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
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
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.