01-18-2018
Laserfiche
>
Public
>
Flood Diversion Board of Authority
>
Agenda
>
2018
>
01-18-2018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/18/2018 1:48:09 PM
Creation date
11/28/2018 2:36:33 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
12 <br /> <br /> There is no question the Fargo-Moorhead and surrounding communities are in need of <br />permanent flood protection. Without a doubt, floodwaters have affected everyone in this <br />community in some way. Everyone has a flood story to share. The need for protection is not in <br />question. It is the manner in which protection is achieved that continues to be in question. Who <br />pays and how much? Who is inundated and who is protected? What level of protection is wanted <br />and what is needed? What is fair mitigation? What is a balance of impacts? <br />It is my strong belief that you cannot displace your water problem upon someone who has <br />never had the problem; and those who benefit the most from a project must assume the most <br />impacts associated with the project. Elected officials have an obligation to everyone impacted by a <br />project in which their municipality is involved. If the city of Moorhead is involved in a project that <br />has negative impacts for people outside the city’s boundaries, the councilmembers are still obligated <br />to think about those people and their well-being in decision-making. The notion that Moorhead <br />should not “care” about the concerns of people in Clay or Wilkin, Cass or Richland counties is <br />wrong. <br />The following is a list of remaining concerns and questions I have regarding the purpose and <br />parameters of the taskforce and the key variables identified in the taskforce summary. <br />1. The purpose of the taskforce was to develop design principles and concept-level <br />engineering solutions to achieve balanced flood risk management for the Fargo <br />Moorhead region. <br />a. My continuing question is if Cass County is expected to receive 80-90 <br />percent of the benefit of the project should they not assume 80-90 percent of <br />the impacts? Those involved with the project are quick to point out that <br />North Dakota and Cass County are assuming 90 percent of the financial <br />costs but “impacts” include more things than just dollars. Impacts should <br />include inundation and dedicated flood plain preservation as well. <br />2. Two key parameters for the taskforce’s work include solutions that were within the <br />parameters of Minnesota, North Dakota, and local law; and that maintained federal <br />authorization. <br />a. Maintaining federal authorization restricted the taskforce’s ability to develop <br />alternatives. Every option that may have resulted in lower costs or less <br />impacts was shot down before it even had a chance to be discussed. Critics <br />were always quick to assert, “It could result in a change that would jeopardize <br />federal authorization.” This parameter held back discussions and was <br />detrimental to the work. <br />3. Key variables of concern: <br />a. The eastern tieback was presented and many agreed it was worth more <br />studying. However, there are consequences that were not thoroughly <br />discussed or presented. Perhaps a better solution would be to use an existing <br />feature, such as highway 75, which could also function as a tieback.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.