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
15 <br /> <br />litigation when impacted property owners, flooded by a dam on the Red River, have never <br />having been compensated or consented to a flowage easement. Again, this data as presented <br />during the Task Force meetings seemed to be readily accepted by diversion proponents but <br />carefully questioned by others. Conclusions of this nature should be closely scrutinized for <br />accuracy. <br /> <br />4) Levee Only Option: At my suggestion this option was again reviewed. However, the <br />conclusion as presented was in a single line of a report. The conclusion stated that it was <br />rejected because of cost, suggesting the cost was $1.9 Billion. There were not any details as <br />to how that cost was determined. Interestingly, that would be a savings over the current <br />proposal and have far less negative impacts. It is another proposal with less negative impacts <br />and reduced costs. <br /> <br />5) Minnesota Diversion: Little attention was given to the option, though it was the preferred <br />option costing less with fewer negative impacts. Governor Dayton originally excluded it <br />from consideration but later stepped back from that position. It should remain an option <br />and be used as the baseline for comparisons of project configurations rather than the <br />currently proposed project. <br /> <br />6) Final Day Options: The only real progress, though limited, occurred on the last day of the <br />task force meeting. Three individual options were presented. It was immediately evident, <br />that at a minimum, a combination of all options would be an excellent starting point. That <br />suggestion was met with decisive opposition from Governor Burgum. <br /> <br />7) My Option: Following up on the presentation by Charlie Anderson, a rough draft of an <br />alignment was put together prior the last task force meeting. That draft/map was distributed <br />towards the end of the Task Force meeting. At one-point Governor Dayton inquired as to <br />what my alternative would be. My initial response was reciting floodplain policy, indicating <br />that preserving the floodplain was the top priority. Governor Dayton than discovered the <br />draft map that was handed out. Keeping in mind that neither I, Richland/Wilkin JPA or the <br />Upstream Coalition have engineering firms at our “beck and call” there were joint <br />discussions on obtaining an independent engineering analysis. As a follow up to the <br />comments of Governor Dayton, Charlie Anderson has been retained to provide a more <br />detailed analysis of a design the would preserve floodplain while providing flood protection <br />to Fargo. <br /> <br />Steve Jacobson- Norman County Commissioner <br />It is generally accepted that Fargo-Moorhead needs flood protection. What level of protection and <br />at what cost is the issue of debate. Minimizing the cost, both in dollars, and adverse impacts, is of <br />most importance in developing flood protection for FM.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.