Difference between revisions of "Red River of the North - Fargo-Moorhead Diversion"
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Issues={{Issue | |Issues={{Issue | ||
|Issue=Stakeholder Goal Summary | |Issue=Stakeholder Goal Summary | ||
| + | |Issue Description=[[File:Table 1.PNG|center]] | ||
| + | |NSPD=Ecosystems; Governance | ||
| + | |Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Local Government, Community or organized citizens | ||
}}{{Issue | }}{{Issue | ||
|Issue=Discussion | |Issue=Discussion | ||
| Line 15: | Line 18: | ||
The RWJPA wants to protect the welfare of the people that it represents. The FMD threatens the welfare of the people by putting flood water in areas of both counties that have not had flooding before. The posit that this water and other upstream impacts will do irreparable harm to the people living in the counties, and thus oppose the project (Von Korff, 2013) | The RWJPA wants to protect the welfare of the people that it represents. The FMD threatens the welfare of the people by putting flood water in areas of both counties that have not had flooding before. The posit that this water and other upstream impacts will do irreparable harm to the people living in the counties, and thus oppose the project (Von Korff, 2013) | ||
The DA, MNDNR, RWJPA, and USACE are attempting to resolve issues, that could delay construction, through an out of court solution. There are no other major stakeholders that are not being included in the discussions. Due to a lack of trust and mutual understanding by the parties involved in this project, problems have arisen that have caused an inability to find solutions that serve all parties involved. Therefore, an increase in trust would be applicable to allow the parties to build a consensus and to work towards solutions that emphasize mutual gains and a joint understanding of the project. | The DA, MNDNR, RWJPA, and USACE are attempting to resolve issues, that could delay construction, through an out of court solution. There are no other major stakeholders that are not being included in the discussions. Due to a lack of trust and mutual understanding by the parties involved in this project, problems have arisen that have caused an inability to find solutions that serve all parties involved. Therefore, an increase in trust would be applicable to allow the parties to build a consensus and to work towards solutions that emphasize mutual gains and a joint understanding of the project. | ||
| + | |NSPD=Ecosystems; Governance | ||
| + | |Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Local Government, Community or organized citizens | ||
}} | }} | ||
|Key Questions= | |Key Questions= | ||
Revision as of 20:08, 6 June 2017
| Geolocation: | 46° 53' 16.6571", -96° 44' 17.2851" |
|---|---|
| Total Population | .220220,000,000 millionmillion |
| Total Area | 10001,000 km² 386.1 mi² km2 |
| Climate Descriptors | Continental (Köppen D-type) |
| Predominent Land Use Descriptors | urban |
| Important Uses of Water | Domestic/Urban Supply, Fisheries - wild, Recreation or Tourism |
Contents
Summary
The Fargo-Moorhead Diversion (FMD) has been proposed as a solution to flooding in the Fargo-Moorhead (FM) area of North Dakota and Minnesota. The project is aimed to reduce the risk of flooding from the Red River of the North (RRN) which flows through the FM area, directly between the cities of Fargo, ND and Moorhead, MN, and acts as the ND-MN border. The RRN has reached the defined “flood stage” a total of 48 times in the last 109 years, and thus presents nearly bi-annual risk to both communities, which comprise in total of roughly 220,000 people. This project is ongoing, but is currently in litigation over certain disputes from the opponents. If litigation is resolved in the next year or does not halt construction, then the project is scheduled to be finished in roughly 2022. The city governments of Fargo and Moorhead have partnered with the local county governments to form the “Diversion Authority” (DA) which itself has joined with the United States Army Core of Engineers (USACE) to propose a US $2 billion project (FMD) that would divert water around the cities and prevent major flooding during a flood event. However, there are those that oppose the diversion. These opponents include the Richland-Wilkin County Joint Power Authority (RWJPA) which is comprised of a pair of two counties upstream from the FM area on the RRN, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). Both the RWJPA and the MNDNR claim that irreparable harm will be done if the project is carried out and thus have filed suit against the DA and the USACE attempting to halt the project construction.
Natural, Historic, Economic, Regional, and Political Framework
Issues and Stakeholders
Stakeholder Goal Summary
NSPD: Ecosystems, Governance
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Local Government, Community or organized citizens
Discussion
NSPD: Ecosystems, Governance
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Local Government, Community or organized citizens
The DA desires a long-term solution to flooding, so that emergency measures will not have to be taken in the future. They would also like to protect and ensure future development around the FM area so that the growth of the region is not stymied (Fargo-Moorhead Diversion Authority, 2017). The USACE is concerned with ensuring development in the FM area, and protecting the development that is already present (USACE 3). The MNDNR wants to ensure that the environment and the welfare of the people is safeguarded in the spatial area of the project. They do not think that the project does this properly. Thus, they are working to stop the project in favor of trying to find an alternative (MNDNR). The RWJPA wants to protect the welfare of the people that it represents. The FMD threatens the welfare of the people by putting flood water in areas of both counties that have not had flooding before. The posit that this water and other upstream impacts will do irreparable harm to the people living in the counties, and thus oppose the project (Von Korff, 2013)
The DA, MNDNR, RWJPA, and USACE are attempting to resolve issues, that could delay construction, through an out of court solution. There are no other major stakeholders that are not being included in the discussions. Due to a lack of trust and mutual understanding by the parties involved in this project, problems have arisen that have caused an inability to find solutions that serve all parties involved. Therefore, an increase in trust would be applicable to allow the parties to build a consensus and to work towards solutions that emphasize mutual gains and a joint understanding of the project.
Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight
Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case. ASI sub-articles are protected, so that each contributor retains authorship and control of their own content. Edit the case to add your own ASI.
Learn moreNo ASI articles have been added yet for this case
Tagged with: Red River Flood USACE
References
Bibliography
Brisbois, L. I. (2017). CASE 0:13-cv-02262-JRT-LIB. Retrieved from fmdam.org: http://fmdam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/D436-Brisbois-Discovery-order-5-4-2017.pdf
City of Fargo. (2017). Flood Stages. Retrieved from http://gis.cityoffargo.com: http://gis.cityoffargo.com/FloodStages/
Fargo Moorhead Diversion Authority Monitor 1. (2017). Fargo Dam and FM Diversion Costs as of February 28, 2017. Retrieved from www.fmdam.org: http://fmdam.org/fargo-dam-and-fm-diversion-costs-as-of-february-28-2017/
Fargo Moorhead Diversion Authority Monitor. (2012). Richland Wilkin Joint Powers Authority commences Legal Challenge to expanded Fargo-Moorhead Flood Diversion Project. Retrieved from www.fmdam.org: http://fmdam.org/richland-wilkin-joint-powers-authority-commences-legal-challenge/
Fargo Moorhead Diversion Authority Monitor. (2017). Home. Retrieved from www.fmdam.org: http://fmdam.org/
Fargo-Moorhead Diversion Authority 1. (2017). Project Area History. Retrieved from http://www.fmdiversion.com: http://www.fmdiversion.com/project-area-history/
Fargo-Moorhead Diversion Authority 2. (2014). Diversion Coordination with Minnesota DNR Ongoing. Retrieved from www.fmdiversion.com: http://www.fmdiversion.com/diversion-coordination-with-minnesota-dnr-ongoing/
Fargo-Moorhead Diversion Authority. (2017). Why is it Needed? Retrieved from http://www.fmdiversion.com: http://www.fmdiversion.com/why-is-it-needed/
Fargo-Moorhead Diversion Authority 3. (2017). About the Diversion Authority. Retrieved from www.fmdiversion.com: http://www.fmdiversion.com/who-is-the-diversion-authority/
Fargo-Moorhead Diversion Authority 4. (2017). Court Refuses to Reinstate Dismissed Claims Against the Diversion Authority; Reinstates Corps as an Active Defendant . Retrieved from www.fmdiversion.com: http://www.fmdiversion.com/court-refuses-to-reinstate-dismissed-claims-against-the-diversion-authority-reinstates-corps-as-an-active-defendant/
Fargo-Moorhead Diversion Authority 5. (2017). Home. Retrieved from www.fmdiversion.com: http://www.fmdiversion.com/
Google. (2017). Maps. Retrieved from Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mass+Alliance-Portuguese+Speakers/@36.8741751,-107.1852374,4.25z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e370b482283743:0x91017253bcf265fb!8m2!3d42.3727699!4d-71.094753
Larson, M. (2012). Richland and Wilkin Counties Unanimously Form JPA. Retrieved from www.fmdam.org: http://fmdam.org/richland-and-wilkin-counties-unanimously-form-jpa/
Miller, P. (2012, August 16). Defending Richland-Wilkin Counties. Retrieved 2017, from http://www.wahpetondailynews.com/: http://www.wahpetondailynews.com/opinion/editorials/defending-richland-wilkin-counties/article_6007faf2-e7cb-11e1-9c76-001a4bcf887a.html
MNDNR . (2016, October 3). Fargo-Moorhead Dam Safety and Public Waters Work Permit Application 2016-0386 Findings of Fact. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.state.mn.us: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/surfacewater_section/damsafety/fargo_moorhead-findings_of_fact.pdf
MNDNR 1. (2017). Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project - Environmental Review. Retrieved from www.dnr.state.mn.us: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/environmentalreview/fm_flood_risk/index.html
NRCS. (2017). Red River Basin Initiative. Retrieved May 15, 2017, from www.nrcs.usda.gov: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=stelprdb1117397
Tran, T.-U. (2016). Feds formally commit to start F-M diversion. Retrieved from www.inforum.com: http://www.inforum.com/news/4071674-feds-formally-commit-start-f-m-diversion
USACE 1. (2011). Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management. St. Paul: USACE. Retrieved from http://www.fmdiversion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Main_Report_with_Attachments.pdf
USACE 2. (n.d.). Legal Definition of “Traditional Navigable Waters”. Retrieved 2017, from http://www.usace.army.mil: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/app_d_traditional_navigable_waters.pdf
USACE. (2011, September 23). Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Retrieved from International Water Institute: http://www.iwinst.org/feasibility/110923_FMM_CWRB.pdf
USACE 3. (2016). Corps awards its first contract for Fargo-Moorhead diversion project. Retrieved from www.fmdiversion.com: http://www.fmdiversion.com/corps-awards-its-first-contract-for-fargo-moorhead-diversion-project/
USACE 4. (2011). Proposed Report of the Chief of Engineers. Retrieved from www.iwinst.org: http://www.iwinst.org/feasibility/Proposed_Report_Chief_of_Engineers.pdf
USDA: Economic Research Service . (2017). U.S. Sugar Production . Retrieved from www.ers.usda.gov: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/background/
Von Korff, G. W. (2013). Appendix H - North Dakota Legislative Branch. Retrieved from www.legis.nd.gov: http://www.legis.nd.gov/files/committees/63-2013nma/appendices/wt090513appendixh.pdf
World Atlas. (2017). The Top Sugar Beet Producing Countries In The World. Retrieved from www.worldatlas.com: http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-top-sugar-beet-producing-countries-in-the-world.html
