U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

55–140 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–417

FARGO-MOORHEAD METRO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AND RED RIVER BASIN FLOOD CONTROL 

ISSUES 

HEARING 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SPECIAL HEARING 

MAY 27, 2009—FARGO, ND 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

CHARLES J. HOUY, Staff Director 

BRUCE EVANS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

JON TESTER, Montana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, (ex officio) 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

Professional Staff 

DOUG CLAPP

ROGER COCKRELL

FRANZ WUERFMANNSDOBLER

SCOTT O’MALIA (Minority) 

BRAD FULLER (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

MOLLY BARACKMAN
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan .................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Kent Conrad ........................................................................ 3 

Statement of Senator Amy Klobuchar ................................................................... 6 

Statement of Representative Earl Pomeroy .......................................................... 7 

Statement of Representative Collin C. Peterson ................................................... 7 

Statement of Colonel Jon Christensen, District Commander, St. Paul District, 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 10 

Statement of Dennis Walaker, Mayor, Fargo, North Dakota .............................. 11 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 13 

Statement of Mark Voxland, Mayor, Moorhead, Minnesota ................................ 14 

Statement of Jerry Waller, Chairman, Clay County Commission ....................... 16 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 17 

Statement of Keith Berndt, Engineer, Cass County, North Dakota ................... 18 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 18 

Statement of Hon. John Hoeven, Governor, State of North Dakota ................... 30 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 32 

Statement of Brigadier General Michael J. Walsh, Division Commander, Mississippi Valley Division, Army Corps of Engineers ........................................... 33 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 37 

Statement of Mark Holsten, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources on Behalf of Hon. Tim Pawlenty, Governor, State of Minnesota ... 38 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 40 

What can the Federal Government do to Help Minnesota Reduce Future 

Risk From Flooding? ............................................................................................ 41 

Prepared Statement of Gerald H. Groenewold, Director, Energy and Environmental Research Center ...................................................................................... 49 

Prepared Statement of the North Dakota Farm Bureau ..................................... 50 

Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Mathern, District 11, North Dakota 

Legislative Assembly ........................................................................................... 50 

(1) 

FARGO-MOORHEAD METRO AREA FLOOD 

CONTROL AND RED RIVER BASIN FLOOD 

CONTROL ISSUES 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Fargo, ND. 

The subcommittee met at 3:38 p.m., in room 201, Fargodome, 

Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Dorgan. 

Also present: Senators Conrad and Klobuchar and Representatives Pomeroy and Peterson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Good afternoon and welcome to this hearing of 

the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. Even though 

this is a field hearing, it is the same as if the hearing were being 

held in my hearing room in Washington, DC. There will be a record 

of the hearing that will contain the testimony of the panelists and 

the witnesses and in addition to that, we would invite any written 

testimony that anyone wishes to submit to supplement what we 

will hear today to be submitted via e-mail by June 12, 2009. And 

you may call my office or see one of my staff for the e-mail address 

in order to submit additional written testimony that will become a 

part of this record. 

We will receive testimony in two panels today. The first panel 

will consist of Colonel Jon Christensen, the Commander of the St. 

Paul District of the Corps of Engineers; the Honorable Dennis 

Walaker, Mayor of Fargo, North Dakota; the Honorable Mark 

Voxland, Mayor of Moorhead, Minnesota; Mr. Keith Berndt, the 

chief engineer of Cass County; the Honorable Jerry Waller, chairman of the Clay County Commission of the Minnesota Board of 

Commissioners. 

Our second panel will consist of Brigadier General Michael 

Walsh, Commander of the Mississippi Valley Division of the Corps 

of Engineers; Commissioner Mark Holsten, Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources, on behalf of Governor Tim Pawlenty; and 

Governor John Hoeven of North Dakota. 

It is a testament of the importance of this issue that all of you 

have come before us today. I want to make a few brief comments 

about the hearing, and then I will call on my colleagues. I would 

hope that my colleagues will have about a 2-minute opening state-
2 

ment. Then we will get to the witnesses, and then we will have 

plenty of time for questions. We do have eight witnesses today. So 

I do want to see if we can get to them as quickly as possible. 

Let me say that in the aftermath of the very serious flood fight 

that occurred here in the Red River Valley, and especially in Fargo 

and Moorhead, this past spring, there are a number of questions 

for the people of the Red River Valley and for the people of Fargo 

and Moorhead. And the central question is can more be done to reduce these flood threats? And if so, what is it that can be done? 

If one believes there is more storage in the valley that is available in order to hold some water back, what authority exists to 

achieve that storage? What is the cost-benefit of projects that invest in that storage? 

Second, if Fargo and Moorhead and the citizens of those two communities wish to have a greater level of flood protection, then what 

specifically would they like the Corps of Engineers to study? What 

concerns do they have? What cost-benefit test would be met by 

which proposals? And are they able to provide the local funding? 

Because these flood control projects are 65 percent federally funded 

and 35 percent State and locally funded. 

This subcommittee is the place where the Corps of Engineers 

water programs are funded, but it is not top-down. It is instead 

bottom up. That is, the Federal Government does not move around 

the country trying to determine where we can build additional flood 

control projects. 

The Corps of Engineers is necessarily involved in virtually every 

flood fight, and they do a great job. But when a flood fight occurs, 

the question for local folks is: is there more that can be done? Is 

there a project that meets a cost-benefit test that is in the national 

interest that represents a consensus of that which we would like 

to build? 

At that point, this subcommittee would then, along with the relevant subcommittee in the House of Representatives, begin funding 

this through the Corps of Engineers appropriation. 

This is one region, one river, and one cause, in my judgment. We 

had a meeting in Washington, DC about 3 weeks ago and I think 

in that meeting engaged in some constructive approaches. That 

meeting was going to result in additional meetings, which I understand have occurred between the communities of Fargo and Moorhead, and between Clay County and Cass County. 

The issue today and what we hope to put on the record today is 

a timeline by which we might determine what projects might be 

worthy of consideration and what kind of consensus can and will 

exist, if any, of a project that this region wishes to fund. 

One potential result is to do nothing, and I say that only because 

I think most of us are gathered here because we watched this valiant flood fight in the Red River Valley and believe more needs to 

be done. I personally believe that more needs to be done and a comprehensive flood control project needs to be built. 

But in the absence of a local consensus, one prospect is to have 

no comprehensive project and every single spring live with the anxiety of whether this will be the year that the river wins. Or will 

this be one more year in which we wage a valiant effort and fight 

the river to a draw? 
3 

This is not the only place in the country in where we have flooding, but the Nation was fixed on this issue for some weeks this 

year because the question was would this region make it through? 

Would there be catastrophic flooding? 

The answer was not this year. And a substantial amount of great 

work was done—in many cases, by people in this room—to avoid 

the substantial cost of having lost to the Red River. 

From my standpoint, I would say that my hope coming from this 

and other similar meetings would be a series of alternatives around 

which a local consensus has developed and then from which a more 

comprehensive flood control project is considered. 

I want to mention as well that my colleagues and I have talked 

about and will consider other meetings with other river systems in 

our State in the weeks and months ahead because we believe that, 

too, is important. This is not just about Fargo and Moorhead or 

Clay and Cass. It is about the entire Red River Valley. And it is 

also about other river systems that have exhibited substantial 

flooding in this year. 

So I want to thank all of you for being here. Let me call on my 

colleague Senator Conrad. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENT CONRAD

Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan. 

And first, I want to thank you for convening this hearing. How 

fortunate we are to have Senator Dorgan at the head of this subcommittee at this critical time for our State and our region. We 

just could not be more fortunate, and we thank you for your leadership, Senator Dorgan. 

It is fitting today that this hearing is in the Fargodome, which 

was home to ‘‘sandbag central’’ in the midst of the flood fight. This 

is where tens of thousands of people gathered to put on really an 

inspirational display of people coming together to protect their 

homes, their communities, and their neighbors. And I can say the 

eyes of the Nation were on North Dakota and Minnesota at those 

moments, and the people of this country were impressed. They 

were inspired at the way the people of our region came together. 

We can be proud of that. 

In fact, I told General Walsh that he is going to have to start 

filing North Dakota income tax returns. He spent so much time 

here on the flood fight that he now qualifies as a North Dakota 

resident. 

There is no question it seems to me, that just as we came together then, we can come together now. And that is really what is 

required of us. Because unless we are able to form a local consensus, there is virtually no chance that we will secure Federal 

funding. And I think it is important at this moment to thank all 

of those who helped us come together. 

Mayor Walaker, Mayor Voxland, thank you for your extraordinary leadership. Colonel Christensen, we will never forget the 

way you conducted yourself in these difficult times. Keith and 

Jerry, we appreciate so much the leadership that you provided as 

well in these difficult times. And General Walsh and the Corps of 

Engineers, time after time when we called, you answered that call. 
4 

You came here to help make certain that the decisions that needed 

to be made were made. 

But with all of that, I think all of us understand that a comprehensive solution is needed for flood protection in this metro region. As we witnessed this spring, the current patchwork of flood 

control projects is simply inadequate to the task. We can do better, 

and we must. 

As this chart demonstrates—and I am pointing to the one that 

are ‘‘steps to permanent flood protection’’—there are several steps 

that must be taken to achieve permanent flood protection. It starts 

at the local level. The Federal Government will be able to come in 

later as a partner and provide a substantial part of the funding, 

but as we all know, flood control begins at the local level. 
5 

Right now, we are at the feasibility stage on the ladder, and I 

look forward to the Corps’ update on that study today. However, 

as I have said before, each of the partner cities in this project 

needs to form consensus on the project. Without that consensus, 

there is simply very little chance of Federal funding. 

Our efforts on flood protection do not stop at the city limits. We 

must look broadly across the basin and not just this basin, but the 

Sheyenne and the James and the Souris in North Dakota. All of 

those are going to require a comprehensive approach and a new 

strategy. 
6 

We cannot rest until temporary flood protection is a thing of the 

past. People here deserve the best that we can do. And the best 

that we can do is permanent flood protection that reduces the 

stress levels that all of us experienced during this extraordinary 

period and that protects these cities, these rural residents, and others across these basins from the extraordinary flooding events we 

have seen over the last 12 years. 

Again, Senator Dorgan, thank you so much for your leadership. 

Thanks to our colleagues from Minnesota for being here as well. 

We really are partners in this, and I believe we will find a way forward. 

Senator DORGAN. Senator Conrad, thank you very much. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Dorgan, for 

your leadership time and time again on these flood issues. Your 

leadership, we both serve on the Commerce Committee together. 

Your leadership on all kinds of transportation issues as well. And 

I am glad to be here today and I thank you for including us in your 

hearing here in Fargo. 

Both of the Mayors thank you for your leadership. I was so impressed by the efforts on both sides of the river. I will never forget 

that day flying over—well, I will never forget it because I flew over 

with Collin in his plane, and when we got into the plane, the battery had died. So I will never forget that ride, and then the engine 

flooded, but we got here. 

But what I most remember is just the citizens and how they 

came together, people of all ages. I met a guy at the flood control 

center who lost his home, and he was there 10 hours later answering calls. I met a woman who was 80 years old who was there giving out cookies, and it was just an amazing thing. 

And there is absolutely no doubt that without the work of the 

citizens, things would have been so much worse. So that is what 

I most remember, and I remember that people worked together 

across both sides of the river, which is exactly what we need to do 

today. 

Just yesterday, I returned to the valley and was with Congressman Peterson. We visited with local officials and community leaders in Breckenridge and in Moorhead and Hendrum, Crookston, 

and Oslo in order to get a picture of what was going on on the Minnesota side of the river, now that the floodwaters have receded and 

the recovery and the planning efforts are underway. 

What we heard at those meetings is that there is still a lot of 

work to be done. There is a lot of concern in some of our more rural 

areas about what the impact of any plans that we come forward 

with for the Fargo and Moorhead areas. Understandably, they have 

been suffering from flooding for years and years now. 

There is a concern that we look at, as Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad pointed out, in the basin as a whole and that we make 

sure that we are looking at the other projects that need to be completed in Breckenridge and Roseau and all parts of Minnesota, 

projects that are already in line. 
7 

But as I said back in March, in the heartland, a river, a rising 

river doesn’t divide us. It unites us. And I believe that is how we 

will move forward. As both the Senators from North Dakota mentioned, we are going to have to have consensus at the local level 

on this project in order to bring it up through Kent’s great ladder 

that he has over there. In order to get the funding, we are going 

to have to have some agreement on how we do that. 

I think that is very possible. We faced such a close call, and we 

know we can’t just let it happen again. We know that we can’t figure the sandbags will work forever and ever. We have to have a 

long-range plan. 

So I appreciate being here and look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses to come up with the solution. 

Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Senator Klobuchar, thank you very much. 

Congressman Pomeroy. 

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EARL POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I will be very brief. What a strong sense of deja 

vu coming into this building and seeing the leaders assembled, the 

very people that were directing the effort when literally thousands 

of volunteers turned this place into perhaps the greatest sandbag 

factory ever assembled. 

You know, being part of this community made me so incredibly 

proud with the citizens and its leaders throughout this period. And 

I was in all kinds of meetings in all kinds of hours, and I never 

once heard anybody, from the Mayor on down, say, ‘‘This is too 

hard. Let it flood.’’ Not once. 

It seems to me that even though we are removed a bit by a few 

weeks in time, we now face in longer term a very similar prospect. 

Are we going to do something about this threat, or are we going 

to say, ‘‘This is too hard. Let it flood.’’ 

That is not in our character. It is not in our makeup. We have 

proven it again and again. And now we are going to move long 

term, work through the many very difficult issues of coming up 

with a consensus plan, hands across the river, that works for both 

States and works for multiple communities up and down this river. 

Byron, you said it well when you said one region, one river, one 

cause. I am very pleased that you brought this hearing to FargoMoorhead and I’m looking forward to hearing the testimony before 

us. 

Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Congressman Pomeroy, thank you very much. 

Congressman Peterson. 

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE COLLIN C. PETERSON

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank my other 

colleagues. I associate myself with the remarks of my distinguished 

colleague Mr. Pomeroy. 

