Laserfiche WebLink
17 <br /> <br />protected with a diversion channel that will have sharp bends resulting in an increase in maintenance <br />costs due to erosion in the channel. <br />Probably the most significant change to the diversion design would be the Southern embankment <br />alignment. Unfortunately, the Task Force could not come to an agreement on where the alignment <br />should be. Even though each option (7A, B, and C) had their own pros and cons, I strongly believe <br />that a combination of these three alignments could offer the most benefits in reducing upstream <br />impacts. I don’t think it is worthwhile to further investigate option 7A since the Minnesota <br />Department of Natural Resources will likely not permit it, and 7B since the Army Corps of <br />Engineers had concerns with it maintaining authorization. Instead, I believe that a combination of <br />both options 7A and 7C warrants further investigation. Whatever the result is, shifting the Southern <br />embankment alignment further North is necessary in order to utilize more of the natural flood plain <br />which will considerably reduce negative impacts. <br />Despite the fact that allowing more water downstream would result in a modification to the <br />operation plan rather than a change in the diversion design, it still warrants discussion here. The <br />reason that the original design of the diversion had upstream storage built into it was to mitigate <br />downstream impacts. Although the staging area influences the upstream, those effects are <br />considerably less then what the negative impacts would be to the downstream without it. Not only <br />would more structures be affected downstream, which would require costly mitigation, but the <br />potential exists to also cause an increase in water levels at the United States/Canadian border which <br />would require approval from International Joint Commission under the Boundary Waters Treaty. <br />The six inches of additional water that the Technical Advisory Group evaluated sending <br />downstream would cause an impact at the International Border thus violating the treaty unless <br />approval was obtained. Even if approval could be obtained, the process would definitely add several <br />years to the diversion timeline. Not to mention, is it worth upsetting our great neighbors to the <br />North for something that may not even be possible? Furthermore, any additional water sent <br />downstream has the potential to negatively impact existing community flood protection measures <br />and their ability to maintain certification which would require costly mitigation. Any additional water <br />sent downstream that has the potential to negatively affect the agricultural industry must also be <br />taken into consideration. <br />In closing, I would like to express my gratitude to Governor Dayton and Governor Burgum for the <br />great leadership they showed by establishing the Fargo-Moorhead Area Flood Diversion Task Force. <br />Furthermore, I would like to show my appreciation to the task force members for their valuable, <br />professional input and their collaborative effort to help the Fargo-Moorhead area achieve certifiable <br />flood protection with minimal impacts to their neighbors. I would also like to thank the Technical <br />Advisory Group for all their hard work and expertise. I hope the Diversion Authority continues <br />with this spirit of cooperation by allowing all affected parties, including those both upstream and <br />downstream, to have a voting seat on the Diversion Authority as well as on a future operation plan <br />committee. I wish the Diversion Authority the best of luck in their endeavor of achieving flood <br />protection for the Fargo-Moorhead area.