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