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
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
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.