And I also want to single out, in addition to that, the Corps and 

the FEMA people that have done such a great job. And we were 

up in Oslo yesterday, and the FEMA folks were in the senior citizen center. I guess they were taking care of the folks up there. So 

we have had a lot of great help through the whole process. 
8 

I don’t think I should say much. I probably have said enough the 

last day. 

But people didn’t listen to my whole statement, but as I have 

said before, we are going to work together. We understand that we 

have to come up with a solution. Fargo-Moorhead is too big a part 

of our valley to ignore, and we all understand that. But there are 

concerns, and we heard them yesterday. 

Beyond the diversion, there are concerns out there. We heard in 

Hendrum about the diversion. ‘‘What is going to happen to us?’’ 

And some questions, Mayor Walaker, about the Southside project 

that came up. 

And what we have to do here is we have got to get people understanding what we are doing and get the information out there. As 

Byron said, get the consensus. But it is going to take a lot of education. It is going to take a lot of meetings. And it is going to be 

hard, but we can do it. 

And so, we are here to do what we can to help on our side of 

the river and work together and come up with a solution. 

Senator DORGAN. Congressman Peterson, thank you very much 

and now to the panel. 

First, we will hear from Colonel Jon Christensen, the Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. All 

of us know Colonel Christensen. He has been in many parts of 

North Dakota, engaged with his staff on a very aggressive flood 

fight. We thank you for your efforts for our State and our region. 

And Colonel Christensen, you may proceed. 

The statements will be a part of the permanent record. So we 

would ask all the witnesses to summarize. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL JON CHRISTENSEN, DISTRICT COMMANDER, ST. PAUL DISTRICT, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Chairman Dorgan and members of the 

subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you to report on what 

the Corps of Engineers is doing to address flooding in the Fargo, 

North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, metropolitan area. 

My testimony will address the regional flood situation and how 

the Corps of Engineers proposes to continue to support the people 

of the area. 

The Corps of Engineers has a long history in the Red River basin 

and in the Fargo-Moorhead area. We constructed our first permanent flood protection project in Fargo in 1963. We have assisted in 

17 major emergency flood fights since 1965, and we operate reservoirs at White Rock Dam and Bald Hill Dam that provide flood 

storage capabilities to reduce the flood peak levels at Fargo and 

Moorhead. 

The Corps of Engineers initiated the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Feasibility Study at the request of the city of Fargo, North Dakota, and the city of Moorhead, Minnesota, in September 2008. The 

goal of this study is to develop a regional system to reduce flood 

risk. The study includes Cass and Clay Counties and smaller communities in the area, such as Oxbow, North Dakota, and Oakport, 

Minnesota. 
9 

The study will evaluate several alternatives, including nonstructural measures, relocation of flood-prone structures, levees 

and floodwalls, diversion channels, and flood storage. 

Recently, two public meetings were held in the region as part of 

the scoping process for an environmental impact statement. The 

Corps will continue to host public meetings to update the public on 

the steady progress and to seek feedback on alternatives as they 

are developed and the project progresses. 

The Corps intends to have a timely completion of this study. 

First, we will develop a number of standalone alternatives, those 

being nonstructural measures, levees and floodwalls, and diversion 

channels. Second, we will combine the standalone alternatives to 

form combination alternatives. Finally, we will take advantage of 

the work being conducted as part of the Fargo-Moorhead Upstream 

Feasibility Study to assess the potential benefits that flood storage 

may provide. 

The standalone and combination alternatives will be screened, 

and the results will be presented to the public once complete. At 

that point, the city of Fargo, city of Moorhead, and the Corps will 

decide if continued Federal study is warranted and if it is likely 

that a federally justified plan can be identified. 

If there appears to be a federally justifiable plan, the remaining 

alternatives with the greatest potential of becoming the national 

economic development plan will be carried forward and optimized, 

potentially leading to a report of the Chief of Engineers. 

Throughout the study, it will be critical to receive input from the 

cities and counties regarding the possible alignments. Local input 

will be the foundation for the alternatives and the basis for future 

plan development. We are certain that the project sponsors will 

need to make difficult decisions and those decisions will need to be 

made in a timely manner. 

To ensure that a timely completion of the study is achieved, the 

Corps of Engineers will need unprecedented support on the local, 

regional, and national levels. Timely communication, input, and decisions will be critical. The cities and counties will need to work together and to make difficult decisions when they arise. 

During the 2009 flood, unprecedented support was provided by 

the Federal, State, and local governments. Those efforts, combined 

with the heroic efforts of the citizens, were able to minimize flooding in a large portion of the basin. As part of these efforts, the 

Corps supplied over 11 million sandbags, 141 pumps, 81,000 feet 

of HESCO barriers, and 70 miles of earthen levees to the Red River 

basin. 

These efforts, in combination with dam operations, prevented 

nearly $3 billion worth of damages. Of that $3 billion, nearly $2.5 

billion of damages were prevented in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. 

The citizens of Fargo and Moorhead met the Red River’s challenges this spring, but we all realize there are limits to the effectiveness of emergency flood fights, and the area remains at considerable risk from flooding. The Corps of Engineers is committed to 

work in partnership with State and local agencies to develop longterm strategies to manage and reduce flood risk in the Fargo-Moorhead area and the rest of the Red River basin. 
10 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Again, thank you for allowing me to testify here today. Mr. 

Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLONEL JON CHRISTENSEN

Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you to report on what the Corps of Engineers is doing to address flooding in 

the Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota metropolitan area. My testimony will address the regional flood situation and how the Corps of Engineers proposes to continue to support the people of this area. 

The Corps of Engineers has a long history in the Red River Basin and in the 

Fargo-Moorhead area. We constructed our first permanent flood project in Fargo in 

1963, we have assisted with 17 major emergency flood fights since 1965, and we operate reservoirs at White Rock Dam and Baldhill Dam that provide flood storage 

capabilities to reduce flood peak levels at Fargo and Moorhead. 

The Corps of Engineers initiated the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Feasibility 

Study at the request of the city of Fargo, North Dakota and the city of Moorhead, 

Minnesota in September 2008. The goal of the study is to develop a regional system 

to reduce flood risk. The study includes Cass and Clay Counties, and smaller communities in the area such as Oxbow, North Dakota and Oakport, Minnesota. 

The study will evaluate several alternatives, including non-structural measures, 

relocation of flood-prone structures, levees and floodwalls, diversion channels, and 

flood storage. Recently, two public meetings were held in the region as part of the 

scoping process for an Environmental Impact Statement. The Corps will continue 

to host public meetings to update the public on the study progress and to seek feedback on the alternatives as they are developed and the project progresses. 

The Corps intends to have a timely completion of this study. First, we will develop 

a number of stand alone alternatives, those being nonstructural measures, levees 

and floodwalls, and diversion channels. Second, we will combine the stand alone alternatives to form combination alternatives. Finally, we will take advantage of the 

work being conducted as part of the Fargo-Moorhead Upstream Feasibility Study to 

assess the potential benefits that flood storage may provide. 

The stand alone and combination alternatives will be screened and the results 

will be presented to the public once complete. At that point the city of Fargo, city 

of Moorhead and the Corps will decide if continued Federal study is warranted and 

if it is likely that a federally justified plan can be identified. If there appears to be 

a federally justifiable plan the remaining alternatives with the greatest potential of 

becoming the National Economic Development plan will be carried forward and optimized, potentially leading to a Report of the Chief of Engineers. 

Throughout the study it will be critical to receive input from the cities and counties regarding the possible alignments. Local input will be the foundation for the 

alternatives and the basis for future plan development. We are certain that the 

project sponsors will need to make difficult decisions and those decisions will need 

to be made in a timely manner. 

To ensure that a timely completion of this study is achieved, the Corps of Engineers will need unprecedented support on the local, regional, and national levels. 

Timely communication, input and decisions will be critical. The cities and counties 

will need to work together and make difficult decisions when they arise. 

During the 2009 flood, unprecedented support was provided by the Federal, State, 

and local governments. Those efforts combined with the heroic efforts of the citizens 

were able to minimize flooding to a large portion of the basin. As part of these efforts, the Corps supplied over 11 million sandbags, 141 pumps, 81,600 feet of 

HESCO barriers, and 70 miles of earthen levees to the Red River Basin. These efforts, in combination with dam operations, prevented nearly $3 billion in damages. 

Of that $3 billion, nearly $2.5 billion of damages were prevented in the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan area. 

The citizens of Fargo and Moorhead met the Red River’s challenge this spring, 

but we all realize there are limits to the effectiveness of emergency flood fights, and 

the area remains at considerable risk from flooding. The Corps of Engineers is committed to work in partnership with State and local agencies to develop long-term 

strategies to manage and reduce flood risk in the Fargo-Moorhead area and the rest 

of the Red River Basin. 
11 

Again, thank you for allowing me to testify here today. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator DORGAN. Colonel Christensen, thank you very much for 

your testimony. 

Next, we will hear from the Mayor of Fargo, Dennis Walaker. 

Mr. Mayor, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS WALAKER, MAYOR, FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. WALAKER. I will not go off the script, and the reason I will 

not do that is I understand things can be taken out of context. 

We do not start this by driving something between us. What we 

need to do, like Senator Dorgan has said again and again, that we 

need a plan, and that plan needs to be comprehensive for everybody. And my statement in the paper was very simple, that we 

need to wait until the engineers, especially the Corps of Engineers 

comes back with their preferred alternatives, and then we can decide and begin the debate. 

First of all, Senator Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, 

welcome to Fargo, back again. And thank you for holding this hearing at the Fargodome. 

As you know, the spring of 2009 presented the citizens of FargoMoorhead and Cass and Clay Counties with a tremendous challenge, a record flood event. It seems like we are experiencing a 

record flood every 5 years. 

Attachment A of this testimony reveals that the past 50 years of 

flooding in Fargo-Moorhead, it shows that 2009 with a 100-year 

event or greater. This year’s flood also reflected a recent phenomenon, 8 days from our first flood stage of 18 feet to a crest of 

40.82 feet, 3 weeks earlier than the previous prediction. Everybody 

thought it was going to come in April, and that is normally when 

it does. But it came in the end of March. 

As a result of this flood record, Fargo and its citizens had to take 

Herculean efforts to protect our city and its property. Attachment 

B shows the 48 miles of temporary levees that were built using approximately 300,000 cubic yards of clay hauled in in 30,000 truckloads, which was constructed in only 8 days. That should not become the norm. 

If I was asked at the beginning of this entire flood whether we 

could do this or not, I would say absolutely not because we had 

never done in the past. Before the clay had to be collected, we had 

to remove 100,000 cubic yards of topsoil and frozen material on top 

of the clay. 

And also, these temporary protective measures required a volunteer force of over 100,000 people, and they came from everywhere, 

from out of State. There are people that came in their vehicles, 

slept in their vehicles, absolutely amazing. And when you talked 

about what was happening here and over at the University of Minnesota and in Moorhead, it was absolutely emotional to walk in 

and see what was going on here. 

The facility, the Fargodome, became the base for our sandbag operations, running 24 hours a day for the duration of the flood fight. 

During the flood, approximately 160 portable pumps, ranging in 

size from 2 to 12 inches, ran continually, including 120 permanent 

lift stations on storm water. 
12 

Fortunately for us, there was about 2 weeks of below average 

temperatures that slowed the rate of rise of the Wild Rice, the 

Mustinka, and the Rabbit Rivers, which feed the Red River south 

of Fargo. However, we cannot factor in cold weather every time we 

have flooding conditions. 

I remember specifically somebody from the Corps of Engineers 

saying the weather was such a great benefit, but he said after you 

got hit in the head with a 2 by 4 10 times, he said, it is about time 

we got a little bit of help from mother nature. 

Our concern is how do we record floods that keep reoccurring on 

a more regular basis? Attachments C and D—and these attachments are along here—reflect what meteorologists refer to as a 

‘‘wet cycle’’ in our weather patterns. 

As you can see in these charts, the moisture received in the area 

for the past 10 years has been above normal, and the flows in the 

Red River have been higher than average. All winter they were 

higher than average, and the lakes once again are full this spring. 

During the peak of the 2009 flood, the Red River was running at 

a rate of over 29,400 cubic feet per second, while the average 10- 

year discharge is 10,300 cubic feet per second. 

Attachments E and F show the Red River watershed south of 

Fargo-Moorhead and the permitted drainage ditches developed on 

the land over the past 50 years. We are concerned that any additional drainage development will only add to these issues that we 

have here in the Fargo-Moorhead area. 

I am not faulting the producers in the Red River Valley. If I 

owned land out there, I would probably do the same thing. But people have to understand what is happening here in our cities on this 

frequent basis as more drainage is added to our system. 

Since we are located in a very shallow drainage system, more 

water, rising faster, causes us to protect our community to a higher 

level than we ever thought necessary. I thought 1997 was going to 

be the benchmark for each and every one of us in our lifetime. 

As you can see, the water—if we did not protect ourselves to 42, 

43 feet, you can see on one of the charts there how much of the 

city would have flooded—600 single-family homes, 6,000 apartment 

buildings, displacing over 52,000 residents. 

It also would have inundated North Fargo through the North Dakota State University campus, as well as the neighborhoods situated along the Red River. Permanent protection through Fargo, including upstream retention and overland flood protection throughout Fargo-Moorhead is needed as soon as possible. 

I will make one comment. It got to be an issue. We understand 

the concerns of everybody that was here, and I had one of those 

concerns myself about evacuating our city. And it was amazing. 

You left the decision to us, and we made that decision together that 

we would not evacuate our city. And as it turned out, it worked out 

well. 

But we do not criticize anybody for their concerns coming to the 

city of Fargo and asking us to consider evacuation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So that basically sums up. We printed 50 copies. Everything is 

available. 
13 

So I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify today 

on behalf of the citizens of the Red River Valley. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS WALAKER

Senator Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, welcome to Fargo, and thank 

you for holding this hearing at the Fargodome. 

As you know, the spring of 2009 presented the citizens of Fargo-Moorhead, Cass 

and Clay counties with a tremendous challenge—a record flood event. It seems like 

we are experiencing a record flood about every 5 years. Exhibit A of this testimony 

reveals the past 50 years of flooding in Fargo-Moorhead, it shows that 2009 was a 

100 year event or greater. This year’s flood also reflected a recent phenomena—8 

days from our first flood stage of 18 feet to a crest of 40.82 feet, and 3 weeks earlier 

than previous predictions. 

