Laserfiche WebLink
16 <br /> <br />All should be done to minimize upstream and downstream impacts of the project that will give <br />adequate flood protection to developed areas of the Fargo-Moorhead community. <br />I came into this task force thinking that, there is no way on earth that the DNR will permit a control <br />structure in the channel of the Red River. I’m not so sure of that anymore. The diversion plan will <br />not work without the control structure. Federal funding will not be available without it. <br />So something is going to have to give on this. If the DNR does not issue a permit for a southern <br />embankment control structure, Fargo-Moorhead flood protection is going to have to take a different <br />approach. <br /> <br />Curt Johannsen- Mayor, Hendrum <br />There is no doubt that the people of the Fargo-Moorhead area need and deserve flood protection, <br />just like anyone else in the Red River Valley; however, the debate occurs on what is the proper and <br />best way to achieve it. I believe flood protection is obtainable if people listen to one another and <br />collaborate on a solution as much as they do when they are helping to protect their neighbors from a <br />flood. Unfortunately, this spirit of collaboration has been missing from the discussion for quite <br />some time. However, Governor Mark Dayton and Governor Doug Burgum were able to create a <br />cooperative dialogue through the establishment of the Fargo-Moorhead Area Flood Diversion Task <br />Force which was able to offer some recommendations to the Diversion Authority. The following is <br />my comments on the task force’s recommendations. <br />As much as I support basin wide retention efforts, I believe that distributed storage alone cannot <br />achieve the certifiable level of protection that is necessary to protect Fargo-Moorhead; however, <br />retention efforts should be pursued simultaneously in order to increase the Fargo-Moorhead area’s <br />level of protection as well as assist in providing basin wide protection. I also do not believe that a <br />levee only alternative is an acceptable solution since the cost would be comparable to that of a <br />diversion and provide less protection with considerable impacts. Therefore, I support the diversion <br />concept as long as impacts both upstream and downstream are minimized and mitigated to the best <br />of the ability. <br />I strongly support the task force’s consensus of using the full period of record hydrology to <br />determine that the one percent annual chance (100 year) flood level would be at 33,000 cubic feet <br />per second. Furthermore, I agree with the Technical Advisory Group’s recommendation for the <br />Western Tie-back Levee as well as the modifications to the Eastern Tie-back Levee in order to <br />reduce upstream impacts, increase floodplain in North Dakota and reduce newly inundated <br />floodplain in Minnesota. In addition, I am in favor of pursuing a design that would allow up to 37 <br />feet passing through town on the Red River during a one percent chance event. <br />I do not support the Northern Storage Option and adjusted diversion alignment resulting from it. <br />Even though this option preserves more of the natural floodplain, it results in minimal staging area <br />reduction therefore doing very little to reduce upstream impacts. The outcome is less area being