The East Grand Forks City Council could decide next week whether to join other northern Red River Valley governments in a resolution seeking an extension in the public comment period on the proposed $1.27 billion Fargo-Moorhead diversion project.
But even if East Grand Forks signs on, it likely won't oppose the overall project, council members indicated during a work session Tuesday. After all, they said, Grand Forks and East Grand Forks received a $400 million flood protection project built after the 1997 flood.
Steve Jacobson, a Norman County Commissioner from Hendrum, Minn., told the council members that the Corps must provide more data on potential downstream flooding impacts of the proposed diversion before it moves forward.
The request for an extension of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Aug. 9 public comment deadline came from the Norman County Commission.
At a July 16 meeting in Hendrum, a Corps official said comments made after that deadline will not be considered.
ADVERTISEMENT
"I think democracy is being sacrificed to keep this project on schedule," Jacobson said.
So far, the Corps has estimated an F-M diversion on the North Dakota side of the Red River could raise the river crest in a major flood by as much as 17 inches as far north as Halstad, Minn., which sits along the Red in Norman County.
However, the Corps has not released any data on potential impacts north of Halstad.
The diversion project is being pushed for congressional approval this year.
If the project is approved by Congress, the federal government would pay about $766 million, with Fargo, Moorhead, Cass and Clay counties and the states of Minnesota and North Dakota paying $561 million.
"I would go on blind faith that our senators and our governor aren't going to allow something to go through that will hurt communities downstream," Mayor Lynn Stauss said.
The Norman County Commission adopted two resolutions earlier this month, one to seek a public comment deadline extension from the Corps, the other to oppose the F-M diversion project in general.
Jacobson said Norman county officials believe the project is being rushed, and that other options, such as water storage, should be considered.
ADVERTISEMENT
"The resolution should be worded so we don't say we're against the project," EGF council member Mike Pokrzywinski said.
Last week the, Polk County Commission adopted a resolution to seek an extension in the public comment period, until more can be learned about potential downstream impacts.
Jacobson plans to present the resolution next week to both the Grand Forks City Council and the Grand Forks County Commission. He is one of more than two dozen valley officials from both sides of the river who are part of the Red River Downstream Impact Work Group, which is leading the campaign for a comment period extension from the Corps.
Stauss directed city staff to try to learn more about the project and potential impacts during the next week.
East Grand Forks Emergency Manager Randy Gust said he's heard that it could be September or later before the Corps releases information about potential impacts farther north than Halstad.
"It's an unknown, until we learn more," he said, adding that any additional floodwater could lengthen the local flood fight and could impact the Hartsville Coulee area, and perhaps others.
Reach Bonham at (701) 780-1110; (800) 477-6572, ext. 110; or send e-mail to kbonham@gfherald.com .
