Page 21 of 55 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 549

Thread: Flood Watch 2013

  1. #201
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    West Fargo
    Posts
    2,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unbison View Post
    Fighting the flood is never a mistake.... In 97 they were fighting in grand forks as well..... Walaker this walaker that he is a blow hard..... Their last public flood meeting was a disgrace hold a meeting have a agenda comb your hair u r the mayor look presentable .... This is not the time to talk about your beloved ditch Denny lets work on this flood!
    There are two things that are going to happen this spring with Denny.

    1. His chicken little spouting of catastrophic flooding will actually happen (which isn't very likely) and he will have the public opinion ammo become more vocal and he gets his ditch.

    2. A normal, easy to manage flood will happen and Denny will crow 'til the cows come home that we got lucky. Dennis comes out looking not so bad without losing his present support for a big f'n ditch.

    It is a no lose situation for him. If it does flood badly he will say I told you so and if it doesn't we all just lucked out.

    Apparently the self proclamation of saving Fargo from flooding in '97 isn't enough of a legacy. The big Denny ditch will leave a forever etched impression on everyone.

    Enough bitching. Give me a valley backed comprehensive plan showing what we are getting, how we are going to pay for it, and when it will be completed. I so much get the feeling the cart is so far in front of the horse now it can't catch up.

    If everything said by ditch supporters is true, get 'er done. We don't even have one piece of research that suggests it is way more likely to help than to hurt. Right now it is maybe it will work because Denny is the river whisperer (too lazy to go back but credit for that goes to someone four some pages ago).

    unbison is right. You never stop fighting floods because that is what you do. If we ever have a huge flood, Denny will be the one on the highest ground telling us all how he told us so. I certainly don't trust him to lift a finger, so Fargo get used to being on your own.

    Lastly, if a diversion is the final answer, I want it to work by design, not by fluke. Better research is much needed. What is the exact possibility as retention being an option? What is the exact possibility of remaining in this just in time mitigation measures? Who will these options hurt? Finally, get objective and honest with the research. Quit cherry picking data to support one plan.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    NYC and Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    14,522
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Flood Watch 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by td577 View Post
    There are two things that are going to happen this spring with Denny.

    1. His chicken little spouting of catastrophic flooding will actually happen (which isn't very likely) and he will have the public opinion ammo become more vocal and he gets his ditch.

    2. A normal, easy to manage flood will happen and Denny will crow 'til the cows come home that we got lucky. Dennis comes out looking not so bad without losing his present support for a big f'n ditch.
    Aww, I don't like this kind of argument. Walaker was saying that there was going to be no problem this spring, but then the National Weather Service came out and said that there's a 10% chance of a record flood. In fact, it looks like you are completely misrepresenting what Walaker has said and done. Why would you do that? The only reason I can think of is that you want to set Walaker up as a strawman rather than argue the actual merits of the diversion. To me, that's just the same as portraying Fargo as some sort of evil empire all the time - completely wrong. There are valid arguments against a diversion, why not stick to those?

    What gets me is that this was a very normal winter except that it was dry as a bone this fall and there was a long period where it never got much above freezing through February and March. Yet, somehow the Fargo-Moorhead area is likely to see a crest the likes of which occurred only once before 1997 but has happened six times since. Is that Mayor Walaker's fault too?
    Last edited by tony; 04-01-2013 at 12:30 AM.
    Get your entries into the Bisonville dictionary: http://www.bisonville.com/fanguide/dictionary

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    13,880
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default Re: Flood Watch 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Bisonguy View Post
    If by wildlife hippie you mean farmers that wouldn't want to give up tens of thousands of acres of prime farmland to create a reservoir, I agree.



    Nice thought, but you'd need something 6-7 times the size of the Jamestown reservoir. Oh yeah, that's considering that you could make it 100 feet deep which the RRV geography would make rather difficult. In reality you would up taking at least 50-75k acres of farmland out of production, most likely significantly more acreage due to the lack of any depth. Heck, the diversion is a 35 mile, 1500 foot wide structure and they still plan on 30k acres of upstream retention. Of course, the diversion can drop the 100 year flood levels in Fargo more than 12 feet, whereas the 400k acre feet of storage that was proposed would only drop 100 year flood levels by less than 2 feet.

    Sounds pretty easy.
    You do a bunch of smaller ones. Lower the levels 1 to 2 feet at a time. Believe me 1 to 2 feet could be the difference. Do 1 per year for a decade or every other year.

    Easy? Not the work. But the concept is easy.
    No solution will be easy. Problem with the diversion it does nothing for a decade. I want fast results that wont get caught up in the buerocracy
    11X FOOTBALL NATIONAL CHAMPIONS! Since 1960, NDSU has more Football Championships than any team in the NFL , D1A, D1AA, or D2
    1965 - 1968 - 1969 - 1983 - 1985 - 1986 - 1988 - 1990 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013


  4. #204
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    your mom
    Posts
    4,387
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Flood Watch 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by gabe View Post
    You do a bunch of smaller ones. Lower the levels 1 to 2 feet at a time. Believe me 1 to 2 feet could be the difference. Do 1 per year for a decade or every other year.

    Easy? Not the work. But the concept is easy.
    No solution will be easy. Problem with the diversion it does nothing for a decade. I want fast results that wont get caught up in the buerocracy
    What do you do with all the dirt ?
    How do you create a stable 100' deep pond where you can't build a stable overpass ?

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Centralia, ND
    Posts
    17,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gabe View Post
    You do a bunch of smaller ones. Lower the levels 1 to 2 feet at a time. Believe me 1 to 2 feet could be the difference. Do 1 per year for a decade or every other year.
    The 400k acre feet of retention that they studied would drop a 100 year flood by less than 2 feet. 400k acre feet is about double the size of the Jamestown resevoir. Again, the diversion would drop that level by 12.4 feet.

