Minnesota, North Dakota prepare for floodwaters
FARGO, N.D. — The landscape has changed dramatically since the record flooding of the Red River: Hundreds of once-vulnerable homes are now gone and miles of concrete floodwalls and clay levees add new protections as communities on the river's banks brace for it to overflow yet again.
Those changes over the past several years have built a buffer of green space that gives residents on the Minnesota-North Dakota border confidence as they prepare for a fourth major flood in five years — the worst in 2009.
Having gained plenty of unwanted practice in dealing with floodwaters, Fargo kicked off its annual rite of spring Wednesday when hundreds of junior high school students got out of school to help fill sandbags.
Few residents of Fargo or Moorhead, Minn., just across the river, are complaining that their clear view of the waterway has since been replaced by a wall. For a metropolitan area just four years removed from a record flood that forced thousands to evacuate — some by hovercraft or helicopter — such sacrifices now seem a small price to pay for safety.
“A flood wall is reassurance,” said Michael Redlinger, Moorhead city administrator. “It's peace of mind. A lot of mental security.”
The city and county governments have allocated more than $200 million, mostly in federal funds, to build 25 miles of permanent levees and buy out about 500 homes. Fargo City Commissioner Brad Wimmer said the area has been able to cut its flood fighting efforts in half since 2009, including the number of structures that will need sandbagging.
“We were just learning at that time,” Wimmer said Wednesday from Sandbag Central, a city-owned storage building that usually houses garbage trucks. “From there to now, it's night and day. We're way better off.”
The National Weather Service is predicting a 50 percent chance of the river reaching 38 feet in Fargo, which is 20 feet above the point of spilling over its banks. Officials estimate 117 homes would need to be sandbagged at that level, which would eclipse the fifth-highest flood on record for the area.
The record flood of 2009 topped out at nearly 41 feet.
The floodwalls, which the city has tried to jazz up with an ornate brick pattern, are a hit with residents, Wimmer said. Darren Dunlop, who has lived near the river in north Fargo for 20 years, calls the massive floodwall that protects his north side neighborhood a beautiful thing, both for its appearance and his peace of mind.
“We're finding that the walls have been an attraction,” Wimmer said. “As time goes on, they will become part of the community. They're not a detriment at all.”
The changes have come with heartache. Some neighborhoods that were thriving in 2009 now only have a smattering of homes, surrounded by empty lots where houses were either destroyed or bought out. In at least one case, an entire subdivision is gone. Heritage Hills, which once had 40 homes along the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice rivers south of Fargo, no longer exists.
Kolbjorn and Solvi Rommesmo were the last to leave Heritage Hills, turning out the lights on the neighborhood in 2010 after taking a buyout.
“I drove through there last fall. Everything was gone, of course,” Kolbjorn Rommesmo said. “We are missing the place out there. The lots were big, there were a lot of trees and it was quiet. But we needed a boat to get out of there.”
Rommesmo has moved to a higher part of town where he feels more protected from flooding.
“I think we should be all right,” he said. “The city has done a lot of work on flood protection, but I guess you never know.”
Fargo has spent about $107 million on flood protection projects since 1997, and Moorhead has committed $88 million since 2009. Cass County, on the North Dakota side, has spent $20 million. Most of it is federal money, though Fargo voters have on two occasions approved sales tax measures to go toward flood protection.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.