As a result of this record flood, Fargo and its citizens had to undertake Herculean 

steps to protect our city and its property. Attachment B shows the 48 miles of temporary levees that were built using 300,000 cubic yards of clay hauled in 30,000 

truck loads which were constructed in only 8 days. Even before the clay could be 

collected, approximately 100,000 cubic yards of topsoil and frozen material had to 

be removed to get to the clay. Also, these temporary protective measures required 

a volunteer force of over 100,000 people to help fill and place over 3.5 million sandbags. This facility, the Fargodome, became the base for the sandbag operations, running 24 hours a day, for the duration of the flood fight. 

During the flood, approximately 160 portable pumps ranging in size from 2 to 12 

inches ran continually, including 120 permanent storm water pumps. Fortunately 

for us there was about 2 weeks of below average temperatures that slowed the rate 

of rise of the Wild Rice, Mustinka, and Rabbit rivers which feed into the Red River 

south of Fargo. However, we cannot factor in cold weather every time we have flooding conditions. 

As waters continued to rise, protective dikes and overland flooding caused over 

20 miles of road closures. Water rescues of stranded residents had to be conducted 

in the county. Residents working hourly paying jobs and service industry businesses 

depending on patrons were negatively affected. 

Our concern is how do these record floods keep occurring on a more regular basis? 

Attachments C and D reflect what meteorologist refer to as a ‘‘Wet Cycle’’ in our 

weather patterns. As you can see in these charts the moisture received in the area 

for the past 10 years have been above normal; and the flows in the Red River of 

the north have also been higher than average. During the peak of the 2009 flood, 

the Red River was running at a rate of over 29,400 cubic feet per second while the 

average 10 year discharge is 10,300 feet per second. Attachments E and F show the 

Red River watershed south of Fargo-Moorhead and the permitted drainage ditches 

developed on the land over the past 50 years. We are concerned that any additional 

drainage development will only add to the flood issues we have here in the FargoMoorhead area. 

Since we are located in a very shallow drainage system, more water, rising faster, 

causes us to protect our community to a higher level than we ever thought necessary. Attachment G shows what would happen if Fargo had not been able to protect itself to 41 feet in 2009. As you can see, the water would have extended from 

south of Fargo all the way to Interstate 94 west of Interstate 29 to the West Fargo 

boundaries, causing the flooding of over 6,000 single family homes and over 6,000 

apartment buildings, displacing over 52,000 residents. It would have also inundated 

North Fargo through the North Dakota State University campus, as well as most 

neighborhoods situated along the Red River. Permanent protection through Fargo, 

including upstream retention and overland flood protection throughout the FargoMoorhead area, is needed as soon as possible. 

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on behalf of the 

citizens of the Red River Valley. 

Senator DORGAN. Mayor Walaker, thank you very much. 

Next, we will hear from Mayor Mark Voxland, the Mayor of the 

city of Moorhead. Mayor Voxland. 
14 

STATEMENT OF MARK VOXLAND, MAYOR, MOORHEAD, MINNESOTA 

Mr. VOXLAND. Chairman Dorgan, Members of Congress, thank 

you so much for coming today. We really appreciate this hearing 

being held in the Fargo-Moorhead area. 

My name is Mark Voxland. I am the Mayor of the city of Moorhead. We are on the east coast of the Red River. 

As a quick aside, our family history shows that in 1893, my great 

aunt lost all of her possessions in the Great Fargo Fire. And then 

what she had accumulated by 1897, she again lost everything in 

the Great Flood of 1897. I think it is amazing that 100 years later, 

our family still gets to see record floods in 1997 and 2009. 

Moorhead is a growing city. It is part of the metropolitan statistical area. The MSA of Fargo-Moorhead is about 193,000. We are 

the largest city in the western half of Minnesota. We have a very 

stable housing sector in our community, and it is a very stable sector in this part of Minnesota. We are seeing growth in new housing 

starts continuing, even though we are seeing declines in the rest 

of Minnesota. 

Our population right now is just under 36,000 as of the 2009 

State demographer. We are up a little over 10 percent in the last 

8 years. 

During the 2009 flood, a flood that when we were talking in 

Washington, DC, right around March 15, we were looking at a 37- 

foot flood, which is a major flood, but feeling very confident because 

of the 1997 flood. 

Two days after we got back from Washington, DC, we found out 

that it was going to be 39 feet plus. And as each day of that next 

week rolled along, we kept hearing the National Weather Service 

raising that flood crest peak up a foot. It was a very trying time 

for citizens all over the Red River Valley. 

In the end, Moorhead, we put in 9 miles of sandbags, about 2.5 

million sandbags, as compared to maybe 1 million in 1997. Once 

you go up that extra 11⁄2 feet, that’s a major effort in sandbagging 

in Moorhead. We put in over 8 miles of clay dikes. Those were constructed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. They were constructed 

after the first crest, and they were there as our secondary line of 

defense. 

About 71,500 cubic yards of material is necessary to create those 

clay dikes. And one thing that a lot of people in the country don’t 

understand is we were fighting a flood in March. Those sand pits 

were frozen, and those clay pits that we were getting clay from 

were frozen. It isn’t just grabbing some sand and bringing it in. 

And most of the sand did come from an area about 25 miles away. 

So there was a real logistical difficulty as we created that. 

As with Fargo, about 100,000 hours of labor, we figure, from volunteers were put in on this effort in 2009, a Herculean effort much 

greater than we ever did see, even in 1997. 

We feel that in the long-term this kind of approach that we had 

to do in 1997 and again in 2009 is really not sustainable. We are 

going to need some interim flood protection measures put into place 

so that we can be ready for that once in 100 year flood event that 

could happen next year or in 2 or 3 years as we wait and find out 

what this comprehensive flood protection set of measures are going 
15 

to be. That is going to be the key to our success in Moorhead and 

in Fargo in the next couple of years and down the line. 

I think that the city of Moorhead—I know that the city of Moorhead sees that both Federal and State mitigation programs are 

going to be important to us. The State of Minnesota this year allocated $17.6 million for flood mitigation measures. We, as a city, 

will be applying for that. That money doesn’t come to us, but it 

comes to all cities that need flood mitigation. And we will be applying and have already started that process now so that we can start 

putting in some short-term measures for flood protection of our 

public infrastructure. 

We are going to be working with FEMA, section 206 mitigation 

grant programs. One of the concerns we have with that is you can’t 

build flood structures on land purchased with 206 dollars. We will 

be working very closely with FEMA to figure out how we can utilize those dollars to the most effectiveness to protect our city, but 

still be able to build the diking that we feel will probably be needed 

when we hear the Corps’ final study. 

The city of Moorhead does support permanent flood protection for 

our cities. We agree with what Mayor Walaker said. We need to see 

what the Corps study brings out next year. I keep hearing December, but I read in the paper today September 2010, and I thought, 

well, if it is a misprint, wow. If it is true, I love it. 

But we look forward to what that final is. And we, in the meantime, know that we have got to figure out a way for Moorhead and 

Fargo, Cass and Clay County to figure out some of those things 

that need to be decided before we can move forward with that 

Corps study. 

Simple things like what is the level of protection? Do we protect 

both cities to 39 feet, and then the Corps thing is at 42? We need 

to come up with those numbers ahead of time. 

I see the next 18 months, as we look toward Senator Conrad’s 

ladder, I kind of look at that as Moorhead and Fargo, Cass and 

Clay County looking to find the trailhead. We know that the path 

is out there, but we have to find where that path begins. And that 

is what we are going to be working on very hard the next 18 

months. 

Again, we support what the Corps is doing, what the Corps staff 

is doing. We are very thankful for what they did for us in the 

months of March and early April. We look forward to seeing and 

working with the Corps as they come up with that final set of 

projects that we could implement. 

In closing, I really believe that the economic growth and vitality 

of Moorhead and Fargo over the next 50 to 100 years is very much 

determined on what we do in the next 18 months to 4 years. We 

need to find permanent flood protection. We need to get going on 

it. 

The last statement that I have here talks about generations, and 

people need to understand we have to get together for employment. 

What I look at is very basic. I have three grandchildren that live 

in Moorhead. I will be darned if I want them to go through what 

my great aunt went through. So what I see is really a way that 

we can protect Moorhead and Fargo, Cass County, Clay County, 
16 

and the valley so that my grandchildren can choose to live in this 

area and not have to worry about the flood. 

I want them to be able to go out to the Red River and look at 

it and say, ‘‘Wow, that river sure is high for a record flood.’’ I don’t 

want them to ever learn how to make sandbags. 

Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Members of Congress. 

Senator DORGAN. Mayor Voxland, thank you very much. 

Next, we will hear from Chairman Jerry Waller of the Clay 

County Commission. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY WALLER, CHAIRMAN, CLAY COUNTY COMMISSION 

Mr. WALLER. Okay. Thank you, Chair Dorgan, Senators Conrad 

and Klobuchar, Congressmen Peterson and Pomeroy, for being here 

today, first of all, and, second of all, for allowing us to offer testimony on some perspectives from Clay County. 

Being a lifelong resident of this area, I remember vividly the 

flood of 1969, the spring flood of 1969. I remember the summer 

flood of 1975, and the greater Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area 

has experienced four major floods on the Red River since 1997. 

That tells me that the flood events are coming more frequently and 

with more severity, as we have witnessed this spring. 

The property damage and disaster recovery costs resulting from 

these flood events have exceeded hundreds of millions of dollars, 

not to mention the substantial emotional and mental anguish suffered by the citizens and the region during each flood event. And 

if you could put dollar, hang dollars on emotions and stress and 

those things, I would guess that number would probably be higher 

than the millions that have been spent on fixing and doing things 

from these flood events. 

Clay County supports the efforts to design and implement permanent flood protection measures involving the Red River of the 

North and its tributaries. Clay County is appreciative of the strong 

support from the States of Minnesota and North Dakota and our 

congressional delegations in Washington, DC, and their willingness 

to establish a region-wide flood protection authority, control authority and to help fund this major undertaking. 

Ongoing collaboration among area local governments in various 

State and Federal agencies in finding region-wide flood control solutions is essential. Clay County will continue to be an active partner in this process. 

The Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan flood study presently being 

conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must incorporate 

the river elevation analysis and design considerations used in the 

Fargo Southside Flood Control Project to ensure that there is no 

adverse flooding impact on the properties on the Minnesota side of 

the river as a result of this project. 

The permanent flood control measures recommended by the 

Corps flood study must address the flood protection in all of Clay 

County, including those communities and residential areas, such as 

Georgetown and Kragness to the North, the Crestwood subdivision 

to the south, which are located beyond the immediate vicinity of 

the city of Moorhead in Oakport Township. We feel strongly that 

whatever measures—and I am sure there is nobody in this room 
17 

that feels differently. But whatever measures are taken here just 

do not move this problem downstream. 

Recommendations for long-term flood control structures, such as 

a diversion channel and/or dike system, must also include analysis 

of cost impacts on local governments, long-term maintenance plans, 

and funding mechanisms. 

The diversion is going to be a controversial issue. I don’t know 

that that can be avoided. If you do the math, that would take approximately 7,500 acres of the richest farmland in the world out of 

production, which is an equivalent to 11.5 sections. 

But there are other issues. There are aquifers in this area. The 

city of Moorhead collects their water from the Buffalo aquifer. 

There is another aquifer further to the north, and there certainly 

is concern of any diversion and what effects it would have on the 

recharging of those aquifers. And these aquifers, estimates are that 

these will supply fresh water to about 50,000 residents, rural and 

citywide. 

It is not clear at this time as to how the recommendations of the 

Corps flood study and the ensuing construction and maintenance of 

the permanent flood control structures will dovetail with the scope 

and the responsibility of the proposed region-wide flood management authority. A region-wide flood management authority established by the U.S. Congress must be granted adequate Federal 

powers, which will enable it to effectively implement flood protection measures across the State border lines in a regional watershed 

which spreads across the two States and the two Federal regions. 

I want to comment on Colonel Christensen’s comments today on 

retention. As we met in Washington, DC a month ago or 3 weeks 

ago or a month ago, whatever it was, we talked about the threelegged stool approach, and we feel that retention may have to certainly be included to make for meaningful flood control. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, again, I appreciate you having me here to testify on behalf 

of my colleagues and the citizens of Clay County, and we certainly 

hope to work with you as this project moves forward. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JERRY WALLER

The Greater Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area has experienced four major floods 

on the Red River since 1997. The property damage and the disaster recovery costs 

resulting from these flood events have exceeded hundreds of millions of dollars, not 

to mention the substantial emotional and mental anguish suffered by the citizens 

of the region during each flood event. 

Clay County supports the efforts to design and implement permanent flood protection measures involving the Red River of the North and its tributaries. 

Clay County is appreciative of the strong support from the States of Minnesota 

and North Dakota and our congressional delegations in Washington, DC in their 

willingness to establish a region wide flood control authority and, to help fund this 

major undertaking. 

Ongoing collaboration among area local governments and various State and Federal agencies in finding region wide flood control solutions is essential. Clay County 

will continue to be an active partner in this process. 

The Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Flood Study, presently being conducted by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must incorporate the river elevations analyses and 

design considerations used in the Fargo Southside Flood Control Project to insure 

that there is no adverse flooding impact on the properties on the Minnesota side 

of the river as a result of this project. 
18 

The permanent flood control measures recommended by the Corps Flood Study 

must address the flood protection in all of Clay County, including those communities 

and residential areas; such as Georgetown and Kragnes to the north and Crestwood 

Subdivision to the south; which are located beyond the immediate vicinity of the city 

of Moorhead and Oakport Township. 

Recommendations for long term flood control structures such as a diversion channel and/or a dike system must also include analysis of cost impacts on local governments, long term maintenance plans, and funding mechanisms. 

If a diversion channel on the Minnesota side is recommended as a permanent 

flood protection measure for the area, its alignment, design and location must be 

coordinated with the city of Moorhead to insure that there is no damage to the 

south branch of Buffalo Aquifer which serves as the primary source of water supply 

for the city. 

