct), there are lots of other spots that hold game. All the oxbow bonds and previous low land hold geese, ducks, deer and other wild life.


;:;rant OVER

 

[guywhofishes]

It's my understanding that the Moorhead side is "steeper" - generally higher in elevation. Conventional diking allows them to attain the needed protection. So they argue that since they don't benefit, they shouldn't pay. Seems reasonable. I think they are done installing 500 yr protection at this point.

 

[Pinecone]

It's kinda like the flooding that happened below Oahe, Don't build where flooding can happen. But I have no opinion on this cause I live on a hill, sometimes refered to by a racist name.

 

[guywhofishes]

It's my understanding that the Moorhead side is "steeper" - generally higher in elevation. Conventional diking allows them to attain the needed protection. So they argue that since they don't benefit, they shouldn't pay. Seems reasonable. I think they are done installing 500 yr protection at this point.

The "blue water" in this 100 yr flood plain image shows how Moorhead (right side of meandering Red River down the middle) is naturally higher (and considerably smaller) than the west side of the Red River. South of town is simply lower elevation so it floods more... and Moorhead proper sits on a ridge with mostly just a few coulees that flood.

- - - Updated - - -

It's kinda like the flooding that happened below Oahe, Don't build where flooding can happen. But I have no opinion on this cause I live on a hill, sometimes refered to by a racist name.

Guess #1:

Honky Hill?

 

[espringers]

sounds like one big cluster fuck to me. and yes... i believe moorhead is pretty much done with their flood protection. in fact, didn't they have it completed a few years back already? why does the idea of a dam on the red river in the spring time seem absurd to me? of course i haven't actually seen where they plan to put it and what its actual purpose is... i assume it will be mostly for diverting the water than actually "damming" it to prevent flooding... but, i can't imagine trying to hold back red river water during a major spring flood. and if i was a regular joe homeowner south of the dam or a landowner/farmer in the path of the proposed diversion, i would be mad as hell at having to sacrifice my home or land for the sake of south fargo. yes... they are still building in what could still be flood prone places. did they ever fix that problem in minot? i found it funny that they were allowing people to rebuild after the flood right next to condemned houses that will never be rebuilt and well inside the line of what was supposed to be the future levy. finally, the cost of this fargo diversion just keeps going up and up. not only is it simply stupid expensive....but, everyone wants to be paid 2-3X what their property is actually valued or insured at. frankly, i am not sure i blame them... but, i do blame anyone who actually pays them that much. good luck fargo. you are gonna need it. just hope like hell we don't get a crazy winter and spring again like 2009. cause i think those types of events are gonna become more common in the future. what a cluster....

 

[gst]

It would surprise me if the ndgf hasn't looked into the impact already. We recently asked about repair to a existing boat ramp that had a corner sink and they said they were waiting on the environmental impact study. Nice way to inflate a budget.

If I remember right townships can no longer put in a culvert in a roadway larger than 18 inches without doing an environmental impact study.

Nice to see our govt creating jobs.

 

[Pinecone]

nope, guywhoshouldlookatmyusername

 

[labhunter66]

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.

Who do you think NDG&F has to take their direction from? What do you think would happen to their budget and the directer during the next legislative session if they came out against this project? Unfortunately everything has become so political that science and doing the right thing don't matter anymore. Minnesota DNR can fight against the project because their political directors have no stake in the fight and may even be opposed to it. If Minnesota supported the project and was paying for half do you think Minnesota DNR would be taking the same stand? I doubt it.

 

[Pinecone]

also there is more than 1 hill

 

[guywhofishes]

right espringers

If you look at the pic you see it naturally backs up toward the south NOW and this is exacerbated by the "constriction" of the levees, etc. forcing it to flow through a narrow channel in town. Fargo Moorhead was founded on a little bit of a high spot long ago. Now that drainage systems basin-wide have been made super efficient with county ditches, tile, etc. and with a wet cycle hammering the region it's simply the hand we're dealt.

The system has to raise the water somewhat in order to get it to flow around the diversion... just the relatively small increase in elevation necessary means bad bongos upstream.

This place is FLAT. The Red River drops about 1 foot for every mile of travel. It's just a crazy bad place to engineer things to get water to run around - rather than through - the city proper.

- - - Updated - - -

nope, guywhoshouldlookatmyusername

Pinecone Hill?

 

[Pinecone]

African american

 

[guywhofishes]

over guys head

oh well - not the first time

- - - Updated - - -

Ooh... Ooh... I just got it! Thumbs Up

 

[Pinecone]

I didn't want to say the black hills, f### you made me a racist ! thanksThumbs Up

 

[Lycanthrope]

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.

INTERESTING, so people with money and influence want to screw over others... First time thats ever happened in human history!

 

[guywhofishes]

speaking of flooding - rain totals last light in the northcentral and northeast counties are nasty

- - - Updated - - -

 

[johnr]

What runs around a soccer field but never moves?




A fence

 

[WormWiggler]

Drill some wells and inject it into an aquifer????

 

[dean nelson]

There's no way to even come close to putting that much water into the ground at that rate. That would the world's biggest frac job. Probably blow sinks off there base in people who have well water.:::

 

[benjamins]

Who do you think NDG&F has to take their direction from? What do you think would happen to their budget and the directer during the next legislative session if they came out against this project? Unfortunately everything has become so political that science and doing the right thing don't matter anymore. Minnesota DNR can fight against the project because their political directors have no stake in the fight and may even be opposed to it. If Minnesota supported the project and was paying for half do you think Minnesota DNR would be taking the same stand? I doubt it.

That's actually something I never really thought of and probably has a lot of truth to it which is really unfortunate.