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

[Grizzled]

Don't care which side it is on just get something done. I could think of reasons to not wanting it on either side but its time something is finally done. The objecting on either side is only starting to cause a split between Fargo and Moorhead instead of bringing everyone together to get some form of protection. Its time that the big picture is looked at and thats protecting Fargo and Moorhead and I don't care where this thing has to go to finally get that done.

[Bison bison]

I hate democracies.

Guy #048327: Listen to me. I have an opinion. My opinion matters.




If I was the all-powerful ruler, this sh#t would have been done yesterday.

And anybody who didn't like how it was being done could donate their mass to the body of the diversion.

[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.

[roadwarrior]

Check out this short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahiw3I4D8jc