It is not clear at this time as to how the recommendations of the Corps Flood 

Study, and the ensuing construction and maintenance of the permanent flood control structures, will dove tail with the scope and the responsibility of the proposed 

region wide flood management authority. 

A region wide flood management authority, established by the U.S. Congress, 

must be granted adequate Federal powers which will enable it to effectively implement flood protection measures across the State border lines in a regional watershed which spreads across two States, and two Federal regions. 

Senator DORGAN. Chairman Waller, thank you very much. 

Finally, we will hear from Keith Berndt, the Cass County engineer. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH BERNDT, ENGINEER, CASS COUNTY, NORTH 

DAKOTA 

Mr. BERNDT. Senator Dorgan, Members of Congress, Senator, 

thank you for convening this hearing. And Members of Congress, 

thank you for being here this afternoon. 

My name is Keith Berndt. I am the county engineer for Cass 

County, North Dakota. 

As a county, we look forward to working in partnership with the 

communities and agencies on both sides of the Red River to bring 

solutions to fruition in a timely manner. The economic future of 

this metropolitan area and the entire region is dependent upon 

timely completion of permanent flood protection projects. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

We are all involved in this historic process to move as quickly as 

possible. We must recognize the tremendous risk and costs associated with every year that passes without protection in place. We 

have before us an historic opportunity and an obligation to future 

generations to work together as communities to solve this 

daunting, but solvable problem. 

Thank you. That concludes my testimony. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH BERNDT

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to Senator Dorgan for convening this hearing and for your strong ongoing support of permanent flood protection. Permanent flood protection for the Fargo Moorhead metropolitan area is critical. As a county, we look forward to working in partnership with the communities 

and agencies on both sides of the Red River to bring solutions to fruition in a timely 

manner. 

The economic future of this metropolitan area and the region is dependent upon 

timely completion of permanent flood protection projects. We urge all involved in 

this historic process to move as quickly as possible. We must recognize the tremendous risk and cost associated with every year that passes without protection in 

place. 
19 

We have before us a historic opportunity and an obligation to future generations 

to work together as communities to solve this daunting, but solvable problem. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Berndt, thank you very much. 

I would like to ask a couple of questions and then call on my colleagues if they have questions as well. 

First to Colonel Christensen, you have been looking at various 

project options at this point, and you indicated by the end of May, 

you thought you would have some preliminary numbers. What are 

the preliminary benefits or cost-benefit ratios for the various 

project options? Are you prepared to disclose that to us at this 

point? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. We have done some preliminary cost-benefit ratio calculations on the options that we have looked at so far. 

And what we have looked at is a levee option and a diversion channel option and a combination of those two pieces. 

And right now, without optimization and without taking into account other facets of the project that we call on board, stuff like 

upstream storage and working these in combination and detail, the 

levee option comes out to be about 1.0. The diversion channel option comes out to be 0.65, and the combination plan comes out to 

about 0.62. 

And again, these aren’t optimized and are back of the envelopetype calculations. 

Senator DORGAN. Right. Whatever optimized is, it is a term of 

art. If those were the cost-benefit ratios that represented some 

final analysis, the levee option would then represent the only option that would meet the Federal cost-benefit ratio test. Is that correct? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. But that is in isolation. 

Senator DORGAN. I understand that, but I am talking about the 

options. 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. But of the three options on the table, that 

would be the only one that would—— 

Senator DORGAN. The only one that would meet a test and go forward would be the levee option? 
20 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator DORGAN. A quick question, what information and decisions do you need from local governments as you proceed from now 

until either September or December of next year, and is that the 

next decision point in the study? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. We are getting everything we need right 

now in coordination with the local and the State governments. We 

have been working in a very cooperative fashion. 

Basically, what we need is input into what the solutions are 

going to be, impacts on what would be the impacts of a given solution on the community and others around it, and also we need help 

in making sure that we go out and sell this plan in a unified effort 

to the public. 

The next decision point will be this fall, when we will have a 

more refined cost-benefit analysis on the various options that we 

are going to lay forward. At that time, we are going to sit down 

with the local communities and figure out what is the best proposed solution and whether that does have a Federal interest. 

Senator DORGAN. You say this fall? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. This fall. 

Senator DORGAN. And what does ‘‘this fall’’ mean? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. We will go with September, sir. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. We will make a decision about whether we 

are going to move forward or not, whether there is a Federal interest, and what the best plan would be. 

Senator DORGAN. Can you explain in layman’s terms how the 

flood protection in a metropolitan area like Fargo and Moorhead 

can affect river States upstream and downstream and how the potential effects of a project like that are addressed as a part of your 

study? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. That is a very complex question. 

We start with the levees. Levees can constrict the water flow 

through a city, and it could affect the upstream stage, and it could 

affect the downstream stage as the water comes in. 

Now there are ways to mitigate that by offsetting the levees a 

little bit farther into the floodplain, but there is always that potential. And we do the modeling to make sure that those impacts are 

minimized. 

In a diversion channel, you are taking flow around the metropolitan area. There is always a danger that you pass that water too 

quickly and that it will increase the stage in the communities upstream. 

Again, we will do the modeling to make sure that is minimized, 

and as the diversion goes around the city, the water is slowed 

enough so that it would not have an adverse impact. But it could 

have an adverse impact if done improperly downstream, and it will 

have the potential to lower the upstream stage as well. 

Senator DORGAN. I am going to send you a series of questions, 

and in that series, I am going to ask a number of questions be answered with respect to the Southside project in Fargo, its impact 

on a comprehensive flood control project, cost-benefit ratio, and so 

on. I will also request your assessment of an impact, if any, that 
21 

a Southside project in Fargo would have with respect to the city 

of Moorhead. 

So I will submit those for the record, and if you wish to comment—and perhaps my colleagues will pursue that because I think 

we should have some discussion of that here, but we will also ask 

that you submit some responses for the record. 

Now let me ask the two Mayors to fast forward to the end of this 

year. It is December. Do you have some confidence that there will 

be a consensus between the two major cities, and that would include, of course, the counties on some kind of a flood control project 

that represents what you consider to be the interests of both areas? 

Are you optimistic that by December, if we meet—— 

Mr. WALAKER. We are always optimistic. 

The Southside project, I will take that on first. It isn’t—this 

didn’t just happen overnight. Two years ago, they brought the 

plans forward, and there was somewhere around a 6- to 9-inch increase in the river through Briarwood. There was an uprising, and 

basically, I asked staff to go back and reduce it to zero because that 

was the only way we were going to get it passed through the process. 

So it didn’t start 2 years ago. It basically started 4 or 5 years 

ago trying to come up with this process. So that is why some people 

look at this as a very complex plan, and it is, extending Drain 27, 

Drain 53, and so forth into storage and adding probably at least 

a section of storage down in that area and then also these channel 

cut-offs and so forth. So it is a complex project. But properly managed and so forth, it has a zero impact on these areas. 

And we have had peer review and so forth. So that is part of it. 

If there is any mistake in this process, we did not—we had 50 or 

60 meetings. There has been a group of—from the DNR, from 

Moorhead, the city engineer and so forth, a technical group that 

have been meeting for over a year. So there is probably 100 meetings total. 

If there is any mistake in this whole process, because Moorhead 

was not going to be participating in the cost of that event, maybe 

we overlooked that a little bit. So we didn’t get the information out. 

There seems to be a disconnect between the engineers and the 

elected officials, okay. And I don’t mean that to be a negative. 

What that is, is that the elected officials that are out there representing the public feel that they need to understand the project, 

and maybe I have spent too much time at this, and I will take any 

responsibility for that. That is not a problem. It is just that frustrations begin and so forth. 

And if we are going to debate this in the forum—and we are not 

going to do that, right, Collin, because that accomplishes nothing. 

We need to allow the Corps of Engineers to do their process. 

Now it doesn’t sound like a diversion is going to work anyway, 

and maybe you guys are absolutely right. We don’t need anybody 

to drive a divisive separation of the river. We need to cooperate. 

You told us this specifically, that we need a plan that both cities 

can come forward, and we want it done by the Corps of Engineers. 

That is why we solicited them to go ahead with this comprehensive 

study, when the study for downtown Fargo, including City Hall, did 

not have the cost-benefit ratio. So, that is what we are doing. 
22 

If we get some information at the end of this year, that is magnificent. But we are all waiting for September or December 2010 

also to have a preferred alternative. 

Senator DORGAN. I am going to ask Mayor Voxland if he wishes 

to respond. But Colonel Christensen, would you just tell us when 

you did the cost-benefit ratios a few moments ago, was that for a 

100-year flood or a 500-year flood or some other flood? Tell us what 

it was you were measuring. 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. I would have to go for a lifeline on that, 

sir, just to make sure that I am correct, 100 year plus 4 feet. 

Senator DORGAN. Pardon me? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. A 100-year flood plus 4 feet. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you. 

Mayor Voxland. 

Mr. VOXLAND. I look back to what the world was like in our area 

on March 15, and had you asked that question then, I would have 

kind of smiled and chuckled because there was a casual discussion 

of different things amongst the group. Starting with the meeting 

that you convened in Washington, DC, the city of Moorhead, Fargo, 

Cass and Clay County have had one joint meeting since then. We 

have another one that they are working on scheduling for June 

right now. 

My belief is the best way that we are going to get good cooperation is by having us get together and, first of all, get to know each 

other, get to know the first names of everybody that is around the 

table, get to know a little bit about them, and honestly talk about 

the problems and how we can solve them. 

I think that has been happening. It has been happening—as I 

look in front of me, it is happening at the national level. I know 

it is happening at the State level. It is happening at the local level. 

I think we are going to be a long way toward a final, cohesive 

answer by the end of this year. We might not have everything 

done, but we will be a long way. And by the time the Corps project 

comes out, I think we will be in good sync with it. I am very confident. You can’t be Mayor and be pessimistic. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, Mayor Voxland, I am encouraged by that 

answer certainly and by the answer of the mayor of Fargo. 

Again, I will send a series of questions to the entire panel for a 

written response to be included in the record. 

Senator Conrad. 

Senator CONRAD. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. And I didn’t 

have a chance to thank specifically my colleague Senator Klobuchar for being here and for her leadership. She has just been terrific to work with on these issues. One thing about Senator Klobuchar, she does her homework. And so, it has been great to have 

her as a partner in this effort. 

And Congressman Peterson, I will tell you, you could not have 

a better partner in a fight than Collin Peterson. And I know because we just went through the Farm bill together, and we were 

great allies in that fight and will be allies in this effort as well. 

The Mayor, Mayor Walaker mentioned the evacuation meeting 

that we had. It really was, I thought, was going to be a meeting 

about resources but turned out to be, in part, about the evacuation. 

I just want to say, as we went through that meeting, I thought you, 
23 

Mayor Walaker, and the Deputy Mayor, Tim Mahoney, made a 

very clear and compelling case that you had taken the responsible 

steps that would be expected. 

You had a plan. You had gotten the vulnerable populations evacuated. You had voluntary evacuations of the low-lying areas, and 

you had issued special alerts to the people who were between the 

backup dikes and the main dikes. So I personally was persuaded 

you had been fully responsible in an evacuation planning effort. 

I want to ask Colonel Christensen, as I understand it you have 

$600,000 available for 2009, $1.4 million for 2010 for the analysis 

that needs to be done. Are those the correct numbers? And do you 

have, in your judgment, the resources necessary to meet the 

timeline for these reviews? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. Those monetary figures are correct, and we do have the resources. I have assigned my two best 

project managers on this. This is an important project to the district and to the region. Anything I have asked for from General 

Walsh and from Headquarters, USACE, they have promised that 

they would give me. So I feel I have the resources. 

Senator CONRAD. General Walsh has indicated that you will have 

available to you the resources that you need to complete this aggressive timeline. Is there anything that could be done to provide 

an even faster result? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. In my estimation, no. We have taken 

every effort to compress this timeline because we know how important this is. And this is a very complex issue, as has come out. 

Senator CONRAD. Okay. To the Mayors and to the county representatives, are there any, as far as you can see at this point, any 

showstoppers as issues for agreement to be reached between the 

cities and the counties? 

Mr. WALAKER. No. But we need these people here. I mean, they 

rotate these guys like General Walsh and Colonel Christensen 

every 3 years. Is that going to be a showstopper? 

I mean, we brought these people here. They were here during the 

flood fight. They understand the problems and as they go forward. 

So if you are talking about a showstopper, I think all of these 

things can be resolved to some benefit. But to watch these guys be 

redeployed, that bothers me a little bit. 

Senator CONRAD. Let me just say I watched Colonel Christensen 

in community after community, and I have high regard for Colonel 

Christensen. His professionalism and the absolute dedication he 

brought to this, I think all of us respect. 

Mayor Voxland, any showstoppers that you see? We should get 

them on the table. If there are things out there that are non-starters, we need to know. 

Mr. VOXLAND. That I can think of at this point, no. I think communication is going to be a key. I think one thing that the four of 

us, the two counties and two cities, probably need to do is get together and figure out some way of an instant e-mail type communication on a very regular basis to see if something does crop up 

in the near future and the midterm future so we can address those 

right away. But at this point, I see nothing that would stop it. 

Mr. WALAKER. How about hand-delivered communications? 
24 

Mr. VOXLAND. No, you are going to have to learn how to do email. 

Mr. WALAKER. I know how to do that. I just read it, because it 

becomes public record and so forth. That is the point I was trying 

to make. 

Senator CONRAD. Keith. 

Mr. BERNDT. Senator Dorgan, Senator Conrad, no, I don’t see 

any from the county’s perspective. 

Senator CONRAD. And Chairman Waller. 

Mr. WALLER. Senator, I don’t believe there will be any 

showstoppers. I believe there are going to be some bumps in the 

road along the way because of the different interests of each community or county, city or county. But I do believe that what I have 

seen is that everybody certainly understands the situation and certainly wants protection for our citizens. 

Senator CONRAD. Okay, I just want to end on this note, if I can, 

with Colonel Christensen, because we know there is one big potential showstopper out there, and that is the cost-benefit ratio and 

the cost-benefit analysis, because if we don’t achieve that, we can’t 

achieve Federal funding. 

