The Forum's June 25 editorial entitled "Big floods suggest big failures" and the conclusion that "Those charged with water management have not done a good job" was a major injustice to a large group of dedicated public servants in the Red River Basin. In both Minnesota and North Dakota, local water boards are charged with water management. The members of these boards are people who live in the affected areas and are appointed by the local county commissions. Although the governing laws are different in some respects, these boards are charged with developing and implementing strategies and projects to reduce flood damages.
Unfortunately, higher levels of government have constrained these local boards in recent years. The boards in both states succeeded in constructing effective projects until approximately 10 years ago. At that time, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Minnesota put the water district's flood water retention projects in "abeyance" until a "Generic Environmental Impact Statement" was completed. It took over two years for the Corps (joined by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) and $1.3 million of local moneys to complete this process. The result was the almost total elimination of projects designed to have their retention pool on stream or occupy a wetland plant community complex.
At the time of the abeyance, 33 projects in Minnesota were in various stages of planning, including three that were ready to be built. Now, only one of those projects is progressing for permitting, and with an extensive and expensive mitigation requirement. Further, all of the current projects now progressing are off-stream, constructed primarily on agricultural land. Because of topography and hydraulics, these types of projects are generally not conducive to the central part of the Red River Basin.
The North Dakota Water District has experienced similar delays and frustrations when dealing with the federal regulators. A prime example is the Maple River Dam project. This project, when built, will provide substantial flood damage reduction. A permit to build the dam was requested from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1994. The permit has still not been issued, although significant progress is not being made.
The point is local water managers are not the reason for any failure to provide flood damage protection. They do not operate in a vacuum. The very reason for your editorial (flooding in the Wild Rice Watershed in Minnesota) is an excellent example of this fact. The local board had identified several excellent locations for water storage in the upper part of the basin. However, these sites are on-stream. Because of impediments to local decision-making, no projects have been completed at these locations.
ADVERTISEMENT
The local water managers live and work in the flooded areas, and have as great a desire to see an end to the flooding as the general public. Rather than castigating the local boards, The Forum could better serve its readers by supporting the local efforts to provide flood protection. Rather than simply criticizing without knowing the facts, The Forum should investigate and report on the opposition and reasons why the local efforts have been delayed and frustrated.
Ogaard, Ada, Minn., is executive director of the Red River Water Management Board. Thompson, Page, N.D., is a member of the North Dakota Water Commission.
