# Fargo Flood Protection



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

A lot of people are up in arms about Fargo mayor Dennis Walaker going to DC and asking for Fargo flood protection to be on the stimulus bill. This is kind of a state issue related to ND so I know there will be some people on here that have no idea about this.

I understand the sentiment that it should not be on the stimulus bill if you want to call it a pork project, the other argument is that this will create a lot of jobs in Fargo. It is a safe assumption that the money from this project would get spread outside of ND, given the size of the project there is talk that a lot of big contractors from out of state or region will be bidding on it.

The Red River flooding has several factors: the ottertail (MN), the Bois De Sioux (Lake Traverse, MN), the sheyenne, the Wild rice which gets fed at Teauwakon, and our own water from ND and MN. It is safe to say the wild rice and Lake Traverse catch some water from SD. The Army Corps of Engineers has the Orwell Dam on Lake Traverse, many people have correctly placed some of the blame for our flooding issues on them.

I do not understand why South Fargo taxpayers should have to foot the bill for flooding that has so many variables. Gov Hoeven does not have Fargo Flood Control in his budget for this legislature, a very bizarre and presumptuous mistake. The flood projects in Grand Forks, East Grand Forks, Breckenridge, and Wahpeton have all got fed cash.

Fire away :sniper:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

any time funds can be spent proactively to mitigate imminent disaster, in this case the record snow pack and runoff are already known factors, it is money well spent, rather than funds spent on disaster clean up....hope you guys get some help up there and soon!


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I agree this needs to be done ASAP. My thoughts on funding are use the same proportion as the GF/EGF project. As an individual homeowner our share (city) was more than what the state put in. Which cost me +/- $1600 based upon my lot size. I am not complaining. Fargo's project costs should be cheaper per capita. Way more folks to spread the cost.
GET ER DONE..................


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

In response to the first question, I was saddened to see him make the statement "its our turn" regardless if it is or not. However why should he be catching any grief for asking when Congress just dumped the biggest pork spending bill we have ever seen in this country on us. If Denny's actions upset you do not take it out on him. Take it out on those that created a climate where people feel entitled to go to Washington and ask for money for any project or idea and more time than not get it!

Ed Schultz was ranting about Denny, and yet he defended the Gem car pork spending and a host of others as being either the direction we as a nation are trying to go in regards to green projects or that other states are in worse finical situations.

Basically saying that because our elected officials have run a tight fiscal ship we should be punished and those who spend Willy nilly should be rewarded!!!!!!!

So pay attention to the threads question and not get into a debate about what the flood project should be. It is this lack of focus that has caused much of what is taking place today. *No accountability of our elected officials as long as they bring home the pork!!!!!!*

Denny is not the one you should be looking at or concerned with it is the Three Stooges,Dorgan,Pomeroy,Conrad and now the leader of the cartoon, NObama!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Sorry Ron

You are absolutely right. I shouldn't have hijacked the thread like that, I sidetracked it from the original intent, and so I split it off on its' own.

Carry on. TK33 (and you) made a valid point...

Is Denny a R or a D? I guess I never knew...

Curious to see what others think.

Ryan


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

IMO, it is hypocritical to call our reps out for pork. There would be very few states getting anything from the feds, california would be a bigger drain on our country than they already are. It would be very difficult for ND to fund any large scale at all without help from DC. You could kiss our surplus goodbye.

I have no complaints about paying a $1600 assessment, I hope it stays that low. Since genius hoeven left fargo's flood control out of the state budget I am not so sure my assessment will be that low.



> However why should he be catching any grief for asking when Congress just dumped the biggest pork spending bill we have ever seen in this country on us. If


This is still a federal problem given the lack of control of water flow from MN and SD. Ground water varies but the direction of the flow stays the same.



> i agree with ryan that they need about a 50,000 acre wetland south of fargo and another south of forks


At $4,000/acre it would cost $200 million just for the dirt. I have heard of auctions at both ends of the valley that went for over $4,000/acre. The recent study from UND about waffling the water will be interesting if it is ever put into action. They claimed that waffling would only delay planting 5 days, that seems a little short. I guess if it is waffling or a class action suit farmers might be better served to waffle and take the payment.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

IMO

Denny is a moderate D, given his other political allies in city gov't.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

TK33 you are so very wrong on this, first off not every project is pork, but let's look at Fargo alone!!!!

Take the Fed Court House, now I was around when that was being proposed in Congress, it was needed, no doubt, but the add on costs for the fixtures and such is a waste. Then let's look at the bridge across the Red. Project that was needed, but Dorgan and Peterson put earmarks into the bill for beautification that resulted in a 30% increase in cost!!!!!!! Those are just a few and I can give you more.

Take for example the City of Fargo a couple years back. In their long term planning had thought that maybe they might need to put another access either over or under I-29 somewhere between 32nd Av s and I-94! The city spent money on a study which was intentionally geared to provide them with the data they could use to build that access. This in an area where 97% of all available lots single and multi family homes where sold and built on.
What came out finally was that the city had money for the access from the Gov and would lose it if not used. Sound a bit familiar with the current flood project? But back to the access on I-29, the neighborhood soundly said no it was not needed or wanted. I have more if you want them!

We could have fixed the ailing bridges, highways, provided money for water treatment plants, water projects and a host of other things and employed the same amount of people covered natural disasters and not broken the bank and would not have had to move the age of benefits for Social Security.

So yes I can call them out and every other pork barrel spending politician for wasting tax dollars and not minding the store with Freddie and Fannie which really lit the fuse on the sub prime market collapse.