So I want to make certain that I understood your earlier answer 

to Senator Dorgan. With respect to a diversion, your initial indication is that that would have a cost-benefit ratio of 0.65. The combination would be 0.62. Both of those would be far below any costbenefit ratio that would be acceptable for Federal funding. Isn’t 

that correct? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CONRAD. And so, the only option with respect to your initial calculations that would qualify for a Federal project would be 

the diking approach. 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. As a standalone alternative, yes, sir. 

Senator CONRAD. As a standalone alternative. 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. However, we have to optimize those, and 

we have to make sure we are capturing all the benefits. 

Senator CONRAD. Yes, I understand that you have got a caveat 

there, but still you are providing us initial information that is important for people to understand. 

To meet the cost-benefit ratio, my understanding is that you 

have to be above 1.0. Is that correct? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CONRAD. And your initial indication is we are at 1.0, but 

that is before optimization. Okay. So we have still got, hopefully, 

some benefits to capture there before we get a final determination. 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CONRAD. All right. I thank the chairman. 

Senator DORGAN. Just for the record, the calculation you have 

just described, that is the comprehensive levee system without or 

exclusive of the Southside project or including the Southside project 

and the benefits it provides? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. It is looking at an alignment that would 

be typical of what a levee alignment would be in the city as a 

standalone, just as you sketch out what protection would look like 

from the city, a typical alignment. I am not sure I am answering 

your question there, sir. But it is—— 
25 

Senator DORGAN. I am not sure I want the answer to the question. But I will inquire more about that. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Just a question for the two mayors, as we can learn a lot from 

these crises when they happen and how we can improve things, I 

have said a few times that FEMA—in North Dakota and Minnesota, FEMA is a four-letter word, but it is not a bad one. Compared to the Katrina FEMA, I think that, once again, just as in 

Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, we saw a lot of good work out 

of FEMA in this area. 

Could you talk about your impressions of that and any improvements you think that could be made as we go forward? I guess 

Mayor Voxland first. 

Mr. VOXLAND. I have to say that I was extremely impressed with 

our FEMA representatives that were invited into Minnesota, as I 

understand that is how the process works. They were very clear 

from the start what their mission was. They kept re-explaining it 

so that we absolutely understood. I’m very happy with what they 

did. 

So I would say I can’t think of anything that I really want to 

fault them on, I’ll go into our next steps with FEMA and the frustration of the 206 funds are probably the only thing that I have as 

we go forward, and that is not FEMA’s problem. It is the way Federal law is written. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, and that is actually something that I 

have talked to the Secretary of Homeland Security about. There is 

this regional funding difference. And you would hope when an area 

has the same problem, that there is a way to treat both sides of 

the river the same when they are in different States. But that is 

something that we need to work on going forward. 

Mayor Walaker. 

Mr. WALAKER. As I get long in the tooth, I have watched FEMA 

grow. Back in 1975, 1978, 1979, FEMA was a depository for people 

that couldn’t get another Federal job, okay? They had no skills. The 

laws were almost obscure. 

The rules—and that is the way they wanted it. As far as I was 

concerned, that is the way they wanted it. Because the flood of 

1993, when they flooded the Mississippi, we had a flood up here 

later on that summer, and it got to be just absolutely, they were 

so difficult to deal with. 

This year’s response, we still have some difficulties. I mean, but 

they are following the law as close as they possibly can. Are we disappointed in some areas? Of course we are. But the response and 

the professionalism of the FEMA today is much, much enhanced 

over what it used to be years and years ago. 

So, as far as the President is concerned, I mean, he was very concerned that we had all of the Federal help that we could and that 

trickle down to the process. And right now, sure, we still disagree 

over what was done in the past, the right of entry and so forth and 

the particular part of the cleanliness of the boulevards and so forth 

and the sand. 

I mean, we had 42 miles of dikes in Fargo. So we still have some 

of those to deal with and so forth. And we understand that some 
26 

of them are going to go away. We are going to do it on PA and so 

forth, but they are good. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Colonel Christensen, this was interesting information for us 

about the cost-benefit analysis. I know that it is preliminary. But 

could you describe to me why that would be a little more information about the levee plan? Obviously, we had some concerns about 

I think Chairman Waller mentioned 7,500 acres. We have heard 

9,000 acres of some of what you described, Chairman Waller, of the 

most highly productive farmland, richest farmland in the country 

that would have been taken out if only the diversion plan was 

used. 

Was that part of what went into the consideration of the lower 

cost-benefit analysis with the pure diversion plan? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Yes, it was. And we only looked at the 

Minnesota side initially for this first pass through. We do intend 

to look on the North Dakota side as well. But as you look at both 

sides of the river initially, it was a little bit more complicated to 

do it on the North Dakota side. And with the time constraints we 

had, we wanted to see what a cost-benefit ratio would look like. So 

we did the Minnesota side first. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So you did it on the Minnesota side just because it was a preliminary thing? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. It was a preliminary thing. We wanted to 

take a snapshot. It is less complex on the Minnesota side. There 

are less railroad crossings, less rivers to cross, less roads to cross. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But it still came out with this higher cost, 

lower benefits basically, and part of that was this farmland? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. And part of that was captured in the cost 

piece. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think that is what Collin said. He just 

said it differently than you did. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay, so anyway, because we really do 

want to make this work so dearly. We care so much about making 

this plan work. And so, obviously, hearing this—could you tell me 

a little—is good news for us. Could you talk a little bit more about 

the levee plan and how this would work? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. The levee plan on which we initially did 

the calculations was very similar to what they have set up already 

in the Southside project. That is the alignment we used to do the 

cost-benefit analysis initially. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And Senator Conrad was asking; you have 

to get over a 1.0 cost benefit. Could some of this be—you talked 

about the possibilities of retention. We talked about this with some 

of our smaller communities, and actually, we have some ideas 

about that, some potential places for retention. Could that bump it 

up? Again, I know it is still preliminary. 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. And that is part of the optimization piece. 

We wanted to just get a snapshot of the standalone pieces, and we 

still have to pull in the nonstructural aspects and the retention upstream from the Fargo metro upstream storage and see how we can 

incorporate that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And that storage could be happening in 

both States? 
27 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay, very good, just one last question, 

Chairman Waller, when you talked about Georgetown and some of 

the other communities are they going to have a seat at the table 

as we look at this process? 

Mr. WALLER. After the first meeting, flood meeting with the 

Corps, I don’t think it was 15 minutes later, and I got a call from 

the mayor of Georgetown, the mayor is certainly concerned and 

really wants the information. So these communities want to be involved. They want to express their thoughts and their issues 

and—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And was this helpful information to you 

about the cost benefit? Did that surprise you when you brought 

that up in your testimony? 

Mr. WALLER. Well, from what I gathered in the initial information that came out, it really talked about what I gathered was the 

diversion as well as the levees. And retention, again, we feel—and 

I think there are already some studies out there that indicate that 

the two alone are not going to be successful without that third leg 

of the stool. I am not familiar with some of those studies, but that 

is what I have heard. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DORGAN. Senator Klobuchar, thank you very much. 

For the information of my colleagues, I am going to call on Congressman Peterson and Congressman Pomeroy. In about 10 minutes, we will have the second panel up. Governor Hoeven came 

after we started, he is here and has exhibited great patience and 

General Walsh similarly, and we have a representative of Governor 

Pawlenty. 

So following the questions of my two colleagues, we will be submitting a list of questions, especially to the Corps, but also to other 

witnesses on this first panel. When we receive the responses, which 

we would expect within 2 weeks, we will make the responses publicly available so that everyone has access to those responses because that will complete the record. We are not able to ask every 

question in this circumstance, but we appreciate the cooperation of 

the witnesses. 

Congressman Peterson. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will try to be brief. So this preliminary look included the Southside project. Is that part of the deal? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PETERSON. Okay. And when you were talking about minimizing the effect downstream, when you were asked, you said you 

were going to minimize. So with both options that you are looking 

at, at this point, there is going to be some effect downstream probably, right? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. There could potentially be, but the goal is 

to get that down to zero by minimizing—— 

Mr. PETERSON. Do you think that is realistic to get it to zero? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Realistically, there will probably be some 

effect upstream or downstream, to some small degree. 

Mr. PETERSON. But we will be able to know—— 
28 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. And we will be able to know by the 

hydrological modeling what those effects are and we will make sure 

that that is minimized. 

Mr. PETERSON. And on the Southside project, Mayor Walaker, I 

don’t know as much about it as I need to, but are you—you say you 

have had peer review of it, that it won’t affect our side. I think you 

have mentioned that. 

Mr. WALAKER. Well, Briarwood. Briarwood would have had a significant increase of 6 to 9 inches, and now we have got that down 

to zero. So there is a benefit to that whole area, and we are talking 

about within the district having retention and more retention in 

the legal drains, Drain 53 and Drain 27. 

Mr. PETERSON. So you have it down to zero now, you think? 

Mr. WALAKER. Yes, and below zero. There are some significant 

improvements there on the Southside project, and what we are asking the Corps of Engineers to do is to include that. 

If we are going to spend $161 million, we would certainly like to 

get some credit for that, and we would like to know that as soon 

as possible because there are some aspects of that project that we 

could actually start on if there wasn’t going to be any benefit. But 

the cost-benefit ratio, we do not want to screw up the cost-benefit 

ratio for both cities. 

Mr. PETERSON. One last question, Colonel. We had some meetings yesterday and last evening, and it was on this upstream study 

that was done earlier or I don’t know if it was completed or what 

exactly happened. But somebody had mentioned and I think somebody mentioned this at one of our other meetings that—and I want 

to understand if this is correct—that if you had 400,000 acre feet 

of storage upstream, it would only affect the crest 1.6 feet. Is that 

correct? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Those are the figures I have heard, sir. 

Mr. PETERSON. That doesn’t seem possible. 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. For the 100-year flood. 

Mr. PETERSON. Pardon? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. For the 100-year flood, 1.6 feet. 

Mr. PETERSON. I guess I am not enough of an engineer to understand. Is there any kind of information that would help the understanding of that? Is there some kind of a paper that shows that? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. We—— 

Mr. PETERSON. Okay. I would like to see it because it just seems 

kind of counterintuitive. But I mean, if that is the case, we struggled to get 20,000 acre feet of storage and 400,000 is only going to 

give us 1.6 feet, I don’t know. It is going to take a lot of retention 

to make any difference. 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. In the cost-benefit ratio, that was pretty 

low as we did that study. I think it came out to be about 0.25. 

However, we are looking at incorporating some ecosystem and restoration pieces in there that might drive up that cost benefit. 

And again, it is—— 

Mr. PETERSON. Is that kind of why that study was shelved or 

whatever? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. We are still working on it, but we need to 

capture other benefits besides just the flood mitigation piece. And 

it is going to take all of these pieces together, the nonstructural, 
29 

the structural, and whatever we can to pull this in to get that maximum cost-benefit ratio. 

Mr. PETERSON. All right. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you, Congressman Peterson. 

Congressman Pomeroy. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The questions I had have largely been covered. There are a couple of interesting items in the testimony that I want to make sure 

are reflected in the record, and they are because you included 

them. But they deserve some emphasis. 

We get into cost-benefit ratio analysis and the Corps has a very 

well-designed criteria in terms of how you figure that. But I think 

the testimony presents reality in terms of the cost benefits that we 

also need to consider. We are going to look at some very expensive 

designs going forward. 

And yet, according to the mayor’s testimony, had we not protected at 41, water would have extended from south of Fargo all 

the way to Interstate 94, west to Interstate 29, to west Fargo 

boundaries. It would have caused the flooding of 6,000 single-family homes, 6,000 apartment buildings, 52,000 residents displaced, 

also inundating north Fargo through North Dakota State University campus, as well as most of the neighborhoods situated along 

the Red River. 

That is from the mayor’s testimony. And Colonel, your testimony 

reflects that the basin protection was achieved with a heroic effort 

locally, but the Corps providing 11 million sandbags, 141 pumps, 

81,600 feet of HESCO barriers, 70 miles of earthen levees, and 

these efforts prevented nearly $3 billion in damages. And of that 

$3 billion, $2.5 billion in damages avoided were right here in the 

Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. 

So I think that is the first time I have actually seen a hard figure on what this successful flood fight yielded in terms of savings. 

Is that your testimony? 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. That is my testimony. And it is a very 

complex algorithm when you are doing a cost-benefit ratio for a 

project. And I am not even going to pretend I understand—— 

Mr. POMEROY. Regrettably, a cost-benefit ratio can’t just say, look, if it floods, it is going to cost you $2.5 billion in Fargo-Moorhead alone, but—— 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. You have those costs spread over time, the 

life of the project, and it is a very complex algorithm. And like I 

said, I can’t even begin to understand it, and that is why I have 

Aaron working on that. 

Mr. POMEROY. We are not challenging the algorithms. We will 

work with them. But we do know we have to proceed because even 

though these are going to be—these costs are going to be in the 

hundreds of millions of dollars. But on the other hand, this frantic 

effort involving these temporary measures produced $2.5 billion 

worth of savings. 

On the other hand, but for the weather turn and freezing all of 

that water out in the fields, which allowed for almost a staged 

drawdown of the water in this area, but for that freeze, we might 

not have made it. Is that your evaluation? 
30 

Colonel CHRISTENSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POMEROY. So that is tremendous risk. If you were running 

this like a business, you wouldn’t want to take that kind of risk, 

this heroic effort, getting a break from the weather, and by the 

skin of our teeth avoiding a $2.5 billion hit. 

So thank you very much. I look forward to the next panel also. 

Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Congressman Pomeroy, thank you very much. 

Let me thank all of the witnesses. You will be receiving from us 

a list of questions that we hope you would submit back in 2 weeks. 

Thank you very much for your testimony today. 

We will ask the next panel to come forward. Is the Governor in 

the room? All right, we ask that the Governor and General Walsh 

come forward. Also, Commissioner Mark Holsten, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of Governor Tim 

Pawlenty. 

Let me ask that you be seated, please. 

Is Mr. Holsten in the room, Mark Holsten? 

Governor, you came after the hearing began. We appreciate your 

patience, but we wanted especially to invite you and Governor 

Pawlenty, as well as Brigadier General Walsh, to be with us today. 

