North Dakota Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 I'm saying Fargo could have solved their problem a long time ago. They chose not to! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 I'm saying Fargo could have solved their problem a long time ago. They chose not to! Because of an occasional flood??? 4 of of the top 10 worst floods (ever) of the Red in Fargo will have come within the last 5 years ('09-'13). Sounds like a "now" problem vs. a "long time ago" problem...and I don't consider the past 5 years a long time ago. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Dakota Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Because of an occasional flood??? 4 of of the top 10 worst floods (ever) of the Red in Fargo will have come within the last 5 years ('09-'13). Sounds like a "now" problem vs. a "long time ago" problem...and I don't consider the past 5 years a long time ago. How old are you? The Red has been flooding for well over 100 years. Apparently you were not here in '66, '79, '97, '02? Occasional flood? And you want to spend $1.8 billion to protect an occasional flood?? You want a diversion, run it through Fargo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 How old are you? The Red has been flooding for well over 100 years. Apparently you were not here in '66, '79, '97, '02? Occasional flood? And you want to spend $10 billion to protect an occasional flood?? You want a diversion, run it through Fargo! Flooding for 100 years...yup if you go by 18' as flood stage. BTW it wasn't '02 it was '01. So including 4 of last 5 years, '97 and '01 you have 6 of top 10 floods ever. The real flooding is within the last 16 years...not 100. 16 years of your kind continually draining your fields into the Red for your financial benefit at the expense of us living upstream in Fargo. So stop with the diversion chest thumping...you landowners/farmers are as much at fault with this flooding issue as anyone outside of mother nature! Continued water research from the Red in the Fargo area over the last number of years has shown a steady increase in farming chemicals consistent with the increasing drainage practices being performed on the land along the Red. It's a difficult issue with no easy answer but your opinions are typical of a landowner who is part of the issue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Dakota Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 And your comments are typical of the lawyer or doctor who builds a mansion along the river who doesn't want his scenic view destroyed by a dike though his back yard. But as long as your precious golf course is playable to heck with everyone else. Got it! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 And your comments are typical of the lawyer or doctor who builds a mansion along the river who doesn't want his scenic view destroyed by a dike though his back yard. But as long as your precious golf course is playable to heck with everyone else. Got it! Regardless of my profession, my neighborhood decided to forgo our "scenic view" and the "not on my land" attitude you have and had a dike put in our "back yards" a couple years ago for the betterment of all the homes in our neighborhood and the city of Fargo. We aren't going to see this eye to eye but if my home floods before any flood solution is reached I'll be sure to contact you to build my new mansion in your land. As far as golf, I can get around a course ok if you ever wanna throw some money around. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I'm saying Fargo could have solved their problem a long time ago. They chose not to! Oh really Mr. Genius? Please use your infinite wisdom and tell us just how Fargo could have "chosen" to fix their flooding problems "a long time ago". -A levee system like GF has? Doesn't work in Fargo because of topography. -Move the city out of the flood plain? Way too expensive. -The "waffle plan" as developed by the EERC? It would take several feet off of a major flood, but it certainly is not a solution itself. -Basin-wide water retention and control, including the "waffle plan"? Probably the best overall solution, but it will take years to implement and Fargo could get flooded several times before any plan could be implemented. The diversion is the best possible current solution to the annual flooding problem in Fargo. Of course, thanks to selfish, self-centered people like yourself, it will be like pulling teeth to get it built. Come to think of it, it's people like you that fight tooth and nail against all of the ideas I have listed here because they infringe on your property rights. Never mind that a city of 100,000+ people is constantly in danger of flooding; you just don't want to be bothered with any aspect of it. How North Dakotan of you! You sound like some of the people in North Dakota back in 1999 that didn't want the Legislature to give Grand Forks one penny of state money to help build our current flood protection system. Of course, these same people wouldn't hesitate to ask the government for help if they were victims of a natural disaster of some kind. But heaven forbid that Grand Forks ask for any help. History is repeating itself, and it looks just as ugly as it did 14 years ago. It is high time that people like yourself "choose" to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. But I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Oh really Mr. Genius? Please use your infinite wisdom and tell us just how Fargo could have "chosen" to fix their flooding problems "a long time ago". -A levee system like GF has? Doesn't work in Fargo because of topography. -Move the city out of the flood plain? Way too expensive. -The "waffle plan" as developed by the EERC? It would take several feet off of a major flood, but it certainly is not a solution itself. -Basin-wide water retention and control, including the "waffle plan"? Probably the best overall solution, but it will take years to implement and Fargo could get flooded several times before any plan could be implemented. The diversion is the best possible current solution to the annual flooding problem in Fargo. Of course, thanks to selfish, self-centered people like yourself, it will be like pulling teeth to get it built. Come to think of it, it's people like you that fight tooth and nail against all of the ideas I have listed here because they infringe on your property rights. Never mind that a city of 100,000+ people is constantly in danger of flooding; you just don't want to be bothered with any aspect of it. How North Dakotan of you! You sound like some of the people in North Dakota back in 1999 that didn't want the Legislature to give Grand Forks one penny of state money to help build our current flood protection system. Of course, these same people wouldn't hesitate to ask the government for help if they were victims of a natural disaster of some kind. But heaven forbid that Grand Forks ask for any help. History is repeating itself, and it looks just as ugly as it did 14 years ago. It is high time that people like yourself "choose" to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. But I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Your last paragraph is paramount to getting any solution done. Unfortunately I don't see land owners along the Red getting aboard on any project to fix the flooding issue soon. Side note... Al Carlson is an idiot! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Dakota Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/398284/ Yeah, rural landowners are the problem. When my families livelyhood is at stake these fine people are worried about their golf course. When my home was threatened by overland flooding I chose to build a ring dike around my property, I didn't ask anyone else to sacrifice their land or pay for it. You say permanent levees would not work? How have the makeshift levees and dikes been working then? Apparently these can work if Fargo wanted them to, they choose not to. You realize how many $9 million flood fights you could handle from $2 billion? You could afford to fight a record flood every year for 222 years! I won't say that some farm drainage hasn't caused some issues, but can you guys admit that some developement should not have happened also? And maybe the fact that we've been in a wet cycle for 20 some years may have played a part as well? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted May 1, 2013 Author Share Posted May 1, 2013 http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/398284/ Yeah, rural landowners are the problem. When my families livelyhood is at stake these fine people are worried about their golf course. When my home was threatened by overland flooding I chose to build a ring dike around my property, I didn't ask anyone else to sacrifice their land or pay for it. You say permanent levees would not work? How have the makeshift levees and dikes been working then? Apparently these can work if Fargo wanted them to, they choose not to. You realize how many $9 million flood fights you could handle from $2 billion? You could afford to fight a record flood every year for 222 years! I won't say that some farm drainage hasn't caused some issues, but can you guys admit that some developement should not have happened also? And maybe the fact that we've been in a wet cycle for 20 some years may have played a part as well? What's your obsession with golf courses? Fargo is protecting houses that are not near any golf course they are also protecting city buildings, schools, churches, businesses, even a VA hospital which serves the RRV. Tell me what is more important to the state losing country land or losing your largest city? What about townships like Hickson or a major city like Fargo? Fargo didn't get the funds like GF and Wahpeton did back then for flood protection because Fargo didnt lose the city only a few neighborhoods. They since past a sales tax to collect the funds for flood walls, buyouts and dikes in parts of the city, but we don't have the funds for something major like a diversion. And you said it we are in a wet cycle which according to the NWS started around 1993. How many major floods hit Fargo before 1993? I think it was 79, one in the 1960's and the big one of 1897. Since the wet cycle started 20 years ago only a handful of years didn't produce a major flood. So Fargo needs protection and needs it now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 http://www.inforum.c...icle/id/398284/ Yeah, rural landowners are the problem. When my families livelyhood is at stake these fine people are worried about their golf course. When my home was threatened by overland flooding I chose to build a ring dike around my property, I didn't ask anyone else to sacrifice their land or pay for it. You say permanent levees would not work? How have the makeshift levees and dikes been working then? Apparently these can work if Fargo wanted them to, they choose not to. You realize how many $9 million flood fights you could handle from $2 billion? You could afford to fight a record flood every year for 222 years! I won't say that some farm drainage hasn't caused some issues, but can you guys admit that some developement should not have happened also? And maybe the fact that we've been in a wet cycle for 20 some years may have played a part as well? Fight a flood every year? Looks like you got tired of flooding and you build a system to prevent it. It's a pain in the ass to fight a flood every year. I grew up on a farm so don't get me started about paying for it myself BS. Farmers get subsidized: electricity, phone, water, fuel, sales tax, not to mention the farm bill. So that little dike is well paid for by the taxpayers. Biggest factor IMO is how well farmers have manicured their land in the valley to drain into the ditches. As soon as the colverts open the fields are all drained. 20 years ago those fields would hold the water for a week or more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Fight a flood every year? Looks like you got tired of flooding and you build a system to prevent it. It's a pain in the ass to fight a flood every year. I grew up on a farm so don't get me started about paying for it myself BS. Farmers get subsidized: electricity, phone, water, fuel, sales tax, not to mention the farm bill. So that little dike is well paid for by the taxpayers. Biggest factor IMO is how well farmers have manicured their land in the valley to drain into the ditches. As soon as the colverts open the fields are all drained. 