Do not try and attempt to defend pork barrel spending as being good overall. While it may have a short term benefit, the impact of deficit spending is in large part the reason we are struggling getting liquid funds back into the economy which really is what is going to be needed to revive this nation. The Fed government debt, competes with Mom and Pop businesses, new and pre owned home buyers for credit and capital. If you do not understand that simple principal then I suggest some heavy reading before you reply to this!

Spending on non necessary items use to be looked down upon in Congress. Now people are pushing to get to the trough before someone else. So what does the Gov do? Puts out a bigger trough so that more people can get to it faster with no thought on how that feeding frenzy affects those who do their job, work hard.

That attitude has infected almost every level of Gov from local on up. In our state about the only taxing group that has not went nuts is the townships because most township boards are made up of landowners and they understand the need to be fiscally responsible.

So yes our Three Stooges need to be booted out, and so do a lot of others in Washington. I and others have been sounding the warnings on over spending and pork. Spending needs to be at sustainable levels which should be figured at the lower end of revenue not the high end.

Conrad ran around after 9/11 and the Bush tax cuts and stimulus claiming that under Clinton we has a surplus!!!!!!!!! His figures where based on continued growth and increasing taxation. At an open forum I challenged him on this and so did others stating that if he used current revenue and projected growth that there would have been no surplus and in fact would have resulted in lower revenue to the Gov. These facts where provided by the CBO! The same people who told us that doing nothing would have had a better affect on the economy and long term growth than spending all this pork money!!!!!!!!!!!

If anyone of us ran our business like Dorgan,Conrad and Pomeroy are voting to run this country we would all be either broke and out of work or in jail for fraud. I think it is about the funniest frigging thing I have ever seen watching these three act so indigent and distraught over the financial institutions behavior. They are doing the same thing with pork projects only people it seems like you are fooled into thinking somehow all this wasteful spending is somehow good.

Keep in mind that not all spending by the Gov is bad and I understand that people have different levels of priority for money, but until people understand that our country is bankrupt and we need to reorganize and cut back to priority needs just like any other entity that gets in over their head.

The city of Fargo is heading for the same rude awakening in the next year. Sales tax collections are going to drop, housing values are stagnant at best and probably decline as people will not be able to refinance and buy home on the market.

One of the people I know up the street and over has had 5 offers on his home in the last 4 months! All 5 have fallen through because pre qualified people could not get a loan at a rate that would allow them to afford the home if fuel prices rise back up!

I can and will lay a good share of that at the feet of our Congressional delegation. From votes on energy policy to wasted money that increased the debt that competes with the home buyer.

You I am sure planned on coming back with all the good things they have done. Well before you do that, check out the city of Princeton MN and the benefactor they had. All the while he was dumping donations for civic projects and such, people never really asked where this money was coming from. They soon knew when he was busted as a major drug dealer and smuggler. So while he did good things, it did not offset the bad things he was doing and it tainted that town to this day.

The Stooges live by the creed of "If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you always have Paul's vote!"


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> TK33 you are so very wrong on this, first off not every project is pork, but let's look at Fargo alone!!!!


You and your buddy Schultz categorizing this as a pork project, not me. here are your words:



> So pay attention to the threads question and not get into a debate about what the flood project should be. It is this lack of focus that has caused much of what is taking place today. No accountability of our elected officials as long as they bring home the pork!!!!!!


I agree that not all projects are pork, but nowadays every earmark is labeled pork. I don't think this is a pork project but I understand people's views who think this is pork that do not know anything about the issue. Do you think that our local economy would be as durable as it is now without some of the earmarks that our three reps have brought back? Until such time as all earmarks are gone I would just as soon have a delegation that gets us a piece of the action. You never answered the question on who should pay for this flood project, nor did you address the issue of which state gets the federal dollars. We would not stand a chance in the house with a weak rep.

You want to cut the spending, great, sounds good, why hasn't anyone else thought of this? You are pointing out the obvious. I am looking at things in the now, this is the mess we are in and we have to deal with it.

As I said, I support any federal dollars that come our way. If we are being overtaxed then the least our elected officals could do is bring some of that tax money back here.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

TK33 spending is spending period. I am in the proposed flood district, I am one of the lucky ones based on my homes elevation that will be in the 500 year plain and will not be required to buy the insurance, but have it anyway.

I did not say that this project is pork, what I said was that Denny under the current climate of going to the Feds for money should not be looked down on. He would be remiss not to. But it does not change the fact that this project could be funded at the local level as well as other needed projects by those who live in the area. The problem with the current approach is that they have singled out only the south side residents in this even though other areas outside of the assessment district will benefit, and there are projects farther north that need doing as well which south Fargo will not benefit from. The drive to get federal dollars has these as separate projects instead of a overall comprehensive flood project.

Couple that with the fact that what is proposed will not protect us from a 500 year flood, just get a majority of current owners out of the 100 year flood plain and eliminate the need for mandated coverage.

You chastise Hoven for not including flood projects in his budget, but my guess was that he like many in Bismarck where aware of the Fed dollars that where going to be doled out. So you have no issue with Fed dollars coming in, why then is that not OK for the Gov and the Leg to wait and see what comes before they act?

I am not down playing the flooding threat, but the city leaders either are confident in funding protection, or they should not have built a brand new library in one of the most flood prone and vulnerable areas of the city.

What has been apparent is the lack of common sense in regards to these issues. The city has always assumed that the state, and Fed where going to be there to carry the load instead of planning to carry the load themselves and then take what help comes. This project should have been a priority funding project. There are many programs that the city funds that have been increased or added that do not meet a priority level. But the council and mayors, as a whole have shunned this responsibility and now want someone else to pay the way.