    Easy? Not the work. But the concept is easy.
    No solution will be easy. Problem with the diversion it does nothing for a decade. I want fast results that wont get caught up in the buerocracy
    Fast results and you don't want to get caught up in bureaucracy?

    Seriously? There's enough bitching about the 200k acre feet of retention that the diversion has (Oxbox/Comstock area). Do you seriously believe that the 400k acre feet (i.e. double what is in the diversion plan) to drop the river less than 2 feet will be given up without any sort of a fight? How about the one million acre feet that Colin Peterson wanted? That would probably buy the metro 4 feet, still significantly less than the 12.4 that the diversion would provide.

    Look at this to see when the levees are built around town- http://www.cityoffargo.com/CityInfo/...Locations.aspx

    With a 42.5 foot flood once the diversion is in place, the only temporary dikes that would need to be built would be the 2nd street ones, and that would still give 3.5 feet before the oak street ones would need to be built. With the money saved from having to build so many temporary dikes, I would assume a permanent solution could be built fairly easily for 2nd street.



    Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Board Express
    Last edited by Bisonguy; 04-01-2013 at 02:10 AM.
    Proud member of TOHBTC. Team Cinzano Tested. Team Cinzano Approved



  6. #206
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    13,880
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default Re: Flood Watch 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Bisonguy View Post
    The 400k acre feet of retention that they studied would drop a 100 year flood by less than 2 feet. 400k acre feet is about double the size of the Jamestown resevoir. Again, the diversion would drop that level by 12.4 feet.


    Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Board Express
    The Jamestown reservoir is 3 man made lakes about 36 miles long. Thats bigger than the diversion project. Actually according to their website it is 2,095 surface acres and has 45 miles of shoreline.

    Im confused what's acre feet vs surface acres?
    11X FOOTBALL NATIONAL CHAMPIONS! Since 1960, NDSU has more Football Championships than any team in the NFL , D1A, D1AA, or D2
    1965 - 1968 - 1969 - 1983 - 1985 - 1986 - 1988 - 1990 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013


  7. #207
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bismarck, ND
    Posts
    3,352

    Default Re: Flood Watch 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by gabe View Post
    The Jamestown reservoir is 3 man made lakes about 36 miles long. Thats bigger than the diversion project. Actually according to their website it is 2,095 surface acres and has 45 miles of shoreline.

    Im confused what's acre feet vs surface acres?
    http://bit.ly/YMNu79 or ask your local hydrologist.

  8. #208
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hillsboro, ND
    Posts
    3,649

    Default Re: Flood Watch 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by gabe View Post
    The Jamestown reservoir is 3 man made lakes about 36 miles long. Thats bigger than the diversion project. Actually according to their website it is 2,095 surface acres and has 45 miles of shoreline.

    Im confused what's acre feet vs surface acres?
    acre feet is how much water it takes to cover an acre of land with a foot of water; surface acres is just how much square acres are covered.

  9. #209
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fargo, ND
    Posts
    1,549

    Default Re: Flood Watch 2013

    As stated, an acre-ft is a unit of volume. It's one acre in area one foot deep, or 43,560 cubic ft or 325,851 gallons. 500 acres at 10' depth would be 5,000 acre-ft, etc.

    Bisonguy is spot on. In the valley, it takes a ton of land to get to any appreciable volume of storage because we just don't have topography with deep valleys. The rivers that have favorable topography already have dams (Maple River Dam, Baldhill Dam, Reservation Dam/Mud Lake, Orwell Dam, and a ton of other smaller dams). For the Red River tributaries, the valleys disappear a long ways before their confluence with the Red, leaving the areas downstream of the dams uncontrolled. To store that uncontrolled water means storing it in shallow dams over large areas of farmland. And as Bisonguy mentioned, it would take 400,000 acre-ft of storage merely to drop the Red in Fargo by 2' on a 100-yr event. In my opinion, that plan would be much more difficult to implement (due to the sheer number of sites and the value of farmland) than the diversion, and Fargo would remain very vulnerable. Retention has a place in the ultimate plan, but it's not the best option for protecting Fargo.
    "Rugby is a beastly game played by gentlemen; soccer is a gentleman's game played by beasts; football is a beastly game played by beasts."
    - Henry Blaha

  10. #210
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hillsboro, ND
    Posts
    3,649

    Default Re: Flood Watch 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Civil06 View Post
    As stated, an acre-ft is a unit of volume. It's one acre in area one foot deep, or 43,560 cubic ft or 325,851 gallons. 500 acres at 10' depth would be 5,000 acre-ft, etc.

    Bisonguy is spot on. In the valley, it takes a ton of land to get to any appreciable volume of storage because we just don't have topography with deep valleys. The rivers that have favorable topography already have dams (Maple River Dam, Baldhill Dam, Reservation Dam/Mud Lake, Orwell Dam, and a ton of other smaller dams). For the Red River tributaries, the valleys disappear a long ways before their confluence with the Red, leaving the areas downstream of the dams uncontrolled. To store that uncontrolled water means storing it in shallow dams over large areas of farmland. And as Bisonguy mentioned, it would take 400,000 acre-ft of storage merely to drop the Red in Fargo by 2' on a 100-yr event. In my opinion, that plan would be much more difficult to implement (due to the sheer number of sites and the value of farmland) than the diversion, and Fargo would remain very vulnerable. Retention has a place in the ultimate plan, but it's not the best option for protecting Fargo.
    Retention would work if they used a comprehensive basin wide plan, but would take years and probably many more dollars than the diversion to implement, it probably would have been a better "plan" if they'd started on it back in 97...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •