Laserfiche WebLink
26 <br /> <br />The alternatives for additional storage – 7A, 7B and 7C were presented to the Task Force at the last <br />meeting but we were not given adequate time to study the data. After looking at the data I feel the <br />impacts on additional homes and structures that would need to be removed is very significant. <br />There is only a small change in looking at the upstream impacted acres or the protected floodplain <br />acres. These alternatives greatly impact many people for the sake of a few acres of land. The <br />upstream floodplain acres are only affected 38 days in the full period of record. The approximately <br />8,000 acres permanently removed from production for the Diversion Channel in ND are not shown <br />in the spreadsheet. The cost estimate for 7C alone is $180M (26 more homes in Cass County and <br />about seven more miles of the Dam). <br /> <br />The operating plans for the Diversion should be modified to consider reducing the peak flow at <br />downstream cities for their floods which may not be the same as the peak at the Diversion outlet. <br />More flow may be ok earlier versus later when considering the effects of the other rivers <br />downstream. <br />Excerpted from Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams <br /> Patrick McCully. October 10, 2007 <br /> <br />Even if flood control is not an intended consequence of a project, a storage dam will almost always <br />delay floods downstream and reduce the size of average flood peaks, commonly by more than a <br />quarter (even a flood control dam, however, may have little effect upon extremely large and <br />infrequent floods — making the 'flood control' offered by dams often dangerously deceptive for <br />people who move onto the downstream floodplain). The Warragamba Dam in Australia, for <br />example, reduced the 'mean annual flood' (a flood likely to recur on average every 2.3 years) by more <br />than half, while the size of the flood likely to recur every 50 years barely changed. <br /> <br />Nathan Berseth- Richland County Commissioner <br />1. Apply Least Impact Principles: The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act prohibits DNR <br />from permitting a project when there are feasible alternatives which significantly reduce the <br />environmental impacts. The least impact principle permeates all of the regulations governing <br />dam permitting and public waters permitting. <br /> <br />2. Address Permit Conditions: During the task force deliberations, very little effort was made <br />expressly to apply the permit requirement. The focus of the deliberations was to find a project <br />that reduced impacts and which Diversion Authority could accept. On occasion, a Minnesota <br />official would point out that the configuration being discussed was likely not permittable. That <br />should have led to a discussion of what, then, must be done in order to meet permit conditions. <br />We cannot arrive at an acceptable project unless the Commissioner’s permit conditions are <br />itemized and the parties then work through each condition and find ways to meet those