Often, when the government is involved in a popular project, those who make waves by asking questions and/or outright opposing the proposition are quickly brushed off by project supporters. The proposed Fargo-Moorhead Red River diversion channel is a prime example of this. As reported in Thursday’s Times, Norman County Commissioner Steve Jacobson went before the Polk County Board this week to tell the downstream side of the story. Residents along the Red fear the diversion, while offering great flood protection for the F-M area, will have dire consequences for them.
Anytime a project of this magnitude – the proposed cost is $1.5 billion – materializes, there's opposition. That water has to go someplace and wherever it goes, it’s going to affect the land and livelihood of some residents. You’re never going to please everyone, so it’s a matter of who’s benefitting the most.
We're talking here about some 200,000 residents of the F-M area versus a fraction of that in communities to the north. It’s common knowledge that metro areas tend to carry more clout with legislators and government officials than small towns and rural residents, so even if the minority raises legitimate concerns, the majority will most likely prevail.
Those living downstream make some valid points: the project has been rushed without adequately considering all options; given the potential for impact to their area, they have very little say in the process; the public comment period on the feasibility report/environmental impact statement deadline should be extended, since they only found out about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers high crest potential last week; and they’re being treated unfairly and their rights are being violated.
Are the downstream interests being ignored? Well, when a few dozen protesters showed up with picket signs at the joint powers signing at Fargo City Hall last week, a warm and fuzzy event hailed by those involved as a truly momentous occasion, Fargo Mayor Dennis Walaker quickly shot them down by saying their fears were unfounded, although he did thank them for attending.
"If people don't trust us, I guess that's their problem. It's not my problem because I don't have any problem with where we're going," Walaker was quoted in an Associated Press story.
The Corps and diversion work group also promptly turned down the comment period extension, which was certainly not an unreasonable request. Allowing another two to four weeks, for example, would only delay the project by that amount of time, relatively insignificant in comparison to the estimated 12 years before the diversion is done. What are the powers that be afraid of, that enough comments of substance will roll in to put the project on hold?
Even the Fargo Forum, one of the project's greatest promoters, joined in slamming those who dare voice their concerns in an editorial prior to the signing. So much for free speech.
The Corps still hasn't determined how the diversion will impact areas north of Halstad, which indicates they're trying to push it through with too many unknowns still on the burner. By all means, they should keep working on the plan so federal funding can be secured, but in the whole scheme of things, don't ignore everything outside the F-M area. Downstream interests on both North Dakota and Minnesota sides as far north as any remote impact could be felt must be equally included in the planning process, which they haven't been, to come up with an unbiased solution. Nothing should be set in stone until the unknowns are cleared up and everyone who would be impacted by the diversion has a chance to look over the plan and comment if they choose.
Rushing a project such as this could have long-term and devastating implications far outside the metro borders and if planners aren't careful, they could face a string of lawsuits, possibly putting it on hold for years, or forever.
|
|
|
Often, when the government is involved in a popular project, those who make waves by asking questions and/or outright opposing the proposition are quickly brushed off by project supporters. The proposed Fargo-Moorhead Red River diversion channel is a prime example of this. As reported in Thursday’s Times, Norman County Commissioner Steve Jacobson went before the Polk County Board this week to tell the downstream side of the story. Residents along the Red fear the diversion, while offering great flood protection for the F-M area, will have dire consequences for them.
Anytime a project of this magnitude – the proposed cost is $1.5 billion – materializes, there's opposition. That water has to go someplace and wherever it goes, it’s going to affect the land and livelihood of some residents. You’re never going to please everyone, so it’s a matter of who’s benefitting the most.
We're talking here about some 200,000 residents of the F-M area versus a fraction of that in communities to the north. It’s common knowledge that metro areas tend to carry more clout with legislators and government officials than small towns and rural residents, so even if the minority raises legitimate concerns, the majority will most likely prevail.
Those living downstream make some valid points: the project has been rushed without adequately considering all options; given the potential for impact to their area, they have very little say in the process; the public comment period on the feasibility report/environmental impact statement deadline should be extended, since they only found out about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers high crest potential last week; and they’re being treated unfairly and their rights are being violated.
Are the downstream interests being ignored? Well, when a few dozen protesters showed up with picket signs at the joint powers signing at Fargo City Hall last week, a warm and fuzzy event hailed by those involved as a truly momentous occasion, Fargo Mayor Dennis Walaker quickly shot them down by saying their fears were unfounded, although he did thank them for attending.
"If people don't trust us, I guess that's their problem. It's not my problem because I don't have any problem with where we're going," Walaker was quoted in an Associated Press story.
The Corps and diversion work group also promptly turned down the comment period extension, which was certainly not an unreasonable request. Allowing another two to four weeks, for example, would only delay the project by that amount of time, relatively insignificant in comparison to the estimated 12 years before the diversion is done. What are the powers that be afraid of, that enough comments of substance will roll in to put the project on hold?
Even the Fargo Forum, one of the project's greatest promoters, joined in slamming those who dare voice their concerns in an editorial prior to the signing. So much for free speech.
The Corps still hasn't determined how the diversion will impact areas north of Halstad, which indicates they're trying to push it through with too many unknowns still on the burner. By all means, they should keep working on the plan so federal funding can be secured, but in the whole scheme of things, don't ignore everything outside the F-M area. Downstream interests on both North Dakota and Minnesota sides as far north as any remote impact could be felt must be equally included in the planning process, which they haven't been, to come up with an unbiased solution. Nothing should be set in stone until the unknowns are cleared up and everyone who would be impacted by the diversion has a chance to look over the plan and comment if they choose.
Rushing a project such as this could have long-term and devastating implications far outside the metro borders and if planners aren't careful, they could face a string of lawsuits, possibly putting it on hold for years, or forever.
