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
22 <br /> <br />what we have not been able to locally. They created a forum for healthy dialogue and a renewed sense of <br />commitment amongst the region that we have not had in many years. It is my sincerest hope that these talks <br />will continue and lead to not just flood protection for Moorhead, but additional joint efforts that can have a <br />lasting positive impact on our region of the country. <br />Task Force Efforts <br />I am so proud of the work we have been able to accomplish in Moorhead. With the support from those in St. <br />Paul, we have made real strides and our citizens know it. The downside of doing such great work is that <br />people have assumed we are done. This was apparent at the start of the Task Force meeting when much of <br />the discussion was dedicated to what level of protection we are at, and a number of false assumptions were <br />expressed. I want this report to make that issue clear. Not only did the Task Force identify and agree with the <br />significant work that needs to be done to make sure the entire city is safe, the Task Force actually made <br />recommendations that will require an additional $50 million worth of work that should be done within city <br />limits. <br />I think it is important to address the financial implications to Moorhead and Minnesota. The DNR previously <br />identified a figure of 2 percent as the benefit to Minnesota. The 2 percent benefit figure has been used to <br />calculate the anticipate funding level from the state, which amounts to approximately $43 million. With the <br />changes from the Task Force, this $43 million is likely to go up using the same math. In addition, the $50 <br />million of additional work in town will also have to be funding through the State. <br />What this tells me is that the project previously developed was a good deal for Minnesota. With the changes <br />from the Task Force to allow for a permittable project, I think the project is still a good deal, but it means our <br />local legislators will have to do a lot of work to obtain that additional funding and continued support from <br />those working in St. Paul is needed. <br />I also wonder if we would be better off taking this opportunity to truly gain environmental benefits, rather <br />than so narrowly focus on temporary impacts to farmland that will remain farmland. Rather than having the <br />state spend $50 million to buyout more homes and displace families, we could create real environmental <br />benefits such as retention for flood control and water quality improvements, buffer strips, wildlife habitat, etc. <br />Instead, there remains an intense focused on preserving floodplain that is in the flood fringe and could be <br />developed anyway over time. <br />DNR Dam Safety Permit <br />The Task Force brought more voices to the table. It was a good venue to discuss a project with a regional <br />level of protection. It was also important for the discussion on where the impacts should be. It’s a strange <br />concept that isn’t totally unique to water projects, but is certainly more prevalent. In order to protect the <br />urban areas from being under water during a flood, you need to find a more appropriate place to store it. In <br />essence, you have the unfortunate task of deciding where that water goes, and who ends up impacted. The <br />changes suggested impact more people, more homes, and more farmsteads. This is unfortunate, but it also <br />allows us to create less new floodplain land, which is important to obtaining a Minnesota permit. <br />It is now up to regulators at the DNR to be fair and give direction to our technical team as it submits a new <br />permit. I urge them to work quickly so permitting can be completed early this year to allow the use of the <br />construction season before we lose out to another long winter. Governor Dayton laid out a path forward for <br />us so that failure is not an option, and I expect all parties to move along that same path to obtain a permit, <br />end litigation, and protect Minnesotans. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.