Al Carlson crushing FM diversion project

[darell1976]

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/391306/

FARGO – Red River diversion supporters warned Monday that a Fargo lawmaker’s proposed amendments to a state funding bill could kill the flood control project.

The proposals by House Majority Leader Al Carlson, R-Fargo, would amend state law so that $45 million approved in 2009 for Fargo flood control projects and

$30 million approved in 2011 couldn’t be used for home buyouts or a river diversion project.

The restrictions also would apply to $100 million being considered in House Bill 1020, the State Water Commission funding bill for the next two years.

Fargo Mayor Dennis Walaker said the amendments wouldn’t affect the city’s ongoing efforts to raise flood protection to a river stage of 42.5 feet. But he said they could slow the start of construction on the diversion, adding to its $1.8 billion cost.

“We have to come up with a strategy to get it changed,” he said of the amended bill.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

This is awesome. I am not opposed to flood protection for Fargo, but the diversion/dam is a terrible way to go about it.

[mg2009]

This is awesome. I am not opposed to flood protection for Fargo, but the diversion/dam is a terrible way to go about it.

thank you for sharing your engineering expertise. The people who actually know what they are talking about appear to disagree.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

thank you for sharing your engineering expertise. The people who actually know what they are talking about appear to disagree.

Well those people wanted the cheaper, Minnesota option...

As well, engineering doesn't matter. What it comes down to is that if the diversion goes through, it will ruin the livelihoods of all of the rural folks and farmers that live in the area to be impacted by the lake. That is just wrong.

[darell1976]

Well those people wanted the cheaper, Minnesota option...

As well, engineering doesn't matter. What it comes down to is that if the diversion goes through, it will ruin the livelihoods of all of the rural folks and farmers that live in the area to be impacted by the lake. That is just wrong.

But then again no diversion puts 120,000+ people without a city (like GF 1997).

[mg2009]

Well those people wanted the cheaper, Minnesota option...

As well, engineering doesn't matter. What it comes down to is that if the diversion goes through, it will ruin the livelihoods of all of the rural folks and farmers that live in the area to be impacted by the lake. That is just wrong.

Yes, the current diversion was not the cheapest option but the only one that could happen.

I'm not sure how people think farmers come out so poorly here, most years the flood will be mild, but even in the bad years which might be more frequent, they will still get something planted and some federal money on the side.

[bypolairxam]

You know what the Lakota,Dakota(Sioux) tribes did when there was a flood??..Yep..they moved their homes to higher ground.....Disaster averted...Only Whitey could make a disaster out of a Red River flood....

[jdub27]

But then again no diversion puts 120,000+ people without a city (like GF 1997).

The diversion wasn't the only option, it was the preferred one. But from the way things are currently going at the local, state and federal level regarding it, I'm not so sure it is a viable one in terms of cost and likelihood to happen.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

Apparently more people than just Carson like this, the bill passed 90-4 in the house.

[fightingsioux4life]

Fargo needs comprehensive flood protection. Just building dikes will not work in Fargo, the topography is much different there. No matter what is proposed, somebody is going to kick and scream about how "unfair" and "wrong" it is. A lot of people would rather nothing be done so they aren't bothered by it. Grand Forks had to fight against crap like this during the 1999 session, so this doesn't surprise me.

Instead of passing Carlson's beloved oil extraction tax cut, we should leave the tax alone and use the oil money to pay for a Fargo diversion with state money and tell the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to take a hike. We could sell bonds to pay for it. Interest rates are very low right now and we could pay it off gradually year by year. Maybe this is something the citizens can put on the ballot (before the Legislature gets around to abolishing the referral and initiative process altogether).

You can bet one thing: If Fargo floods and the devestation is as bad, or worse, than what Grand Forks endured in 1997, the Legislature will immediately come out and say "We can't afford to help Fargo with anything", while they pass more tax cuts for out-of-state corporations. If it wasn't so serious of a topic, it would be funny.