Laserfiche WebLink
13 <br /> <br />b. Northern storage was briefly discussed and many people favored studying it <br />further. The only option presented appeared to be a sliver of what could be <br />pulled in for additional storage. We heard repeatedly that floodplain <br />preservation was the best way to fight floods. This is an opportunity to do <br />just that and must be a part of any future project. <br />c. More drastic changes in the embankment (high hazard dam) need to be <br />explored. This is where the operational variable and the high hazard dam are <br />connected. We were often told the dam was necessary to reduce the <br />downstream impacts. If the State of North Dakota will follow the State of <br />Minnesota’s statutes regarding downstream impacts like they said they would, <br />the height of the high dam could be reduced or perhaps even eliminated. The <br />taskforce received information on mitigation work done in Manitoba. We <br />were told that people “learn to live with the water” and rural homesteads are <br />all ring-diked. If it works for Manitoba, perhaps it could work in the Red <br />River Valley as well and mitigate any downstream impacts. <br />4. The use of the phrase “newly impacted structures.” I repeatedly expressed my <br />concern with this notion of identifying areas as “newly impacted.” It is my belief this <br />phrase was misleading and used inaccurately. For example, if a structure never had <br />protection to begin with it, but changes to the plan would no longer benefit from the <br />project, it should not be considered “newly impacted.” This catchphrase was used to <br />steer conversations away from several flood plain preservation options. <br />At the end of the last taskforce meeting, I left doubting there were enough changes or <br />modifications made that would result in a permitable project. Many members tried to reiterate this <br />point and make it clear that the current plan violates Minnesota law and cannot be permitted. <br />However, it did not seem to matter to the handful who continued to resist any major changes. <br />The lack of changes in the dam structure/alignment and the Minnesota impacts left largely <br />untouched leave us where we started. Despite the DNR’s willingness to assist well-intended <br />individuals who came to the table ready to work toward a project that could gain wider support, <br />meet the needs of the communities, and be permitable, the refusal by some to look at major changes <br />has done nothing but solidify the demise of the project. The DNR cannot “change their mind” and <br />permit this project without jeopardizing their credibility. After all, who will bother to wait for a <br />permit after witnessing the Diversion Authority do as they wish without obtaining necessary <br />permits? <br /> <br />Tim Fox- Former Wilkin County Attorney <br />The Task Force received several presentations of varying relevance. Presentations by the Diversion <br />Authority and Army Corps were intended to persuade the Task Force that the current project <br />should proceed without change. It was not until the final meeting that a realistic effort was made to <br />begin the process of addressing Federal and State laws intended to preserve existing floodplains. The