The lack of foresight is underscored by robbing dollars out of the Dome fund making it likely that it will become insolvent to build a BB arena. If the BB arena is that vital, then fund it and pay for it up front, instead of pushing financial responsibility down the road! Gee!!! Doesn't that sound familiar?

By the way I think there should be some Fed input of dollars because Fargo is vital to the state of ND. I also think some money should come from Bismarck as well and we need funding for other water projects also. But Denny's statement left a lot of people feeling that either he is arrogant which is a separate issue.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I think that Hoeven's omission of flood funds was presumptuous. I will never understand that, the delegation may have told them that funds were coming but a wise man would have put it in his budget. If and when the fed dollars come in then figure out the state's contribution, then during re-election campaigning he could point out how he saved money from his budget.



> TK33 spending is spending period


Even if the money spent turns out dividends? What about the positive gov't projects?



> The lack of foresight is underscored by robbing dollars out of the Dome fund making it likely that it will become insolvent to build a BB arena. If the BB arena is that vital, then fund it and pay for it up front, instead of pushing financial responsibility down the road! Gee!!! Doesn't that sound familiar?


I think it is the SOP for Fargo  
Fargo should take some lessons on spending period, legislature tries to cut taxes, park and school board just spend more. Call it assessments, specials, fees, and so on it is all the same thing: taxes.

I agree that the burden is way past Fargo, it is way past ND too. This is a fed project, as much as it pains me too see them do it.

I am still up in the air on FEMA insurance, my place was free and clear in 97. Since then we have had drain 27 and Rose Creek improvements. I did up my sewer insurance, lessons learned from others in the past FEMA will try to call everything sewer backup unless the whole neighborhood is obliterated. That too is another issue :lol:

I think Denny was doing his job, I am not going to fault him for anything. Arrogant or otherwise.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

You guys remember gravity being mentioned way back in grade school. This is typical BS from people who are trying to create useless projects and make a profit off of them.

Red River lesson:

Water flows downhill.
Water freezes and thaws at 32 degrees.
Water thaws at the top of the hill (south)and runs down hill (north)..*gravity*.
Water that is running down the hill gets backed up by water that is not thawed.

You guys are beyond your own comprehension!!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Which is more presumptuous, waiting to see what happens in Washington or going to Washington and stating before the entire nation


> *it is our turn!*


Every dollar spent by any form of Gov is tax dollars that have been collected or are a promise to pay by Gov leaders concerning future dollars. Just so you grasp this, it is very easy to lose sight of this and for some reason think that Fed money is somehow different than local money. It really is not, it is taxes being paid or a promise to pay by others in the future by politicians.

Taxes are taxes, spending is spending. If you do not understand this and realize it, you will never figure out that the fix for the economy is reduced spending not increased spending and that our elected officials locally are not minding the store very well be it at the city council or the school board and county level, but they get a better grade in being fiscally responsible than either of the other two and especially the Three Stooges!

So once again, Denny and the council approved plans for flood protection without any idea as to how it will be paid for fully. There plan was Gov and State aid in doing so. Pretty arrogant and irresponsible to do this and at the same time increase spending or continue to fund projects that are not at the same level of priority before funding flood control if what Denny and others keep saying that it is so vital!

The arrogance comes in thinking others will pay for it and feeling that they are entitled to get what they ask for.

So address the real issue, and put them in the proper perspective by understanding that spending is spending and it is all tax dollar obligations and because of that, prioritizing where money is spent is critical.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Red River lesson:
> 
> Water flows downhill.
> Water freezes and thaws at 32 degrees.
> ...


Thanks for clearing that up :wink: 
Actually, stagnant water freezes at 32 degrees, and apparently from your last example your solution is to dynamite all bridges that cause ice jams every spring. Our bridge contractors would elect you governor in a heartbeat. I have no idea what this has to do with the debate of who is responsible for paying for this but whatever. You should take your physical science knowledge and teach it to the corps of engineers. I agree that ice jams are a problem but it is not the only problem, if we had a flood plan ice jams could be a minor inconvenience fixed by a long stick backhoe. You have to address where the water is coming from, you mentioned the south but you forgot the east (MN) and the west (SD). The Red forms in Wahp/Breck from the OT and Bois De Sioux rivers. Some of this appears to be beyond your comprehension :wink:

Gilmore:
I understand (for the second time) all your talk about spending and defecits but this is the current system we have to deal with. I think it was foolish to leave flood protection out of the state budget and maybe it was arrogant for Walaker to go to DC to get money, what if the senate would have blocked some of the spending in the stimulus package? It would have been prudent to have these plans funded before putting them into action and getting the 11 million or whatever to start this project, that is now in use it or lose it mode. I would prefer that we fix our local and state gov'ts sooner than later but right now we need to get this funded and the project done. As you know your flood insurance payment goes to FEMA, so it is just more money going to the gov't. Either we keep the current system of diking when we need to and buying flood insurance, both an expense to the taxpayer or we get this project done.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

That is the point, FEMA gets the money for flood insurance, take the city and surrounding area that is going to be affected by the new flood map. If you simply take the cost of insurance that will be paid, flood controls equal to what they are proposing can be paid for over a 20 year period of time. That is being responsible with planing and financing we do this all the time with projects. Like the Dome, library etc. Granted those where done with a sales tax and they also where done with the backing of the public with a vote.

This project is so far from being practical it is not even funny. We have the issue of how what is done on our side of the river affecting those on the east. We have studies showing that these plans only are offering small measures of protection in inches that down stream will actually push levels higher!

We need to do something, but the current plans are so far from being responsible, that the problem became compounded with the delays for years in pursuing this and now to avoid losing $11 million are rushing forward with ill thought out plans.

So yes this is nothing more than a bad pork project and deserves to be exposed as such! When a proper plan is in place, we then should seek funding not before!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If the BB arena is that vital


That says it all for me. It sounds like the mayor and city council have their priorities screwed up. We try teach our children that they can play after they do their homework. Those who run Fargo evidently want to play before they worry about floods. :eyeroll:



> As I said, I support any federal dollars that come our way. If we are being overtaxed then the least our elected officals could do is bring some of that tax money back here.


That is what every state and every large city thinks. In the end they gobble up money just to get it. That is what got us to this point. Irresponsible spending killed the lending agencies and now that they have blazed that trail Obama and company are rushing down the same cleared path.

The country is going to spend itself to death and Fargo wants to help?

As far as getting our share TK, we get about four bucks for every dollar paid in. Don't keep saying give us our fair share, it might happen.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Thanks for clearing that up
> Actually, stagnant water freezes at 32 degrees, and apparently from your last example your solution is to dynamite all bridges that cause ice jams every spring. Our bridge contractors would elect you governor in a heartbeat. I have no idea what this has to do with the debate of who is responsible for paying for this but whatever. You should take your physical science knowledge and teach it to the corps of engineers. I agree that ice jams are a problem but it is not the only problem, if we had a flood plan ice jams could be a minor inconvenience fixed by a long stick backhoe. You have to address where the water is coming from, you mentioned the south but you forgot the east (MN) and the west (SD). The Red forms in Wahp/Breck from the OT and Bois De Sioux rivers. Some of this appears to be beyond your comprehension


TK quit playing dumb!! You know as well as I do this can't be done., there are way to many variables in nature. For one I suppose you will ignore hydrostatic pressure right. I suppose you will have to tile or line your man made lake to keep it from leaching away. Wait a minute that is the very thing you consider the problem right... ???I suppose you want it named after yourself too?? :lol:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about,
I have no idea what this has to do with the debate,
What is this lake you are talking about? I think you have me confused with someone else.



> As far as getting our share TK, we get about four bucks for every dollar paid in. Don't keep saying give us our fair share, it might happen


How much of that is non-farm money? I have seen that number before, when people throw that number out they are forgettting that most of that $4 is keeping consumer's food costs down. Now you sound like you have spent some time on the left coast. 

I don't know what our fair share here is South Fargo is, I do know that this is not solely Fargo's problem. My point when I started this thread was that MN and SD are a part of this mess, thus making it a federal job. Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon of hating Fargo. Everyone is very quick to forget that other flood plans have been done with federal dollars. Fargo also has had the luxury of having enough cash and contractors around to quickly build dikes, so we have been pushed to the back of the line and now we should get screwed because we had the ability to wait our turn? Seems weird, if Fargo had burned, or our dikes failed, etc we would have gotted a flood system in place years ago, like forks and breck. but anyway this is a porker, it isn't a porker, whatever, I will have to get my checkbook out.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

tk33 you continue to miss the big picture on this particular project. You just stated that this issue is multi state and that problems up stream are as much a factor. GF faced the same issue and so did Whap and Breck. What was there solution? Fortify existing levees and building a by pass around the city just like WF did. What is our solution?

Push the water through faster at higher velocity which increases stress on existing dikes throughout the rest of the system increasing the likelihood of a breach which while not as large an area would result in the same type of flooding that New Orleans dealt with.

Most everyone I have spoken with is in favor of flood protection, but not the expensive ill designed projects that are being given to us as of now. That offer very little in actual increased protection, but will satisfy a Gov mandate to avoid the payment of insurance. Thus the reason this project is being labeled a PORK PROJECT. Lots of activity and very little substance.

I have attended every meeting regarding this. Have spoken with city officials from the council to the engineers as well as people from FEMA. My house sits above the proposed 500 year level, but I really do care about the city of Fargo and am truly disappointed in the fact that this is being rammed through because of the lost of $11 million dollars. Address this issue and why suddenly flood protection is important when it has not been the past 12 years.

I know that GF and Breck all had needs, but Fargo had needs as well, but those in the past have sat on their hands and now suddenly we should build a bad project for the sake of getting Fed dollars?

You can put a pig in a dress, but it still is a pig!!!!!!

Lets get to the real meat of this issue. This is nothing short of a classica example of pork barrel projects that will really do little other than waste tax dollars leaving many exposed and shifting risk to others unfairly!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> tk33 you continue to miss the big picture on this particular project. You just stated that this issue is multi state and that problems up stream are as much a factor


No, I got your point loud and clear again. You and Plainsman are both kind of re-inventing the wheel. You want to fix the system first, then fix the other things. It has been 12 years since the last big flood and we are next to nowhere in Fargo. How many more years is Fargo left exposed? We have had to foot the flood bill how many times and now FEMA wants Fgo/Mhd residents to pay for flood insurance on top of this. I don't like it, I don't know how many people are opposed to this particular flood plan, but where have they been for the last 12 years? We are getting close to crunch time and now they want to start over from scratch again? How many years will it take to develop a new plan? You would think that someone would be smart enough to drive up to Winnipeg and see what they have come up with.

Take the 11 million and raise the dikes, then figure out a long term solution (diversion) after the funding is in place.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You and Plainsman are both kind of re-inventing the wheel.


No reinventing here TK. I'm just saying the stimulus package isn't stimulus, it will eventually hurt the economy, and it's simply an eight year liberal wish list. Mostly anyway.

If this is such a good flood prevention plan why has it not received funding through normal channels. I'm not against Fargo getting federal funds, or helping them out. What I am saying is if it's so good why has it not already been implemented. It just looks like pigs at a trough when they go after it because they smell money. It appears that the whole country needs money and a buy out. BS.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> If this is such a good flood prevention plan why has it not received funding through normal channels. I'm not against Fargo getting federal funds, or helping them out.


The logic I got from a city engineer is that we were prioritized bottom due to our ability to take care of ourselves here in the big city. As far as the plan goes, raising and fortifying the dikes has always been the plan as far as I have heard. I have never heard of any structures. I have no clue why the diversion idea has come up again, I thought it was scrapped about 2001, I still like the idea but we need to get something up in the near future. One of these years we will get it.

A lot of what has been said about this project is rumor and speculation, I realize that. There is no perfect flood plan, just like anything else no one will be completely happy. I don't like seeing the gov't waste money but I really hate the idea of South Fargo residents wasting money on FEMA crap flood insurance.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Tk33 I do not remember the cost of fighting the flood on average, but I do remember that at one of the council meetings or open forums, it was pointed out that we have on average the need for major flood work once every 5-7 years which has increased in frequency as the city moved south. Given the cost of the proposed project and cost of fighting the flood I think the figure was with inflation that we would most likely not spend the money proposed over a 50 year period in protecting Fargo if we continue to do what we have been doing.

So to say that we need to move now implying that if we do not we are in grave danger is just an attempt to sensationalize this subject in order to move it forward. Sounds a lot like the way the stimulus package was presented.

Yes we need to do something, but it should be the right thing, not the wrong thing that give the appearance of action. You may not like to hear this, but there is not the overall general support for any of these plans. What the people where told is this! We are going to do A,B,C etc.. so pick one and that is what you will get even though if falls short of what we really should be doing which is building to withstand a 250 year flood and having the capability to shore it up to withstand a 500 year flood.

So if you think we are re-inventing the wheel you are sadly mistaken. The goal should be to produce a flood control project with real protection and not one that simply gets insurance costs off the backs of some home owners and does little in dealing with flooding concerns of the magnitude that caused GF to go under.

Why else where flood control plans rolled out without any input from MHD or those on the MN side of the river? The reason is as I said before the attempt to retain $11 million in funding nothing more.

The council and those involved with this have avoided this question continually. People want flood control, we as a general population are willing to pay for it as well. Most everyone understands that insurance costs just as well go into flood protection vs a FEMA account, but none of the current plans are offering any real security.

So once again address the real issue here which is the $11 million dollars, because most everyone now is aware of it and why these hoc us pocus plans have been presented.

It also has been 6 months or more from when Mike Williams said that talks and plans where under way with Mhd and others in MN. Yet Denny goes to Washington asking for funds for flood protection on behalf of the people of Fargo. Just what plan that will not be stopped in court did he present? Because there is not a single Fed Judge that would not halt the construction of a flood project without MN and Clay,Wilkin, and others not signing off on it.

This flood funding is putting the cart before the horse, because you really do not know what will or will not be agree to unless things that should be public information is being hidden, from us. So tell me where can I see a comprehensive plan that has the approval of all the Gov bodies that can and will be affected by the Flood project that funding is being sought for?

I will await the link that shows the Gov agencies that have put their approval on it!

My guess is I will be waiting a long time!!!!!!!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> I have no idea what the hell you are talking about,


That does not surprise me.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

The city of Fargo should have seen this coming a long time ago. Fargo officials have known and been involved with the FEMA flood plan map updates for some time. They continued to spend money on nonessentials and now it's an emergency. Why should the rest of the state bail Fargo out? TK33 quit blaming the state and look to your own city officials. Fargo gets the vast majority of state funding already and now Fargo wants the rest, as the western part of the state's infrastructure falls apart.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Long shot there is an old saying that makes sense, do not starve the race horse to feed the nag! From a purely economic factor Fargo and GF along with the Ag sector have been and will again be the bulk of where development and with it tax revenue will be generated. Bismarck has become a viable contender as well in this regard.

So as to not make this an east west thing, stop and look at it from an overall perspective in regards to practicality. There are definate needs out west and if you will notice responsible legislation regarding those needs has seen very solid support from the eastern Leg even when in a selfish manner the people in the east would benefit more by them not agreeing and stopping legislation.

The issue I have with the Fargo project is not so much that they asked for money, but that the plan they ask money for is a bad plan and also one that has so many legal road blocks in its way that it will not happen. tk33 is not responding to this issue. Instead wants people to believe we want the revolution of responsibility in this nation to start here!


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Long shot there is an old saying that makes sense, do not starve the race horse to feed the nag! From a purely economic factor Fargo and GF along with the Ag sector have been and will again be the bulk of where development and with it tax revenue will be generated. Bismarck has become a viable contender as well in this regard.
> 
> So as to not make this an east west thing, stop and look at it from an overall perspective in regards to practicality. There are definate needs out west and if you will notice responsible legislation regarding those needs has seen very solid support from the eastern Leg even when in a selfish manner the people in the east would benefit more by them not agreeing and stopping legislation.
> 
> The issue I have with the Fargo project is not so much that they asked for money, but that the plan they ask money for is a bad plan and also one that has so many legal road blocks in its way that it will not happen. tk33 is not responding to this issue. Instead wants people to believe we want the revolution of responsibility in this nation to start here!


I understand that Ron, but Fargo has known of this for some time and ignored it. That is my point. They have known before and throughout the updating of the FEMA maps and made no preparation. That is my point. Now you can talk about population and tax bases, but where did most of this surplus come from. It came from mostly oil money and the oil industry has put a lot of wear and tear on the western infrastructure. It was poor planning on the part of the City of Fargo and now they expect a "bail out".


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I will be the first one to acknowledge that the oil boom is a large part of the surplus. I also agree that attention to the issues you mentioned need addressing and I pointed out that the eastern Leg body has been in support of this if you look at the votes in the House and Senate so far.

That being said, the fact remains that Fargo from a revenue collection position is the most vital single entity in the state year in and year out. The surplus dollars that have come into the coffers the last 10 years has been in the Valley region with the majority coming from Fargo area.

So is it prudent to flush this revenue generator down the Red simply to prove a point?

My beef as I pointed out is with why they moved poor plans forward and why they are attempting to seek money now when they do not have a collective agreement in place between parties involved in this. The only way Fargo can move forward without legal action being taken is if they have a zero impact to property on the east side of the river and the dikes and levee program they have offered do not do this.

So we can debate the merits of if the Leg should or should not provide funding but that is not really the crux of this issue at least for me. Heck we could not get MN to agree to allow water from DL to end up in the Red, tell me how they are going to agree to having land and property affected by water from a flood project on the ND side of the river?

So TK33 the people of Fargo and the rest of the state are not going to accept being treated as mushrooms. Give us the list of affected Gov entities that have signed on to the project Denny sought funding for?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ron, it's sounds like Denny only had one plan available. He seen money to be had, grabbed the plan he had, even though it was bad, and run with it. Does that about sum it up? That's the problem all over the country. They see money pouring into the trough and want some even if they don't have a good plan in place to use it. They all want their share.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Plainsman I think you are being a bit over simplistic. My thought on this is that the intent was to use the money as a hammer to sway public support. With money and less possible tax increases people will blindly support something even when it is a bad plan.

History repeats itself but some seem a bit unwilling or unable to look back and actually do some research instead of simply assuming what they have heard or been told is accurate. One prime and most glaring example of this is FDR's handling of the recession. Carters protectionism, NObamas plan and Denny's flood project!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, I was trying to understand what you were saying.



> They see money pouring into the trough and want some even if they don't have a good plan in place to use it. They all want their share.





> My thought on this is that the intent was to use the money as a hammer to sway public support.


Hammer, bait, appeal to greed they will all work. I guess I don't see where we disagree.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

No not really just pointing out that with the money in hand for Project A people will want that instead of Project B which is a better solution a better plan and possibly a cheaper plan, but Project A has some money from the state or Feds attached so that drives the bus!

I noticed tk33 has not graced us tonight with any info. Will have to keep this current daily until we get the agencies that have signed off on the plan Denny pitched!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good Morning Ron,

I'm certainly not up to speed on things happening in Fargo, and you evidently have a better handle on it than 95% who live in that city. Once alerted by you I simply hate to see money wasted on a bad plan. I know Fargo is valuable to our state economy, but more than that it's a small world and the people of Fargo are not just fellow North Dakotan's they are our neighbors. Good luck this spring.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

What I don't understand is why if you have all those problems over there why do you want to be there? Why would anyone want to add to the giant problem to make it even bigger. Maybe the state should limit growth in flood areas, and anyone who knowingly builds in a flood area will not be insured. You know even the cavemen knew not to build in lowlands. :lol:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Then townships and counties also should build roads through wetland areas or if a bridge or culvert is washed away have any state or fed money to fix them as well. Buckeye the fact remains that Fargo, and the RRV are as important to this state and its economy as much as any other part of the state if not more.

Your ramblings on this are just that ramblings. I agree there are areas that should never be built upon. Over the past 10 years many of those trouble areas have been converted back into green ways. I suggest you get a better understanding of the issue, including Bismarck and Mandan. The Garrison Dam is not there soley for electric generation it was put in place as a means of flood control. Maybe Bismarck should be gone from the map because without the Dam it would not have grown as it has.

You want to kick the can, well be aware that others can kick it back. More than a 1/3 of the entire states population live in the RRV region. Over half of the population of the state would be negatively impacted by the loss of services that Fargo and the RRV provide. I can go on and on, but only to make the point of fiscal impact. We as Plainsman said are all ND residents and neighbors. It is why I have been vocal on this issue, as I see not only Fargo being poorly served but the state as well with the current path. However that does not mean the idea and principals of flood protection are wrong nor the need for some state support, just as the state supports projects and issues in other areas as well.

Using your logic, Devils Lake, and other communites in that region should be abandoned and allow to go under. Minot should not have recieved help for its flood issues. Roads and bridges should have been left destroyed all across the state since 97. Be real or be gone!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Gilmore, 
most of the water comes from MN. What two rivers form the red? Where do those two rivers start? MN should have input, this should also be their baby too.

The more you and others post the more clear it is that this is a federal project. Hands Down.

I know you hate the idea of any spending but this is a federal baby. Take the 11 Million raise the dikes and move on to a diversion in the near future. You are trying to re-invent the wheel because you want all these perfect ideas of yours to work in our very un-perfect gov't. By the time you try to fix spending and how they spend we (Fargo) will have wasted even more money putting up temp dikes and flood insurance. Gotta break an egg to make an omlette :lol:

It still seems odd to me that you hate seeing the federal gov't spend anything but you have no problem seeing taxpayers give more money to the gov't for bogus flood insurance.

