Letter: Who is really being unrealistic?
In response to Morris Lanning’s comments in The Forum article “Dayton sides with Minn. DNR in opposing diversion dike plan” (Sunday, Aug. 3)
Apparently, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple doesn’t care that Lanning feels it would be helpful if he tried to resolve the Fargo dam dispute: The Forum reported that the governor has no plans to intervene.
Litigation is the only way to convince the Diversion Authority that its actions are unlawful and unacceptable. The Diversion Authority stands rigidly on the bank of the Red River daring the Joint Powers Authority (of Wilkin, Minn., and Richland, N.D., counties) and the Upstream Coalition to oppose their dictatorial proclamations.
As long as the Goliaths of the Red River Valley attempt to “trample” whoever stands in their way, the Davids must do what they can to see that justice and goodness prevail.
The Forum quoted Lanning as saying, “They (landowners and officials south of Fargo-Moorhead) want absolutely no impact. Those who want no impact, I’m sorry, that’s not reality.”
When explaining the purpose of the F-M Diversion at the Maple River Aqueduct Model Open House in Rosemount, Minn., last month, Craig Evans of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stated that the “goal is to not have any impacts downstream” but to have “all the impacts in the staging area.” According to Lanning, “that’s not reality.”
So, it seems, the Diversion Authority (who hired the corps to design this project) is itself being unrealistic. Please note that those upstream realize some impact is inevitable, but argue that imposing all impacts on the upstream staging area is unjustified, unfair and unnecessary.