RED RIVER DIVERSION
Diversion Authority fields questions about buyout timeline, prices 
HICKSON, N.D. – The Flood Diversion Authority reached out to the people of Oxbow on Tuesday night at the Hickson Community Center.
March 27, 2012
Red River diversion: Will the sun set on Oxbow?
City united in opposition to current planHICKSON, N.D. – Whether Oxbow residents stand their ground and fight the current diversion plan or demand buyouts for the entire city, Mayor Jim Nyhof said they need to do it together.
By Wendy Reuer , January 20, 2011
Upstream residents rally over diversion
Meeting tonight with flood group
HICKSON, N.D. – Organizers of Wednesday night’s meeting on the Red River Diversion plan hoped the gathering of Oxbow, Hickson and Bakke residents would serve as a rallying cry before a public information meeting tonight with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
By Wendy Reuer , December 09, 2010
Forum editorial: It really is a matter of trust
A closed meeting sanctioned by elected officials, even a marginally legal meeting, is usually a mistake.
November 14, 2010
Forum editorial: Diversion remains on track
Last week’s news from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies and governments involved with the Fargo-Moorhead flood control diversion project was good.
September 01, 2010
Forum editorial: Diversion access no surprise
The decision by a Fargo district judge to give access to land potentially in the route of the proposed Fargo-Moorhead flood control diversion was no surprise.
August 27, 2010
For flood control harmony, avoid the use of ‘foe’ and ‘stop’
The Forum editorial of Aug. 22 had a good headline except for the “but …”
By Diane Ista , August 25, 2010
Diversion comments skew negative
Corps review based on merit, not volumeWhen it comes to taking public comment on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects, Craig Evans is used to hearing a louder voice from the “no” camp.
By Mike Nowatzki , August 22, 2010
Diversion column all wrong
In the Aug. 1 edition of the Forum, Editorial Page Editor Jack Zaleski blasts diversion opponents in his column “Diversion foes should keep it honest.”
By Steve Jacobson , August 08, 2010
Downstream concerns driven by data from official sources
As one of the people who will be greatly affected downstream by the F-M diversion, I was greatly disturbed by some of Forum Editorial Page Editor Jack Zaleski’s comments (column, Aug. 1).
By Clarinda Schnabel , August 05, 2010
Zaleski: Diversion foes should keep it honest
If downstream opponents of the Fargo-Moorhead diversion continue to say stupid things in print and on television, they will lose what tenuous credibility they have.
By Jack Zaleski , August 01, 2010
History of big public project is not fulfilling the promises
The recent Forum editorial lambasting diversion protesters takes a fairly narrow point of view about their concerns.
By Karl Langseth , July 21, 2010
Already, answer from Fargo is ‘no’
After the Joint Powers signing at Fargo City Hall on July 15, the Downstream Impact Work Group asked the F-M metro diversion planners to vote in favor of extending the comment period.
By Terry Guttormson , July 21, 2010
Forum editorial: To diversion protesters: Listen up!
When Fargo-Moorhead metro-area officials sign a flood diversion sponsorship agreement Thursday, protesters representing downstream interests will be at Fargo City Hall to object.
July 14, 2010
Does ‘Invest in Your Valley’ include downstream towns?
‘Invest in Your Valley!” What a positive promotion for our valley. We have some wonderful Minnesota cities in the valley north of Fargo and Moorhead, namely Kragnes, Georgetown, Perley, Hendrum, Halstad, Shelly, Climax, Nielsville and many more wonderful small cities.
By Diane Ista , July 14, 2010
View your ad here! Cost effective targeted advertising.
Contextual advertising starting as low as $79/month. This includes targeted ad delivery and search results!
Add your business to the Marketplace »
RSS Feeds