$1.8 billion Fargo flood ditch plan advancing

  • Article by: BILL McAULIFFE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: December 6, 2011 - 12:14 AM

The $1.8B diversion would erase three towns, nearby farms to free up 10 square miles as water holding areas.

  • 30
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
shushyn78Dec. 4, 11 9:10 PM

I met family members this summer in Fargo and was impressed at the commerce that was going on there. I also walked along the river near the downtown neighborhoods and got a firsthand look at how damaging a flood would be if it breeched the levee walls. It would totally inundate pleasant tree lined middle class neighborhoods you see in Anywhere, USA. The high water signs show they have come very close to breeching. The potential damage is startling considering there are no natural barriers with the miles and miles of flatland. Brilliant minds needed and lots of money to solve the flood problems.

10
8
mn2niceDec. 4, 11 9:43 PM

Unfortunately, this is the result of decades, if not over 100 years of poor floodplain management practices with regard to the Red River. When human activity takes precedence over not developing in a floodplain, humans and the environment pay a very high price. Experience says building a bigger arch, in this case a diversion, is not necessarily the best practice. Any structural adjustment can be overcome by nature. When will we learn to respect it, rather than attempt to control it.

21
2
kennyp81Dec. 4, 11 9:50 PM

The new found oil money can fund this, why is there any question?

25
3
starhawk01Dec. 4, 1110:34 PM

It's about time, that something was done to control the flooding in Fargo.This should have been done 70-80 years ago.I know one person, who beleaves the solution, would be the opposite, for fargo to be abandend to the floods,and a new fargo built elsewhere.You can bet the cost would be FAR higher.

5
13
samiamDec. 4, 1111:06 PM

I've seen too many North Dakotians brag lately about how well their state is doing and ow low their taxes are. Seems to me they can afford to pay for this themselves

23
6
milwaukeemnDec. 4, 1111:48 PM

Sounds like a plan. Better get starter sooner as costs only go up the longer you wait.

11
7
nomorepaperDec. 5, 11 6:13 AM

Less than twice the cost of a Vikings stadium. Seems like a bargain...

7
11
oldvinnieDec. 5, 11 7:04 AM

Why should we pay for anyone to live in the flood plain? What a joke! Tear down people's town just so Fargo has a place to store the flood water? Somebody's nutz!

19
9
JaysonRDec. 5, 11 7:21 AM

And meanwhile, every year miles and miles and miles of drain tile are laid in the Red River Valley. Hmmmm, wonder where that water ends up??????

22
1
mark44Dec. 5, 11 7:24 AM

Where are all the rabid ND Republicans claiming the federal gov't is taking over their towns and farms? Oh, I see, when it's the federal gov'ts money and something ND wants, then it's ok to strip people of their land for the "greater good".

15
6

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Can the Wild rally to win its playoff series against Colorado?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT