Laserfiche WebLink
14 <br /> <br />crux of the dispute is the transfer of floodplain impacts either down stream or upstream. The <br />current plan, as confirmed by Governor Burgum when referencing the development of another <br />subdivision near Davis High School, is to continue development in both south and northwest Fargo <br />in areas that are currently in the floodplain and unfit for development. <br />There were several points of persuasion used throughout the presentation and discussion by project <br />proponents that were misleading or made with faulty assumptions. <br />1) Base Line Comparisons: Using the current project, a project that has been denied a DNR <br />permit, as a base line for comparisons or modifications was misleading and could only lead <br />to false assumptions. One of the most obvious misleading assumptions was the designation <br />of the unlawfully constructed inlet structure as a starting or ending point for the alignment <br />of the diversion channel. The vast sums of money spent on Oxbow have clouded the clear <br />benefit of maintaining the south Fargo floodplain while removing or greatly diminishing the <br />impacts of Oxbow, Hickson and Bakke being in the staging area, and incidentally resulted in <br />a $150 million savings. But for unlawful action of the DA, these saving should be a <br />legitimate consideration. Numerous land acquisitions Northwest of Fargo have let to <br />speculative land development in a floodplain area. The slate does need to be wiped clean in <br />order to develop flood protection conforming with Federal and State legal and regulatory <br />criteria. Floodplain Development or previous errors in judgment cannot be the guiding force <br />in pursuing a permittable flood protection project for Fargo. <br /> <br />2) Army Corps Legal/Regulatory Comments: On several occasions the Corps was asked to <br />provide legal or regulatory comments. The Corps refused, when asked, to acknowledge the <br />regulatory authority of the State of Minnesota. By commencing construction of the project, <br />not only once but twice, only to be stopped by the Federal Court, asking the Corps to <br />provide comments about regulations or rules seemed strange at best. The Corps made <br />responses in the nature of what made them comfortable or uncomfortable. If defying <br />Minnesota law and proceeding into construction of a project while legal action was pending, <br />did not make them uncomfortable, little deference should be given to any Corps opinion. <br /> <br />3) Newly Impacted Structures: The entire process of having data provided that tallied newly <br />impacted or not impacted structures was clearly questionable. During the three most recent <br />major floods, the entire area between Oxbow and South Fargo was nothing but a lake. How <br />are there newly impacted structures in an area that is and has been a floodplain and regularly <br />under water? When were these homes/schools built? Why does construction continue today <br />in an area that should be preserved for floodplain to protect Fargo? On the opposite <br />spectrum, there will be numerous farm sites and structures in South Clay and Cass Counties <br />and North Richland and Wilkin Counties impacted by the dam and staging area. Many of <br />the uncounted structures in these areas are considered already impacted though they have <br />never flooded and are not in a floodplain. The distortions created by not recognizing truly <br />impacted structures’, to skew the support of the current project, will lead to years of