Flood Control: Diversion--ND or MN?

[Junkmailrace]

Hi everyone, not sure if this is the proper forum for this or not but it seems like one of the more active message boards pertaining to Fargo-Moorhead. Anything that affects FM affects NDSU and vice-versa.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the permanent flood control solutions on the table?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahiw3I4D8jc makes a strong case for North Dakota. I am interested in any counterpoints to support the Minnesota side.

[lakesbison]

NORTH DAKOTA. Minnesota is 5-8 feet higher in elevation, and no one lives south and west and north of Fargo!! its a no brainer. Plus more people travel to Detroit Lakes, etc, imagine the traffic headaches, no one really goes west

[roadwarrior]

Plus more people travel to Detroit Lakes, etc, imagine the traffic headaches, no one really goes west

Why would this matter? I think they are planning on having bridges built over the diversion channel!

[roadwarrior]

The diversion on the ND side is the only way to protect Fargo from a 500 year flood, and protect Fargo and West Fargo from overland flooding from the tributary rivers to the Red.

[GOB1SON]

Why would this matter? I think they were planning on having bridges built over the diversion channel!

Kind of what I was thinking. Not sure how a diversion would back up traffic. Maybe the construction?

And imagine the horror if you arrived at your lake cabin 5 minutes late Friday night.

Well I'm convinced. Despite the fact that it will cost 400 million more, a ND diversion it is. After all, the last thing we need is a bunch of pissed off doctors and lawyers that can't get out to DL for the weekend.

[roadwarrior]

Something I found out at a meeting last week: The Corps is estimating that it will cost $75 million to move the BNSF railroad yard in Dilworth. The BNSF however estimates it would could cost $200 million to move. If you use the railroad's estimate, the cost/benefit ratio of the MN diversion jumps up quite a bit almost to make it equal to the cost/benefit of a ND side diversion.

[lakesbison]

Plus Hwy 10 and I 94 and hwy 75 and hwy 9 are all high traffic spots.

north dakota has I 29 and I 94.

if it starts by oxbow and goes around fargo to west, it will encompass fargo/west fargo and stop the sprawl into the wetlands south and west of fargo in which we got this problem in the first place.
My father used to hunt pheasants/ducks just south and west of fargo, and now people have been building on a sloough for 20 years, duh, of course its gonna flood.

[Facts]

NORTH DAKOTA. Minnesota is 5-8 feet higher in elevation, and no one lives south and west and north of Fargo!! its a no brainer. Plus more people travel to Detroit Lakes, etc, imagine the traffic headaches, no one really goes west

Lakes,
Were you also against all the recent road construction on Hwy 10 to DL and hwy 34 in PR?
I'm as impatient as the next guy, but we're all gonna have to take our lumps on this one, regardless of which side of the Red the diversion is placed.

[MNLonghorn10]

build it right down main street in dilworth

[rutlandbison]

NORTH DAKOTA. Minnesota is 5-8 feet higher in elevation, and no one lives south and west and north of Fargo!! its a no brainer. Plus more people travel to Detroit Lakes, etc, imagine the traffic headaches, no one really goes west

I do. And you basically just singled out about 80% of the population of North Dakota. Build throught DL. It's a fake city anyway.