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
38 <br /> <br />I do not support increasing the river stage of water through town to 37 ft. It creates more <br />risk, significantly increases cost to construct and operate, protects fewer properties and <br />negatively impacts life-safety for those within the project limits. This option is neither <br />expedient nor low cost. <br /> <br />I do not support adding Northern Storage. Very minimal benefit (reduction in elevation of <br />up-stream staging area) and TAG was neutral. <br /> <br />I do not support moving the southern embankment further north. Moving a high hazard dam <br />closer to populated areas and adding considerable length to the dam adds risk and cost. It also <br />reduces the geographic area protected and results in impacting more people and structures. <br />This option is neither expedient nor low cost. <br /> <br />At this time, I do not support an increase in downstream water levels because impacts have <br />not been studied and would be felt all the way to the Canadian border. Canada has a history of <br />suing ND on water issues which historically has delayed projects. Mitigation costs in the <br />Grand Forks/East Grand Forks area alone could easily exceed $100 M. This option is neither <br />expedient nor low cost. <br /> <br />The Task Force made progress but did not come to final consensus. A significant benefit to the <br />process was bringing Governor Dayton and Governor Burgum to the table. It was very impressive <br />how both Governors were engaged, dedicating time and effort to the process. With both <br />Governors co-chairing the meetings, they brought a sense of authority and respect that helped the <br />process work. It was very beneficial to have all 16 task force members at the table, allowing us to <br />hear from different perspectives. <br /> <br />Critical Take Away’s from Process. <br />• NED plan is a Minnesota diversion, which Minnesota has refused to allow. <br />• Minnesota DNR has declined to permit the project, so changes are required for a permit to <br />be issued. We need to understand what changes are required for a permit to be issued. <br />• Tie-back levees and diversion channel of this magnitude have a significant footprint and <br />forever impact the physical day to day operations of adjacent land owners. The 8,000 acre <br />footprint should be considered in the impact balance between the states. <br />• Both upstream and downstream impacted property owners are not sure of overall mitigation <br />strategy.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.