Diversion plans among alternatives unveiled at regional flood management meeting
MOORHEAD - Several diversion plans on the Minnesota side of the Red River to protect Fargo-Moorhead from major flooding are among six alternatives, along with a levee system, that meet cost-benefit requirements for federal funding, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project managers said Monday.By: Helmut Schmidt, INFORUM
MOORHEAD - Several diversion plans on the Minnesota side of the Red River to protect Fargo-Moorhead from major flooding are among six alternatives, along with a levee system, that meet cost-benefit requirements for federal funding, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project managers said Monday.
Now, the onus is on local officials to pick the plan they want, and to do it fast: by Dec. 1.
Corps officials said they need a decision from local leaders soon to keep to their timetable of having a project ready for Congress’ approval next December.
“The next 90 days, I think, is going to be a critical period” said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., at a meeting of the Metropolitan Flood Management Committee.
“There is a determination here to no longer let things happen, but to make things happen, said Dorgan, chairman of the Senate’s Energy and Water Subcommittee, which funds the Corps’ efforts.
“The task is clear, we now have to build a consensus,” North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven said.
Fargo City Commissioner Tim Mahoney, co-chairman of the local group charged with evaluating the corps’ plans, said their group will meet in early November, and throughout the month as often as needed, to come up with a recommendation for local governments to approve.
Six different Minnesota diversion plans, and three North Dakota alternatives, were studied. Of those, five Minnesota diversion plans met the federal cost-benefit threshold, while North Dakota diversion alternatives came very close, corps officials said. The North Dakota plans still face challenges due to the number of river tributaries that must be dealt with, as well as environmental concerns with fish movement. One levee plan that would protect the area from a 100-year flood also meet federal cost-benefit requirements.
Both states’ diversion alternatives were a mix of alignments that varied in length, proximity to the river, and capacity to move water.
Here are the top alternatives:
- Minnesota short diversion, moving 25,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water, $962 million, 1.22 cost-benefit ratio.
- Minnesota short diversion, moving 35,000 cfs, $1.09 billion, 1.17 c/b radio.
- Levee (100-year) protection, $902 million, 1.17 c/b ratio.
- Minnesota long diversion, moving 25,000 cfs, $1.055 billion, 1.10 c/b ratio
- Minnesota short diversion, moving 45,000 cfs, $1.26 billion, 1.04 c/b ratio.
- Minnesota long diversion, moving 35,000 cfs, $1.26 billion, 1.0 c/b ratio
Two North Dakota alternatives came close:
- North Dakota east diversion, moving 35,000 cfs, $1.337 billion, 0.95 c/b ratio
- North Dakota west diversion, moving 35,000 cfs, $1.363 billion, 0.94 c/b ratio.
Public information meetings will be held Tuesday and Wednesday, starting at 6 p.m. with formal presentations at 7 p.m., followed by question and answer sessions.
Tuesday’s meeting will be at Fargo’s Howard Johnson Inn, Townhouse Room, 301 3rd Ave. N. Wednesday’s meeting will be at Minnesota State University Moohread in the Hagen Hall/Science Lab Complex Auditorium 104.
Follow this story at www.inforum.com and inside Tuesday's Forum.
Tags: north dakota, federal politics, news, flood, minnesota, fargo, moorhead, dorgan, flood, daily updates
Perplexed L. Fargo, ND 10/19/2009 11:35 PM
J.S. - We should all share in the cost as we are in it together. I would agree that Fargo has more people. However, if as you have indicated, your leaders are idoits, maybe you should pay more because we will have to deal with their poor decisions in the future.Report a Violation
Tom H. Minneapolis, MN 10/19/2009 10:38 PM
Reading the comments, I see people being petty and bickering about who benefits more and who pays more--just like the politicians. We get the leaders we deserve.How about doing what is right regardless of who gets more?
Report a Violation
Comments posted on this page DO NOT reflect opinions of Forum Communications Company. Forum Communications Company does not endorse and is not responsible for any statement, opinion, advice given or made. All replies are posted "as is" and must follow Forum Communications Company guidelines concerning statements of libel, personal attacks or defamation of character. If a comment is found in violation of said guidelines it can and will be removed from the public discussion. Replies in the "Talk About It" section that criticize a person by name may not be posted, unless that person is openly involved in a public issue. Comments written in all capital letters or bold print will not be considered for inclusion in INFORUM.

Tim M. Fargo, ND 10/21/2009 9:08 AM
What I find intriguing is that everyone is talking about a "public option" for flood control, which makes sense to me. Some things just fit this way, private projects/plans taking on a huge system and the variegates of weather don't work.I hope those folks who have great ideas on how to spend tax dollars on this project are also there to support raising those tax dollars. I am.
Senator Tim Mathern
Report a Violation