I appreciate the fact that you were able to listen to a fair amount 

of the testimony from the first panel. 

I think it is important to point out that you, Governor Pawlenty, 

and a lot of folks at the State level, both Minnesota and North Dakota, played a very significant role in the flood fight this year, and 

we appreciate that. 

And General Walsh, as Senator Conrad indicated, you are almost 

becoming a permanent resident up here, and we appreciate your 

work as well. 

Let us begin, Governor Hoeven, with you, and we appreciate your 

being here. As I indicated to the previous panel, your full testimony 

will be in the permanent record, and you are welcome to summarize. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NORTH 

DAKOTA 

Governor HOEVEN. Thank you, Senator. 

And greetings to you, Senator Conrad, Congressman Pomeroy, 

Senator Klobuchar, good to have you on our side of the river, and 

also Representative Peterson. 

I appreciate this meeting today and also the meeting in Washington, DC, where we brought local leaders, State officials, and, of 

course, the Federal delegations together to talk about flood protection in the Red River Valley. And really, it is a bi-State effort. It 

is a regional effort. And we certainly recognize that this is about 

permanent flood protection for the Fargo-Moorhead area, but really, it is about water management in the Red River Valley basin. 

And so, right at the outset, once again, I want to affirm our desire in North Dakota to make sure we are working with our friends 

in Minnesota so that this benefits people on both sides of the Red 

River. 

I also want to start out again thanking the people of Fargo, of 

Cass County, of the Red River Valley in North Dakota, and of 
31 

Moorhead and Clay County, and the Red River Valley in Minnesota 

for the tremendous effort they put in during the flood fight this 

past spring. And the outstanding local leadership, Mayor Walaker 

and all of the local officials here, the county officials, and the same 

for Mayor Voxland, and both city and county officials on the Minnesota side of the river as well. It was unbelievable. 

And I think people all over the Nation saw North Dakotans and 

Minnesotans doing just an amazing job battling the floodwaters. 

But the thing is we can’t go through that every year. We have got 

to get permanent flood protection. And I think that the real issue 

is how do we get this thing going? How do we get permanent flood 

protection going? 

And I have looked at least at the preliminary alternatives that 

the Corps has brought forward, both the levee alternative and also 

the east diversion alternative, and I know they have a hybrid as 

well. 

And I purposely started my comments out—and I have submitted 

written testimony, which is longer, and obviously you can look at. 

But I purposely started my comments out from the standpoint of 

this has to benefit people on both sides of the river. That is how 

we are approaching it. But at the same time, we are very anxious 

to get started. 

And the city leaders in Fargo and in Cass County have spent a 

lot of time and effort, approximately 4 years, on the Southside flood 

protection project. And I guess what I would like to offer is that 

that, I think, could be a good option as Phase I of a phased-in approach, okay? 

And there are a number of benefits to doing it that way, understanding, again, that this is part of a larger regional project. This 

is part of water management in the basin. This is part of doing 

more with storage of water upstream, but that you don’t eat the 

whole apple in one bite. We want to get going. 

And so, from the State perspective and, I think, from the community’s perspective, we would be in position to offer that up as a 

phase one approach to the larger Corps-sponsored project. It is approximately $161 million from the States, and we have $75 million. 

It is ready to go. The community is working on their $75 million. 

We have approximately $11 million in FEMA funding. That is the 

$161 million. 

We could get that project going. It would provide flood protection 

south of I–94, which is certainly a growth area for the community, 

and the project has been constructed in a way where there is no 

negative impact downstream. It does not raise water levels at all 

downstream on either the North Dakota or the Minnesota side of 

the river. 

Also, it would give us time to complete the full-blown plan, as 

well as get appropriated funding for it. So I offer that up as an option or an alternative to begin the process, get it going on a phased 

approach. That would also then put us in position to have time to 

get the appropriation for the full Corps-sponsored project. And I 

understand a Corps-sponsored project typically is 65 percent federally funded, which means a 35 percent non-Federal share. 

So the keys for us would be that the investment that goes into 

this phase one would be credited toward the non-Federal share of 
32 

the cost of the larger project and, second, that it would be taken 

into account properly in the cost-benefit analysis. 

Now I offer this as an alternative, as an option, provided that the 

community of Fargo is comfortable moving forward, the community 

of Moorhead, Cass County, Clay County, and the region. I also offer 

it up as a Phase I, if you will, to get going on the flood protection, 

recognizing that it is only part of the larger regional effort for flood 

protection and water management in the Red River basin. 

And so, I think, again, we are open to any and all options, but 

we are anxious to get going. Along that line as well, I have talked 

to Governor Pawlenty, both before, during, and after the meeting 

we had in Washington DC, and we have offered to enter into a 

State-to-State compact, which could include Federal participation 

or not as well. 

And I am waiting to hear back from Governor Pawlenty. He has 

been—I know he is always busy. He has been particularly busy as 

of late. But we have offered up a compact approach between the 

States, and we are waiting to hear back at this point as to how he 

would like to approach that. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So I guess those are my comments. Again, I have submitted written testimony, but appreciate the willingness of people to come together. And again, I want to express our desire, on behalf of the 

State of North Dakota, to move the process forward and do anything we can to work with everyone at the local level, the State 

level, and with our Federal delegations on both sides of the river 

to advance the ball and get the permanent flood protection going. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN

Good afternoon, Senator. Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen. 

Although the waters have receded, concern about flooding in the Red River Valley 

is still at the high water mark. 

As we continue our efforts to recover from the floods of 2009, we must not take 

our eye off the ball—and that ball is permanent, effective, and reliable flood protection for the Fargo-Moorhead area, as well as for outlying communities. 

The Red River of the north has exceeded flood stage—that is, 17 feet—in roughly 

half of the last 100 years. This year, the Red River exceeded flood stage for more 

than 60 days, and fell below flood stage just last week. 

The people of Fargo and Cass County, the mayor, commissioners, and other local 

leaders did an outstanding job of battling the flood. We at the State level did all 

we could to support the flood fight with the North Dakota National Guard, DOT, 

the Highway Patrol, and other State resources. 

Clearly, we need more permanent flood protection for the Fargo-Moorhead area, 

and we need to coordinate development of that flood protection with additional 

measures and better water management throughout the Red River Valley on both 

sides of the river. 

We are committed to working with all parties—the cities, counties, States, and 

Federal Government—to arrive at a solution that addresses everyone’s concerns, 

and that doesn’t adversely affect any adjacent community. 

Furthermore, we are committed to doing so in a timely fashion and with substantial State resources. To that end, we committed $75 million for permanent flood protection in the Red River Valley prior to the recent flooding. We would like to see 

that funding applied to our State match, and also to the Corps’ cost-benefit criteria. 

In 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began a feasibility study for a FargoMoorhead metropolitan area flood protection project. Under the Corps’ current 
33 

schedule, however, they will not even identify a final plan until January 2010, or 

begin construction until April 2012. 

Two alternatives have initially been advanced: the Levee Alternative, which would incorporate the Southside Flood Control Project and cost approximately $625 

million; and the East Diversion, which would essentially create a 30 mile channel 

around the cities of Fargo and Moorhead and cost about $910 million. 

If the Levee Alternative is selected, we may have the advantage of being able to 

get underway more quickly, with the Southside Flood Protection project as Phase 

I because that project is already laid out. The cost of the Southside Flood Protection Project is $161 million. The State’s $75 million, combined with local match and $11 million from FEMA, would enable the 

project to get underway, perhaps as early as next spring. We would like the Corps 

to help green-light the project by giving us credit for the non-Federal share of the 

larger project, as well as proper treatment in the cost-benefit analysis for the entire 

Corps project. 

The Southside Flood Protection Project would provide security from overland 

flooding that threatens people and property south of I–94, and also enable the city 

of Fargo to continue to grow to the south, helping to maintain the economic vitality 

of the whole State and region. In addition, it doesn’t create adverse impacts downstream because it doesn’t increase water levels. 

With the East Diversion Alternative, it’s not clear at this point whether we would 

have an opportunity to proceed with an earlier Phase I option. 

With either alternative, however, we need the Corps’ help and cooperation to 

begin any type of phased approach prior to the April 2012 timeframe they have 

scheduled for beginning the project. 

I encourage the Corps to work with us to provide a phased approach, if possible, 

under either option that will enable us to move forward to construct permanent 

flood protection before the April 2012 timeframe. 

In addition, we have made an offer to the State of Minnesota to formalize an 

agreement between our States to cooperate on the implementation of the Corps’ 

flood protection measures to protect people and property on both sides of the river. 

Considering the millions of dollars expended in the recent flood fight, this project 

needs to be a priority. 

Thank you for an opportunity to speak to this very important issue. 

Senator DORGAN. Governor Hoeven, thank you very much. 

Next, we will hear from Brigadier General Michael Walsh, the 

Mississippi Valley District Commander of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

General Walsh. 

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL J. WALSH, DIVISION 

COMMANDER, MISSISSIPPI VALLEY DIVISION, ARMY CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS 

General WALSH. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, members 

of the subcommittee. 

Before I get to my prepared comments, I just want to again mention that I was here at ‘‘sandbag central’’—I believe you mentioned 

it, Senator—and saw thousands of people in this facility working 

very close to heavy equipment. And from a safety perspective, it 

was just a little bit nerve-racking. But you guys, the local folks 

really had a good handle on it and were able to fill thousands of 

sandbags and really get it done. 

I took that message—I have worked flood fights on the east 

coast. I have worked flood fights on the west coast, and I have 

worked it on the center coast as well, on the Mississippi and now 

on the Red. I explained to a lot of people, as I have gone around, 

what I saw in ‘‘sandbag central’’—quickly put it on a truck and 

race to the levees. And people didn’t quite understand what I 

meant by ‘‘racing to the levees.’’ They thought racing to the levees 

to put the sandbags on the levees. And what I was explaining to 

them, they were racing to the levees so that they wouldn’t freeze 
34 

the sandbags. And people don’t understand that as well. And when 

I explained this to them, I asked how many go shopping in their 

local store, most of them—all of them raised their hand. And I said 

now how many times have you seen the frozen chickens or the frozen turkeys stacked on top of each other? They can’t. 

So fighting a flood in this area is different than anyplace else 

that I have worked flood fighting, and so I really applaud the people who got it done in this area and was proud to be part of the 

team that worked on that. 

Senator DORGAN. General, that was an unusual weather pattern. 

It is normally much, much warmer up here. 

General WALSH. Sir, I worked very closely with the North Dakota National Guard in Iraq, and they told me how warm it is here 

in the wintertime. 

Sir, the other thing I would comment on, as you mentioned, the 

one river, one region, one cause. I think that is a very good charge 

that we should all be looking at. 

Sir, while I was sitting here, as you do know, Corps of Engineers, 

our employees are not only here in the United States, but we are 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have 65 of our people now in Iraq. 

And I just got a note from the Chief of Engineers that while returning back from a project site in Fallujah, Iraq, on Monday, an 

IED attacked one of our teams coming back from that project site 

and killed our Navy Seabee, one of our Corps of Engineer employees, and a State Department employee. 

The Chief mentioned that the employee wasn’t from my division, 

but certainly, it was one of our team members. And I just wanted 

to pass that along to the subcommittee that we are here with you. 

We are also here and in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Sir, just back to my comments, Chairman Dorgan and members 

of the subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you and report 

what the Corps of Engineers has been doing to address flooding on 

the Red River and the North Basin. 

My testimony will highlight our ongoing efforts to manage flood 

risk in collaboration with all levels of government and to provide 

the information that each citizen needs to make the appropriate 

choices regarding his or her exposure to flood risk. 

The Corps of Engineers, as you know, has a long history in the 

Red River basin. The Lake Traverse Project in the headwaters of 

the Red was an authorized project that started in 1936. The Bald 

Hill Dam on the Sheyenne was authorized in 1944. The Orwell 

Dam on the Otter Tail River was also part of the 1947 comprehensive plan that was proposed by the Corps of Engineers and was authorized in the Flood Control Acts of 1948 and 1950. 

Now we have also built 5 reservoirs and 10 flood control projects 

in the communities on the Red River Valley. We have provided 

emergency assistance on numerous times. Our preliminary calculations for the 2009 flood event shows the Corps reservoirs, the permanent projects, and the emergency assistance actions did prevent 

$3 billion in flood damages in this event alone. 

Nevertheless, many of the areas still sustained significant flood 

damages this year, and further action is clearly needed to address 

flood action in the region. Flood risk management is not just a Federal responsibility. Rather, it is a shared responsibility between 
35 

multiple State, Federal, and local government agencies, which has 

a complex set of programs and authorities. 

The authority to determine how land is used in floodplains and 

to enforce flood-wise requirements is entirely the responsibility of 

State and local governments. Individual citizens must also make 

wise choices to reduce their own flood risks. 

The Federal project and programs like the National Flood Insurance Program can help mitigate that risk, but it does not eliminate 

it. The Government needs to accurately communicate flood risk to 

its citizens so that they can make the appropriate choices. 

The Corps is moving away from the paradigm of flood protection 

and moving to managing flood risks and working in a collaborative 

fashion with all levels of government and private citizens as we 

seek a comprehensive solution that could leverage both Federal 

and non-Federal authorities and resources. The measures needed 

to reduce flood risk go far beyond the traditional structural solutions of levees, diversions, and flood storage. 

It is important to note that the Corps’ objective when considering 

Federal investments in flood damage reduction is to contribute to 

the national economic development that is consistent with protecting the environment. In short, the economic benefits of any 

Federal project must outweigh its costs, as we have talked about 

earlier. 

But the low-hanging fruit on the Red River basin has been largely picked. For a variety of reasons, we have struggled to find the 

environment, the economically justified solutions on proposed 

projects in the recent past. 

Because the Red River floodplain is extremely flat, local levee 

projects often have no high ground to tie into. Urban development 

sits directly on marginally stable riverbanks, so there is little room 

to build a permanent line of protection. 

Even though we can clearly see the potential for catastrophic 

damages in the rare and extreme events, such events do occur. 

They occur infrequently, but as you figure out the cost-benefit 

ratio, the economic analysis stretches that out. 

As a result of these factors, the projects do not tend to move very 

well in a justified manner looking at an economic basis. Many people believe that flood storage is the best long-term solution to flooding. While we agree that flood storage is part of the solution in certain circumstances, they are not always and they do provide significant challenges, and they vary by region to building reservoirs, and 

that limits their effectiveness. 

The best reservoir sites in the Red River basin have already been 

built, and there are significant environmental concerns with the remaining if we are looking at modifying those. Over 90 percent of 

the wetlands originally present in the Red River basin have been 

drained. 

Building flood storage on this drained landscape is possible, especially where drainage systems are less effective. Unfortunately, because the valley is so flat, off-channel storage projects typically require hundreds of acres of land to be surrounded and a constructed 

embankment around it. 
36 

From the Federal perspective, it is difficult to find economic justification for this type of project, and there is often local resistance 

to taking agricultural land out of production. 

Despite these obstacles, flood storage projects can be successfully 

implemented by local agencies, and we have seen that in Cass 

County at the Maple River Dam. And the North Ottawa impoundment project and the Bois de Sioux watershed district in Minnesota 

are two recent projects that worked well. 

The first step in minimizing future flood damage is to restrict development like in urban, rural, agricultural, industrial, and commercial areas, in areas that are prone to flooding, in the 

floodplains. We urge communities responsible for making land use 

decisions to act wisely in this regard and restrict development in 

areas that are known to be at high flood risk. 

If communities can limit development within floodplains, the 

largest and most expensive issues related to flood risk management 

has been resolved before there is even an issue to be addressed. 

The Corps is currently engaged with several construction projects 

on the Red River basin, including the Wahpeton in North Dakota, 

Breckenridge, Fargo, Roseau in Minnesota, and we are also studying projects in Ada and the Wild Rice River basin, as well as Devils 

Lake, the Fargo-Moorhead project that we are talking about today, 

and many of the Red River watershed projects that are upstream. 

Rather than describing those in detail, I will provide a fact sheet 

for you guys to go through later. But the Corps is committed to 

completing these studies and projects with both our Federal and 

non-Federal funding as it is allowed. 

I would like to highlight one additional study. That is the Red 

River basin-wide watershed study. This is a study that began in 

June 2008, and its purpose is to develop a watershed management 

plan for the entire Red River basin. 

The first study task was to collect detailed topographic information using LIDAR technology in cooperation with the International 

Water Institute and several local partners. The data from this effort is already being used to inform decisionmakers. 

The next step is to use this information and put together topographic data to build and refine hydrologic and hydraulic models, 

then using those models to guide watershed management planning 

throughout the basin. 

This study is not intended to recommend or justify Federal 

projects. Instead, it is to provide better tools and data for local and 

State decisionmakers. 

In conclusion, the Corps of Engineers is committed to working 

with our partnerships and partners with the State and local agencies to develop a long-term flood risk reduction strategy. The Federal projects will never totally eliminate flood risk in the Red River 

basin. Citizens need to take responsibility for reducing their own 

flood risks. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Where Federal projects can be justified, we will pursue them in 

concert with the local communities as they so desire. Where Federal studies can inform local decisionmakers, we will work with the 

project partners to conduct them. All levels of government must 
37 

work together to manage flood risk and empower citizens to make 

wise choices. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify here today, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL J. WALSH

Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you to report on what the Corps of Engineers is doing to address flooding in 

the Red River of the North basin. My testimony will highlight our ongoing efforts 

to manage flood risk in collaboration with all levels of government and to provide 

the information each citizen needs to make appropriate choices regarding his exposure to flood risk. 

The Corps of Engineers has a long history in the Red River Basin. The Lake Traverse project in the headwaters of the Red River was authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1936. Baldhill Dam on the Sheyenne River was authorized in 1944. Orwell Dam on the Otter Tail River was part of a 1947 comprehensive plan proposed 

by the Corps and authorized in the Flood Control Acts of 1948 and 1950. We have 

built 5 reservoirs and 10 flood projects in communities in the Red River valley. We 

have provided emergency assistance numerous times. Our preliminary calculations 

from the 2009 flood event show that Corps reservoirs, permanent projects and emergency assistance actions prevented nearly $3 billion in flood damages in that event 

alone. Nevertheless, many areas still sustained significant flood damage this year, 

and further action is clearly needed to address flooding in the region. 

Flood risk management is not just a Federal responsibility. Rather, it is shared 

between multiple Federal, State and local government agencies with a complex set 

of programs and authorities. The authority to determine how land is used in flood 

plains and to enforce flood-wise requirements is entirely the responsibility of State 

and local government. Individual citizens also must make wise choices to reduce 

their own flood risk. Federal projects and programs like the National Flood Insurance Program can help mitigate the risk, but can not eliminate the risks. The Government needs to accurately communicate flood risk, so citizens can make appropriate choices. The Corps is moving away from the paradigm of ‘‘flood protection’’ 

to one of managing the risk of floods in collaboration with other governmental partners and private citizens as we seek comprehensive solutions that would leverage 

Federal and non-Federal authorities and resources. The measures needed to reduce 

flood risk go far beyond traditional structural solutions of levees, diversions and 

flood storage. 

It is important to note that the Corps’ objective when considering Federal investments in flood damage reduction is to contribute to national economic development 

consistent with protecting the environment. In short, the economic benefits of any 

Federal project must outweigh its costs. The ‘‘low hanging fruit’’ in the Red River 

basin has largely been picked. For a variety of reasons, we have struggled to find 

economically justified solutions for proposed projects in recent years. Because the 

Red River flood plain is extremely flat, local levee projects often have no high 

ground to tie into. Urban development sits directly on marginally stable riverbanks, 

so there is little room to build a permanent line of protection. Even though we can 

clearly see the potential for catastrophic damages in rare and extreme events, such 

events occur too infrequently to carry much weight in the economic analysis. As a 

result of these factors, the projects do not tend to be very well justified on an economic basis. 

Many people believe that flood water storage is the best long-term solution to 

flooding. While we agree that flood storage is part of the solution in certain circumstances, there are always significant challenges—that vary by region—to building reservoirs and limits to their effectiveness. The best reservoir sites in the Red 

River Basin have already been built, and there are significant environmental concerns with modifying the few remaining natural ravines. Over 90 percent of the wetlands originally present in the Red River basin have been drained. Building flood 

storage on this drained landscape is possible, especially where drainage systems are 

less effective. Unfortunately, because the valley is so flat, off-channel storage 

projects typically require hundreds of acres of land surrounded by constructed embankments. From the Federal perspective, it is difficult to find economic justification 

for this type of project, and there is often local resistance to taking agricultural land 

out of production. Despite these obstacles, flood storage projects can be successfully 

implemented by local agencies. The Maple River dam in Cass County, North Dakota 

and the North Ottawa Impoundment project in the Bois de Sioux Watershed District 

in Minnesota are two recent examples of locally implemented projects. 
38 

The first step in minimizing future flood damage is to restrict development— 

urban, rural, agricultural, industrial, and commercial—in the areas within the flood 

plain. We urge the communities responsible for making land-use decisions to act 

wisely in this regard, and restrict development in areas that are known to be at 

high flood risk. If communities can limit development within the flood plain, the 

largest and most expensive issue related to flood risk management has been resolved before it ever has become a problematic issue. 

The Corps is currently engaged in several construction projects in the Red River 

basin, including projects at Wahpeton, ND; Breckenridge, MN; Fargo, ND; and soon 

Roseau, MN. We are also studying projects in Ada, MN; the Wild Rice River basin 

in MN; Devils Lake, ND; the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan area; and the Red River 

watershed upstream of Fargo-Moorhead. Rather than describing all of these efforts 

now, I will provide a fact sheet with details and points of contact for the subcommittee members’ information. The Corps is committed to completing these studies and projects as Federal and non-Federal funding allows. 

I would like to highlight one additional study—the Red River Basin-wide Watershed Study. This study began in June 2008, and its purpose is to develop a watershed management plan for the entire Red River basin. The first study task was to 

collect detailed topographic information using LIDAR technology in cooperation with 

the International Water Institute and several local partners. The data from this effort is already being used to inform decisionmakers in the basin. Next steps include 

using the topographic data to build and refine hydrologic and hydraulic models, 

then using the models to guide watershed management planning efforts throughout 

the basin. This study is not intended to recommend or justify any Federal projects; 

instead, it is to provide better tools and data to local and State decisionmakers. 

In conclusion, the Corps of Engineers is committed to working in partnership with 

State and local agencies to develop long-term flood risk reduction strategies. Federal 

projects will never totally eliminate flood risk in the Red River Basin, and citizens 

need to take responsibility for reducing their own flood risk. Where Federal projects 

can be justified, we will pursue them in concert with local communities. Where Federal studies can inform local decisionmakers, we will work with project partners to 

conduct them. All levels of government must work together to manage flood risk and 

empower citizens to make wise choices. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify here today. Mr. Chairman, this concludes 

my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator DORGAN. General Walsh, thank you very much. 

Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Mark Holsten, who is here testifying on behalf of Governor 

Pawlenty. 

Mr. Holsten. 

STATEMENT OF MARK HOLSTEN, COMMISSIONER, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF HON. TIM 

PAWLENTY, GOVERNOR, STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. HOLSTEN. Thank you, Senator. 

On behalf of Governor Pawlenty, I want to send his apologies for 

not being able to be here today, but he wants me to assure you that 

doesn’t lessen the importance that Minnesota has placed on flood 

damage reduction. 

As the DNR, as commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, we administer floodplain management programs and the 

State’s flood hazard mitigation program. In addition, we administer 

the regulatory programs that address impacts to public waters and 

dam safety. 

The Governor and our legislature this spring passed a bonding 

bill that will provide $50 million additional resources to flood hazard mitigation projects into the State and $17 million for disaster 

relief here to the Red River Valley. 

Minnesota and North Dakota have been collectively dealing with 

floods for many years. The 1997 flood disaster brought a renewed 
39 

focus to floodplain management and disaster preparedness. Much 

has been done since then. Unfortunately, there is still much to do. 

It was very gratifying for me to be able to fly over Breckenridge 

this spring during the flood to see that flood project, to see how 

that worked for the Breckenridge community and also being able 

to be on ground at East Grand Forks to see how that Federal 

project protected that community at that peak flood stage this 

spring. 

First of all, I think it would be helpful if we looked back specifically to Minnesota. Floods have been part of our history here in the 

Red River Valley, as for North Dakota also. But the floods that occurred in 1826, the significant floods in 1897, 1997, and 2009, each 

flood is unique and has a different impact throughout the valley. 

We recognize floods are here to stay, and we need to better manage the risks of even greater events in the future. In the mid 

1990s, impoundment projects on the Red River Valley in Minnesota 

were at a standstill. There was a U.S. Corps of Army Engineers 

moratorium on issuing permits for new impoundments, and that 

led to a joint State-Federal cumulative impact EIS. 

The EIS was never completed due to the differences between the 

parties who were involved in development of that. That led to a formal mediation process that began in 1997 and ended in 1998. That 

mediation recognized the needs for 100-year flood protection for cities and a 10-year protection for farmland. 

The mediation established a joint planning process that has proven to be very successful. Each watershed has a flood damage reduction workgroup that reviews and develops projects. Since then, numerous projects have been completed, both with State and local 

funding. 

Seven impoundment projects have been completed or are under 

construction—Agassiz Valley, North Ottawa, PL566 upstream of 

Warren, Brandt/Angus, Fusillit, Easton, Riverton Township, 

Mattson-Slew. 

The North Ottawa project, as the General spoke about earlier, 

had 18,000 feet of acre storage of water that helped to prevent or 

reduce the flow of water to the Breckenridge area this spring. 

These impoundments through that mediation process met the 

concerns of what that mediation process brought out, the concerns 

for flood control, the providing of the safety of our public, and the 

environmental benefits that those impoundments can bring. 

The 1997 flood provided an impetus for significant State funding 

to address flood mitigation projects. Local governments, with the 

assistance of the State and Federal partnership, have completed 

projects in Warren and East Brant. There are three currently ongoing, as the General talked about—Ada, Breckenridge, and Roseau. 

Federal funding is still needed to complete these projects, and 

you can guess that there will be additional communities coming in 

for additional assistance, such as Oslo, Argyle, Hendrum, East 

Georgetown, and Halstead. From a practical point, a point of concern that we have is the length of time and the cost of pursuing 

Federal projects. For example, Breckenridge project over the years 

was delayed while the Corps waited for Federal assistance to be 

able to complete that project. 
40 

While the Corps has been a valued partner and does a lot of good 

work, that study process has forced us to move forward on other 

projects that could have been Federal projects, such as Crookston 

and Oakport Township. Waiting for that and the risk associated 

with that has forced us, as a State, to move in with those local 

units of government, and that is just something we wanted to bring 

out for the record. 

There are a couple of things that we would point out from Minnesota’s perspective that would help from the Federal Government. 

One is provide a cost control mechanism for projects. As the General talked about, it is a very complex system of local, State, and 

Federal funding. Having the ability to control those costs and the 

times associated and clear understanding of who is responsible for 

cost overruns, preferably the Army, would be helpful. 

Utilizing, as the General also talked about, the best science 

around the hydrology, the hydrology information that we have collected from these previous floods to be able to determine floodplain 

management and a focus on risk management. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

We would also like to stress the point that Federal assistance to 

help the States out, to be able to go into these localized projects 

would be of great help at this time. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK HOLSTEN

Mr. Chairman, Governor Pawlenty could not be here today but that does not lessen the importance that Minnesota has placed on flood damage reduction. I am Mark 

Holsten, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

The DNR administers the floodplain management program and the State’s flood 

hazard mitigation program. In addition we administer a regulatory program that 

addresses impacts to public waters and dam safety. This legislative session Minnesota passed a bonding bill that has $50 million for flood hazard mitigation 

projects and a $17 million disaster relief bill that addresses recovery needs in the 

Red River Valley. 

Minnesota and North Dakota have been collectively dealing with floods for many 

years. The 1997 flood disaster brought a renewed focus to floodplain management 

and disaster preparedness. Much has been done since then and unfortunately there 

is still much to do. It was gratifying to visit East Grand Forks at the height of this 

years flood and see how effective the Federal flood control project was working. Additionally the diversion channel that was constructed as part of the Whapeton/ 

Breckenridge project effectively reduced the flood stage even though there was more 

water in the system. 