I have been gone working so I missed the flood meeting tonight, hopefully they have it on the news


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Tk33 I never said that Fed money should not be spent! I never said the state should not participate. What I said very clearly is that the current projects proposed to the affected areas in Fargo do not have any real significant long term benefit to prevent a catastrophic flood like GF had. The projects proposed only provide if I remember right 3-4" in additional protection. Enough to get a good number of homes out of the 100 year flood, but not out of a 300 or 500 year flood. If a diversion is built then all of the money and land and property affected by the project is simply a waste and also as I have been pointing out does not address the issues of affects these projects would have on the MN side of the river.

Which brings up what I keep asking you about, and that is what plan did Denny present that had in place an agreement from any of the other entities that will be affected and involved in this?

You keep skirting this for some reason, and why is that?

I support flood protection for the city of Fargo, as well as DL and other projects like GF and Whap in the past. I think that Fed funding is appropriate for those, as well as the right project in Fargo. I do not and will not support funding be it local or fed or state that is simply a band aid.

It sounds as if the people in the affected areas are of a like mind from the meetings and comments that keep surfacing.

So if the goal simply is to use the $11 million before it is lost then be up front and honest about it. But do not try and sell the current proposals as permanent and effective flood protection when it only is going to lower peak flow by 3"!

Denny has one big problem in regards to this issue. He knows a lot about the flooding issues. He has spoken in length about them as well. However he avoids the tough questions as was evident when asked the same questions at the council meeting. He is wrong that we have to do one of the projects, we do not. He is right in saying that we need flood protection. He continues to attempt to make it sound that one of these projects makes the south side safe from flooding and talks in circles when asked about 300 year floods or 500 year floods.

Then there is the issue of whether or not the projections of the engineer firm are even correct. Remember this is the same firm that built and designed the mess up on the north side of Fargo that had to be changed a few years back. Seems they thought water was going to run up hill! Or the bridge over the Wild Rice which was suppose to increase flow rates to reduce overland flooding. They where way short of the volume that can move through it as well. Does this give you a bit of an understanding of why involved people are questioning this and pointing out the fallacy of the so called flood protection Denny and the council are implying one of these projects would do.

That is why losing $11 million now is not as important as getting it right the first time.

So once again, which Gov entity from MN has agreed to any of the projects proposed and if there is a different project, why is it not public knowledge?

I know that there have been talks regarding this between agencies but I have not seen a plan in the paper, or presented at any of the council meetings. I would think to present a plan to Washington a vote on the plan would be required by the council and I know that it would have been all over the news!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

The last plan that I heard was just to build bigger dikes. I think that there will be some concrete retainers in the plan as well, to take care of the high velocity areas. Similar to what is going up at the VA in Fargo. There is no way that any engineers can say that they know what water will do, the answer is water will do whatever it wants. They only take an educated guess and run with it. The plan needs to be kept as simple as possible, I have seen that works the best.

I do have faith in Walaker, I have worked on the flood projects here and in Breck for the last 12 years and he definetely has it together, he of course has help but in 97 I saw him every day and night that I was out there. Denny and his crew deserve all the credit they get.

It would be nice if we could get something in to get FEMA insurance the hell out of our area, I have seen the rip offs they pulled in 97 and 01 and I didn't like it. They basically call everything a sewer backup so your homeowner's policy covers it and not your flood insurance. Eventually after people like Dorgan and the like got involved things got covered but it was too much red tape for an obvious claim. As I said flood insurance is basically an extension of property taxes. It is money that is wasted too, IMO.

There is no reason South Fargo, Fargo, or ND should have to pay for the whole project. You made some good points and I hope we all get a good plan and the project gets going soon. :beer:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> There is no way that any engineers can say that they know what water will do, the answer is water will do whatever it wants.


You have to be kidding!!! Water does not have wants. Water movement centers around gravity.

If that's true though it definitely explains why Fargo is in such a hurt bag. :lol:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> You have to be kidding!!! Water does not have wants. Water movement centers around gravity.


In theory, yes. In reality, no.

If your logic held true dikes would never fail, sewers would never back up and anything man made would withstand anything mother nature threw at us. The reality is the opposite, how many things in the valley alone have failed due to oversimplification and not planning for the unexpected.

I have spent countless hours working on dikes and took a few engineering courses in college that dealt with water and I wish it was that simple.


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

TK33 said:


> > You have to be kidding!!! Water does not have wants. Water movement centers around gravity.
> 
> 
> In theory, yes. In reality, no.
> ...


Pour a glass of water on your kitchen table and use gravity to define its flow!! You will see where TK is coming from!! :beer:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

TK you are right in regards to what water can do. Buckeye water from the Red will push back into the Wild Rice or other areas as pressure from the Red is greater forcing water up hill. TK is right on that, but this also underscores why the proposed plans have huge and I mean huge risk factors that could cause more flood problems than we face now if any one of the dikes breach.

TK I think you are grasping what I am saying to some degree. The fact remains that what is proposed is simply a band aid and in two of the three plans actually increased the likelihood of flooding in south Fargo because of the real possibility of failure of the system being put in place. I have talked in great length with Tom Fisher and others on the Water board as well as the city engineers on this very fact. Even though my home is not in the 100 year flood plain, every one of these projects increases the likelihood my house will flood in the future vs now. That bit of news was very unsettling to me and many others who are in both.

The issue at hand is this. Not building and fighting the floods as they come puts some areas at risk. We saw the results of that in 97. Building any of the proposed projects adds an element of risk that puts more homes at risk that would not be in the event of a failure.

