Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
Sign in to follow this  
darell1976

2013 flood

Recommended Posts

Another bullet for Fargo dodged. Now they can talk permanent flood protection.... oh wait they do that every year.

One of these years, the weather won't cooperate this much and Fargo will be fighting for its life.....again. ???

It is high time that the ND Legislature get off it's butt and do what it takes to get the funding needed (both Federal and State) to get this diversion built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The diversion should not be built. I am not against protect for Fargo, but the diversion is far too costly with far too many negative impacts. Communities and farmers upstream would be flooded out. The diversion is being pushed so that Fargo can continue to develop to the south into the flood plain. I am 100% opposed to the diversion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The diversion should not be built. I am not against protect for Fargo, but the diversion is far too costly with far too many negative impacts. Communities and farmers upstream would be flooded out. The diversion is being pushed so that Fargo can continue to develop to the south into the flood plain. I am 100% opposed to the diversion.

Isn't it safe to say all areas outside of Fargo city limits is in the flood plain. So unless Fargo tears down downtown buildings and replaces them with skyscrapers (just like Minneapolis or NYC) then their growth will stall as West Fargo will gain more land and gain more business and homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The diversion should not be built. I am not against protect for Fargo, but the diversion is far too costly with far too many negative impacts. Communities and farmers upstream would be flooded out. The diversion is being pushed so that Fargo can continue to develop to the south into the flood plain. I am 100% opposed to the diversion.

Great...bring another potential solution forward then. Don't think for a second some of the recent flooding issues aren't directly due to farmers south of Fargo along the Red and their years of unchecked drainage practices. Works both ways.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great...bring another potential solution forward then. Don't think for a second some of the recent flooding issues aren't directly due to farmers south of Fargo along the Red and their years of unchecked drainage practices. Works both ways.

That's what I want to see to. All people against a diversion please by all means tell us your alternate plan or else grab a sandbag because it will come to that every year until there is a permanent fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I want to see to. All people against a diversion please by all means tell us your alternate plan or else grab a sandbag because it will come to that every year until there is a permanent fix.

Diversion...no.

Dam type system...no.

Retention ponds...no.

The work needs to be done to the south of Fargo but landowners that way don't won't anything done. And now we also have to worry about those to the north?? But it's OK for Fargo to have to deal with this annually? No easy solution but an issue that needs a solution soon. I get tired with the "I am 100% opposed" crowd who bring no other alternative idea/plan to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the topography of Fargo a diversion is the only thing I can see. Then it would have to go on the Minnesota side. The slope of the river bank is not like GF. GF has a quick climb so dikes could be built. Fargo is much more gradual. They have to do something before it is too late and it will cost more to build and fix what is destroyed. Darrel lived through it before and I doubt he wants to live through it again. Yes it will cost a lot. But not doing it will one day, maybe next year even, will cost more. This year looked like it could be the year but the nuclear missile missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Fargo resident all I want to see is the funding formula. Basically, by supporting the diversion I am opening currently opening my wallet and allowing them to take out an undetermined amount. At least give me a ballpark figure for what it is going to cost me where I live. That question can't be answered by anyone on the flood commission and they should have that figured out already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Fargo resident all I want to see is the funding formula. Basically, by supporting the diversion I am opening currently opening my wallet and allowing them to take out an undetermined amount. At least give me a ballpark figure for what it is going to cost me where I live. That question can't be answered by anyone on the flood commission and they should have that figured out already.

Can't or intentionally left unanswered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't or intentionally left unanswered?

If they at least had a formula in mind I'd go with can't but since I haven't heard that I and others I know think its intentionally left unanswered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I see all the federal $$$ being spent on "stuff" that occurs following natural disasters in this country I'm getting almost angry that this dilemma keeps getting tabled. Watchmaker and I finally agree on something...the cost to rebuild a flooded and destroyed Fargo will make the cost of the diversion look insignificant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they at least had a formula in mind I'd go with can't but since I haven't heard that I and others I know think its intentionally left unanswered.

I tend to agree with you. My guess is they know there are going to be a lot of people not happy with it. And a lower flood forecast that means less preparing/flood fighting probably won't help them either, though it is good for Fargo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I see all the federal $$$ being spent on "stuff" that occurs following natural disasters in this country I'm getting almost angry that this dilemma keeps getting tabled. Watchmaker and I finally agree on something...the cost to rebuild a flooded and destroyed Fargo will make the cost of the diversion look insignificant.

We agree again. The bill GF property owners got for the flood protection there is amazingly small. Fargo's biggest problem with federal funding is the lack of muscle in DC now. They should have been on this when Dorgan, Pommeroy, and Conrad were there. Now you have 2 out the 3 being against federal earmark spending. More than anything GF got lucky to have got flooded when they did. Fargo should have taken advantage of it at the time but alas they did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just took a walk to the lowest point in Fargo (Elm Street). The water is over the road and there is still a lot of ice that was washed up on the road and ice flowing in the river. The current is moving very fast and I even saw some ducks in the water that was Elm Street. The crest looks like to be around 38 feet on the first of May which is good news in Fargo. A lot of sandbags can go back in storage and wait for the flood of 2014 to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fargo has had plenty of time and wasted plenty of money that could have been used to buy out all of the homes along the river and put up permanent flood protection. They want to put the problem on everyone else while they continue to collect money from the developers. I for one hope Denny's ditch will never happen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fargo has had plenty of time and wasted plenty of money that could have been used to buy out all of the homes along the river and put up permanent flood protection. They want to put the problem on everyone else while they continue to collect money from the developers. I for one hope Denny's ditch will never happen!

Don't post things you know little or nothing about. Maybe if the NWS would be a little more accurate time and money wouldn't be wasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fargo has had plenty of time and wasted plenty of money that could have been used to buy out all of the homes along the river and put up permanent flood protection. They want to put the problem on everyone else while they continue to collect money from the developers. I for one hope Denny's ditch will never happen!

Pretty broad and ignorant post on a subject that's way more complex than what your limited view sheds light on. If your crystal ball would tell us how "high" permanent protection needs to be so Fargo never has to worry again that would be a good start. As Dan mentioned the NWS went from possibly 42-44' a couple weeks ago to 35.5' last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know plenty about Fargo's situation as I'm going to be losing land to that stupid diversion!

Yes, this year the NWS screwed up big time. I wasn't necessarily talking about wasted money this year but the cumulative money that Fargo has pissed away since '69!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know plenty about Fargo's situation as I'm going to be losing land to that stupid diversion!

Yes, this year the NWS screwed up big time. I wasn't necessarily talking about wasted money this year but the cumulative money that Fargo has pissed away since '69!

Oh...so this about you. Reality check...over 130K+ people will have bigger issues than you losing some land if F-M floods like GF in '97 at some point. Again...a huge part of this increase flooding issue is that land owners/farmers downstream that have used technology to vastly improve the drainage of water off their land directly into the Red. That's not even debatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know plenty about Fargo's situation as I'm going to be losing land to that stupid diversion!

Yes, this year the NWS screwed up big time. I wasn't necessarily talking about wasted money this year but the cumulative money that Fargo has pissed away since '69!

What makes that diversion stupid? Why save the largest city in ND from going under then the city gets to spend BILLIONS of dollars in recovery. What are people in little towns around Fargo going to do for work, shop, college? Please enlighten us Fargoans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×