20 years ago those fields would hold the water for a week or more. Ding ding ding...we have a winner! I grew up in rural central ND so I also know the "game" farmers use to their advantage with the subsidizes you mentioned above. Not saying some of them aren't needed but... It's become almost abusive if one really knows how to work the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Dakota Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I'm done trying to reason with you people. You guys have been brainwashed by your elected officials that the only way to protect Fargo is that diversion. Go ahead spend $2 billion on a diversion that you yourself said would only be needed a handful of times in the last 100 years. Makes sense to me! That project will end up like the Garrison diversion project, a giant money pit! I don't want to hear Fargo bitch about needing drinking water when the next drought takes hold either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 You guys have been brainwashed by your elected officials that the only way to protect Fargo is that diversion. There are other options to a diversion as have been mentioned in this thread. ALL those potential options involve some compromise by land owners along the Red. ALL these options have been shot down by land owners with the "not on my land " selfishness. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Dakota Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 There are other options to a diversion as have been mentioned in this thread. ALL those potential options involve some compromise by land owners along the Red. ALL these options have been shot down by land owners with the "not on my land " selfishness. You're wrong. There are options that involve only land owned by the city of Fargo and it's residents. They have all been shot down by selfishness too! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted May 1, 2013 Author Share Posted May 1, 2013 I'm done trying to reason with you people. You guys have been brainwashed by your elected officials that the only way to protect Fargo is that diversion. Go ahead spend $2 billion on a diversion that you yourself said would only be needed a handful of times in the last 100 years. Makes sense to me! That project will end up like the Garrison diversion project, a giant money pit! I don't want to hear Fargo bitch about needing drinking water when the next drought takes hold either. So cities with diversions will have drinking water problems?? Watch out Wahpeton, West Fargo, Grand Forks, and Winnipeg you guys will be dying of thirst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 You're wrong. There are options that involve only land owned by the city of Fargo and it's residents. They have all been shot down by selfishness too! Really?? What are these "permanent" fixes you speak of within the city limits of Fargo?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 You're wrong. There are options that involve only land owned by the city of Fargo and it's residents. They have all been shot down by selfishness too! Enlighten us? I don't like the diversion any better than anyone else but to get protection to 45' it's the only game in town. Unless we could get turn stops on all the main colverts to hold back the water on the fields until the rivers have crested. But to get all the water boards to agree to that would be like herding cats. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FargoBison Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 That precious farmland will only flood a handful of times every 100 years with a diversion. That is a lot better than the city of Fargo getting devastated by just one flood because a temporary levee failed or wasn't high enough. The city can only do so much to protect itself and it has been trying to do as much as possible ever since 1997. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxVolley Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Enlighten us? I don't like the diversion any better than anyone else but to get protection to 45' it's the only game in town. Unless we could get turn stops on all the main colverts to hold back the water on the fields until the rivers have crested. But to get all the water boards to agree to that would be like herding cats. The issue is that there were options that were half the price, but the political price was too high. When the US Federal government is taking on ridiculous debt, why whould Clay County or Moorhead dictate that the cheapest option can not be done, but citizens south of Fargo have no say with a diversion that is twice as expensive? A diversion around Moorhead is cheaper by nearly 50%, but Clay County politicians were dead set against it even if Fargo, N Dakota, and the Feds paid for it. Throw in a nicer hockey arena as a blatant bribe to Moorhead, and maybe the goverment and taxpayers would still be ahead by nearly a billion dollars. Effectively, this diversion version of the Fargo flood protection is $1 billion more than what could have happened if politicians just agreed to use tax payer money wisely and actually give FM protection earlier. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I think placing the blame upon farmers for flooding in a city that is built along the banks of a river is misguided at best............................. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I think placing the blame upon farmers for flooding in a city that is built along the banks of a river is misguided at best............................. I agree that casting total blame is misguided and no one suggested that. But not including them as part of the problem is ignorant and enabling. There are many components to why there has been increased flooding over the years and their improved drainage practices are certainly a component. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I agree that casting total blame is misguided and no one suggested that. But not including them as part of the problem is ignorant and enabling. There are many components to why there has been increased flooding over the years and their improved drainage practices are certainly a component. Wet cycle and drainage. Not too hard to understand. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I think placing the blame upon farmers for flooding in a city that is built along the banks of a river is misguided at best............................. BTW America was founded/built way back in the day on establishing cities/towns next to rivers and waterways for obvious reasons. Fargo being built next to the Red wasn't a novel concept. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 BTW America was founded/built way back in the day on establishing cities/towns next to rivers and waterways for obvious reasons. Fargo being built next to Red wasn't a novel concept. Agree!! I think every major city in America is near a river, lake or ocean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.