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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
nope, guywhoshouldlookatmyusername
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.
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.