The models show big jumps in velocity of the water which if you have worked with projects you understand increases the pressure on the dikes. The theory is that with increased speed the water will move through faster and reduce the possibility of saturation of the dikes which weakens them. That is fine if it works, but if we have a sustained period of high water and saturation occurs the risk of breach increases and that is what puts so many homes in peril because now there is nothing to stop the water from pouring through the city and being trapped in the city by dikes put in place to keep the river out.

A diversion is the only option that removes this risk. It is why GF and Wahp did what they did as well as West Fargo, Winnipeg etc.....

This is why I have labeled this projects as nothing but pork.!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Pour a glass of water on your kitchen table and use gravity to define its flow!! You will see where TK is coming from!!


Water will always take the path of least resistance, and will aways flow downhill unless backed up by hydrostatic pressure. You guys are to funny!! :lol:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

buckseye said:


> > Pour a glass of water on your kitchen table and use gravity to define its flow!! You will see where TK is coming from!!
> 
> 
> Water will always take the path of least resistance, and will aways flow downhill unless backed up by hydrostatic pressure. You guys are to funny!! :lol:


Your posts show your lack of knowledge and experience dealing with this issue. You are arguing with people who have extensively covered this for years.

Speaking for only myself I have the education and the practical experience. I usually like your posts but you are off on this one


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

At one time my job responsibility was the operating and maintenance of a large flood plan on the Souris River. All of the water flowed downhill either through underground channels of various composition or on the surface. We did have **** failures, flood gate failures and many other small occurrences with backed up water. I am very familiar with clay liners and liners made of man made materials.

I also worked with the freshwater zones and aquifers when drilling water and oil wells. We had a lot of fun with the shallow water zones when we did seismographic work. I learned a lot about porosity and viscosity when I worked derricks in the oil field. We used air pressure to simulate gravity to find out what our water loss was in the various zones we drilled through.

I don't care what any human says, the Red River flows north. On average it's colder in the north than in the south. That's the way it is and in that rare circumstance it causes problems because people have decided to live within the area of imminent disaster. Foolish!!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

if you have worked with this how can you say that this is so simple. I agree that maybe Fargo shouldn't have built where they did but there is no place for Fargo to grow except south. What is your idea having worked with in the field? Keep in mind our soil is way different than anything in the souris valley or the oil fields.

My entire neighboorhood was supposed to be higher than the 300 yr flood or whatever, my neighborhood stayed dry in 97, but yet now we are in the supposed flood plain. FEMA is simply screwing us.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Tk33 I am not in disagreement with your statement about FEMA, but since they are the regulatory body that will be leveling the tax requirement with there new flood map, we deal with it just like any other tax. It is foolish however to simply put a poor plan in place as an attempt to placate FEMA and really leave so much of Fargo exposed and to put other areas at greater real risk, not the paper risk that FEMA presents.

So once again have you seen a single plan that the Gov entities besides Fargo have signed on too?

I know I have not, and that is the point of this whole deal. Either we have a plan to move forward with that is agreed on by all parties or we do not. If we do not, then why are we asking for money or continuing the facade of saying that we have flood projects ready to go to use the money.

Before a single shovel of dirt is moved, the current plans will be stopped by court order. You know it and I know it and so does the city and the Water District that has levied the assessment on the ND side.

So just what did Denny go and ask for? Money for a plan that as of yet does not exist, or one of the plans that will be stopped by the court?

With what you know, why not answer this simple direct question. You opened this debate I would have figured you had these answers, or are you now aware that there are more real issues to be dealt with than Denny and even you want to admit or acknowledge?

This is a very complex issue, it is going to involved the forced taking of land, it is going to face court challenges, it is going to face Fed issues, and state issues from ND and MN and from our neighbors to the north. Some things also that may affect this is what happens with a couple laws regarding land use outside of the city limits that are still alive in the Leg and I do believe one has an emergency clause attached to it that will make it law as soon as it is signed by the Gov. Puts even more hurdles in place.

I cannot undo nor can you the fact Fargo has been negligent in advancing proper planning, but that lack of planning does not excuse them from doing proper planning now.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I am, and have been under the impression that it was going to be about a 160-170 million dollar project that will involve both raising and re-inforcing dikes and concrete retaining walls. This what is being tossed around the local construction scene. There has been much talk about it since there would be only a few contractors who could actually bid on it unless it was broken down into several contracts.

I would like to see something done, even if it is only a band-aid to buy us time to go with a winnipeg style plan. I know a 170 million is one hell of a band aid and I don't think that should be spent on dikes. If a smaller plan could come together and get us by for even a few years that would be great. You are right on the money with the complexity of this issue, I thought that most of the buy-outs were done. If this is a federal job the lawsuits should be kept to a minimum, if it is a state job then I think we would see more bickering thus dragging the project out.

I am done with this one, it was fun


----------



## Centerfire (Jan 13, 2006)

Fargo, Wapeton, New Orleans .... - All towns built where they should not have been. They are all going to get floods again and again - I'm not big on enabling growth where it does not belong - If they can prove this will solve the problem great - but if Fargo takes any money their future development better not allow any development in regular flood areas - because sure as hell they will be back with hat in hand looking for someone to pay for the fix to their problem.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ron and TK, I sent you both the same PM. It has some information on the Red River that I hope you will both find some use for.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

For 160-170 million dollars you could do a lot of work right within the Red River Channel. If there was someway to alleviate the spring ice jams that are always present in the Red that would be the way to go, just letting it flow out of there. I would love the challenge of putting a working plan together. Of course I do not work for free.


----------