First it will be helpful to look back. Floods have been a part of the history of the 

valley for many years with the flood of record having occurred in 1826 and significant floods in 1897, 1997, and 2009. Each flood is unique and they have different 

impacts throughout the valley. 

We recognize floods are here to stay and we need to be better at managing the 

risk of even greater events in the future. We need to build out of harms way instead 

of trying to control the inevitable next flood. 

In the mid 1990s impoundment projects in the Red River Valley in Minnesota 

were at a standstill. There was a USCE moratorium on issuing permits for new impoundments; and that led to a joint State/Federal cumulative impacts EIS. The EIS 

was not finalized due to significant differences between the parties. This led to a 

formal mediation process that began in 1997 and concluded in 1998. The mediation 

recognized the need for 100∂ year protection for cities and a 10-year protection for 

farmland. 

The mediation established a joint planning (early coordination) process that has 

proved to be quite successful. Each watershed has a flood damage reduction work 

group that reviews and develops projects. Numerous projects have gone through this 

process and have received both State and local funding. Seven impoundment 
41 

projects have been completed or are under construction including; Agassiz Valley, 

North Ottawa, PL566 upstream of Warren, Brant-Angus, Euclid-East, Riverton 

Township, and Manston Slough. North Ottawa has 18,000 acre feet of storage and 

helped reduce flows to Breckenridge this spring. These impoundments are all off 

channel projects that have met the work groups concerns for flood control, environmental enhancements, and safety. On channel dams will continue to be difficult to 

permit. 

The 1997 flood provided an impetus for significant State funding to address flood 

mitigation projects. Local governments with the assistance of State and Federal 

partners have completed community projects in Warren and East Grand Forks. 

There are three ongoing Federal projects in Ada, Breckenridge/Whapeton, and 

Roseau. Federal funding is still needed to complete these. There will likely be other 

requests from smaller communities for assistance like Oslo, Argyle, Hendrum, 

Georgetown, and Halstad. 

A concern is the length of time and the cost of pursuing a Federal project. For 

example the Breckenridge project was delayed for years because of a lack of Federal 

funds. This results in more risk exposure to the city and an increase in costs due 

to inflation. After a project commences with the USCE the inflation costs should be 

a Federal responsibility if the project is delayed. 

While the USCE has been a Federal partner on some projects, their study process 

resulted in projects in Crookston and Oakport Township, moving ahead without 

them because the risk was too great to wait for the possibility of Federal assistance. 

WHAT CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DO TO HELP MINNESOTA REDUCE FUTURE RISK

FROM FLOODING?

—Ensure consistent management across borders and Federal regions. 

—Provide a mechanism for cost control on projects: 

—Including when a contract is utilized that costs more than the low bid, the 

Federal Government should pay the additional costs without a local cost 

share. 

—Inflation costs due to Federal delays should be borne by the Federal Government. 

—Utilize the best science to address flooding—when new hydrology is available 

it should be used for floodplain management. Need to focus on risk management 

not avoiding the need for flood insurance. 

—Have a means to provide funding directly to the States without the need for a 

Federal project and the cost and time issues associated with that. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present these brief comments about Minnesota’s 

floodplain management and mitigation programs. We will continue to work with 

North Dakota and Congress to address these issues and to reduce the flood risk for 

our citizens. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Holsten, thank you very much. 

Let me just observe that the delay on funding for the 

Breckenridge project no longer exists, since I became chairman of 

the subcommittee. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. HOLSTEN. Senator, I would wholeheartedly agree with that. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much. 

We are providing that funding, and we will continue to do that. 

Governor, let me just ask a couple of questions about this issue. 

I understand you are ready to proceed on the Southside project and 

wish to get credit against a future project, but it is probably not 

possible to get credit against a future project that doesn’t yet exist. 

I think if a future project is defined and available, at that point, 

I think that you have raised a legitimate question. If the State and 

local government would proceed on the Southside project with its 

own funding, could it get credit as part of the local share for the 

more comprehensive project that is then defined? 

But the ready-to-go piece, are we clear with Minnesota and 

Moorhead at this point on the Southside project, or is there more 

to do before we are ‘‘ready to go?’’ 

Governor HOEVEN. Well, I think that is the purpose of these discussions that we are having. The meeting we had in Washington, 
42 

DC, the meetings that Mayor Walaker and Mayor Voxland are having, this meeting today is to find the answer to that question. 

Granted, it would have to be part of the plan. I mean, we recognize and acknowledge that. But you are talking about a timeline 

with the Corps where they are going to come out with a plan in 

2010 and then construction in 2012. So on behalf of the State of 

North Dakota, we are offering this as a phase one to that if it can 

be incorporated into the planning process, both for the cost benefit 

and for the non-Federal—getting credit for the non-Federal share 

of the cost. 

And this is exactly the kind of dialogue that we are having today 

and that we are having on an ongoing basis, local officials to local 

officials, State to State, Federal delegation to Federal delegation, to 

find out if that is possible to move forward as part of the planning 

process. 

Senator DORGAN. From my standpoint, I think that has merit, to 

the extent that there is then a consensus developed on the more 

comprehensive project against which this contribution could count. 

We would have to work on how to do that in Federal law. But 

again, I think a first step has merit, presuming that the rest of 

what we have discussed today actually bears fruit, and that is the 

development of a consensus on a project. I appreciate both the interest of local government and the State government to begin as 

soon as the rest of those hurdles are cleared. 

Governor HOEVEN. Well, and Representative Peterson and others 

have brought forward other projects in the region. We just got done 

talking about Breckenridge, for example. You know, we want to get 

as many of these things going as we can as part of a basin-wide 

effort for water management, flood protection. 

Senator DORGAN. Yes, Wahpeton-Breckenridge is in a different 

situation because that is an established project that is—the proposition is correct that there was not adequate funding for 

Breckenridge for a while. I am correcting that. But that is an established project that has been developed. 

There are other communities which have been discussed that do 

not have, at this point, Corps projects. But when they do move 

ahead with Corps projects, we should try to get them funding. 

Governor HOEVEN. And that is accurate, and we held up on our 

flood protection in Wahpeton, pending Breckenridge getting that 

funding in place. In other words, we waited to finish our project 

until they had the funding so they could finish theirs. 

Senator DORGAN. Didn’t have any choice. 

Governor HOEVEN. Right. 

Senator DORGAN. And that makes the point clearer than almost 

anything we could say today, that both sides of the river have an 

impact on whatever is done on any side of the river. 

Governor HOEVEN. Exactly. That is the point I am making. It has 

got to be done together. 

Senator DORGAN. Senator Conrad. 

Senator CONRAD. Thanks again, and thanks to this panel. 

I would like to go to get on the record because I think it is important to do because we keep getting questions about 1997, what occurred after 1997, why wasn’t there a Federal project? I just want 
43 

to make clear, from my perspective, that this is what occurred after 

1997. 

The city came to us with the Southside project. We got $400,000 

of Corps funding to do a reconnaissance study of that project. Subsequently, the city and the State came to us and said they were 

not interested in pursuing a Federal project. And the reasons that 

we were given at the time that they did not want to pursue a Federal project were the following. No. 1, it was only a $29 million project at that point, and we had already secured $11 million of FEMA money that could be applied 

to it. That was mitigation money. So it was not—while that was 

Federal money, it was not a Federal project because it wasn’t going 

to be Corps funded, funded by the Corps of Engineers. 

No. 2, they were concerned about a delay if it was a Corps 

project because Corps had other major projects underway, and they 

were concerned that there would be a delay that would go on too 

long. Well, subsequently, you look back, Grand Forks got a project 

completed, Wahpeton funded, on the brink of completion. 

Third and this is the thing I want to ask General Walsh about, 

I was told at the time one reason they didn’t want to proceed with 

a Corps project—in other words, a Federal project—was because of 

development land to the south of Fargo that they wanted to get 

protection for. And they were concerned if it was a Corps project 

that would not be included, or it wouldn’t meet the cost-benefit 

test. 

So I am interested, General Walsh, in probing that question. We 

still have that issue because Fargo is continuing to grow. Fargo 

needs room to grow. Fargo’s natural path, one of the significant 

paths is south. 

How would that potential development land be treated for the 

purposes of the cost-benefit analysis? If the city of Fargo wanted 

to include that, would that create a problem for the cost-benefit 

analysis? 

General WALSH. Sir, it would depend on the benefits. Certainly, 

if the benefits are in an urban area and you are protecting a large 

factory, you would get much higher benefits than you would be 

on—— 

Senator CONRAD. Development land. 

General WALSH [continuing]. A developable land. 

Senator CONRAD. Yes, well, that is exactly the issue. And I think, 

in the interest of everybody having kind of the full information before them, this is going to be a key question for all of us going forward. Because Fargo needs—they need growth room. This city is 

growing. It is dynamic. 

And obviously, when you calculate a benefit, if it is not developed 

land that has got potential for development, it is not yet developed, 

that has much less benefit in the formula than land that has been 

developed. And so, if we are at 1.0—I listened very carefully to 

Colonel Christensen here—we are at 1.0, we are on the tipping 

point of this being, meeting the cost-benefit test. 

And of course, we have got a lot of other things to consider. We 

have got 100-year coverage. We have got 250-year coverage. We 

have got 500-year coverage. And what kind of cost-benefit test we 

would get on each of those alternatives. 
44 

So I just think it is very important that we get on the record 

here these issues and that we all understand to the extent development land is included, it is probably not going to be treated very 

well for the purposes of cost-benefit test, and we have got a close 

call here before it is optimized. 

We understand there are other things that have to be entered 

into calculation. But I think it is just important we get that on the 

record. 

Senator DORGAN. Let me just say that that issue exists all across 

the country on flood control projects, and the key, from the Corps’ 

standpoint, and it makes perfect sense, of course, is that when you 

develop a cost-benefit ratio, you are talking about what the costbenefit ratio is to protect that which exists. 

But rather than trying to provide protection for something that 

doesn’t yet exist, the Corps would much prefer that if there is a 

risk to that area that they move elsewhere and build where there 

is not such a risk. Therefore, in the calculation of a cost-benefit 

ratio, future development scores very, very low, if at all. 

It is a perfectly logical thing for the Corps to do from the outside, 

to say if you want to protect this area for future development, it 

is not going to score very well because we would prefer you build 

on higher ground somewhere else. 

Senator CONRAD. Can I add just one other point? And that is 

that we also have the issue of floodplain. Because there is, as I understand, an order out there to discourage development in the 

floodplain, and of course, I mean, all of this is floodplain. So that 

becomes another issue as we go forward. 

And you know, I think we have got to think very carefully about 

the future of this community because the development opportunity, 

at least a significant part of it for Fargo, is to move south. That 

is all floodplain, much of it not yet developed, and we are going to 

have to calibrate very closely here that cost-benefit test if we are 

going to meet it and be able to qualify for that significant pot of 

Federal funding. 

Senator DORGAN. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Brigadier General Walsh, you talked about some of the projects 

in Minnesota, and Chairman Dorgan mentioned the Breckenridge 

project, which has been long in getting completed. And we were 

just there yesterday and made the final request for that. 

But could you just talk a little bit about some of the other Army 

Corps projects—people get very antsy to get these done—Roseau 

and Crookston, as well as what is happening with Ada and Wild 

Rice? 

General WALSH. Ma’am, a lot of them are quite detailed. I can 

talk about them or submit them for the record. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Maybe if you just want to mention what is 

happening in Crookston and Roseau? 

General WALSH. In Crookston, as I look here, the work to repair 

the berms is scheduled for this September. So we should be starting to work on that this year. 

On Roseau, we are preparing the plans and specifications for the 

Roseau project. The project was authorized, as you know, in 2007. 

The recommended plan is for a 150-foot east diversion plan with 
45 

the associated recreation features. I am not quite sure when we are 

going to start. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But, no, that is helpful. It is just we want 

to get those done as soon as possible, as you can imagine. 

The other question I had, in your opinion, looking at projects in 

metropolitan areas like these, larger towns, how important is it 

across the country to have consensus at those town levels before 

the Army Corps goes forward with a project? 

General WALSH. It is absolutely essential that we have from the 

local governments what they want for us to formulate. Planning is 

a very messy business. You must get a lot of people in a room with 

different thoughts and, from that, develop a plan. 

I know I heard from the previous panel there are a lot of people 

talking about the Corps plan next year, and I would just hope that 

that terminology changes to be the one plan, the consensus plan, 

as opposed to the Corps plan. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you have examples in other parts of the 

country where people were able to quickly reach a consensus and 

other examples where they didn’t? 

General WALSH. Well, certainly, East Grand Forks and Grand 

Forks is the example that I carry around in all my speeches. People 

just need to meet on both sides of the river in different States and 

agree how they want to proceed forward. And there are hundreds 

and hundreds of examples. 

For instance, in Napa in California, there were three attempts to 

come up with a flood damage reduction plan there, and the different counties couldn’t agree on one. The attempts just fell apart 

all three times. Until finally, the three counties got together, 

signed an agreement, a legal binding document that pushed that 

project forward and that project is underway. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Mr. Holsten, Representative Peterson and I were just in Oslo and 

Hendrum, some of these smaller communities. I mean, they had a 

ring dike around the entire community, and for weeks they were 

going in by water. Are those types of communities going to be able 

to apply for some of this money? 

I know Senator Langseth had worked very hard on getting those 

funds. And as you said, the Governor was supportive of them. 

What will that funding cover, that flood funding? 

Mr. HOLSTEN. Senator, the projections for the 2009 bonding bill, 

we are looking at a number of projects dealing with—Roseau has 

multiple phases or multiple aspects at Roseau. Breckenridge and 

Ada are the ones of particular note. We are also looking at additional resources. Those are ones where we have State and Federal 

partnership. 

These dollars are also looking at Crookston, North Ottawa, and 

Agassiz Valley. Moorhead has a number of different components to 

its dollars, both it is not known to detail the scope at time for 

Georgetown, Oslo, Preston, and Hendrum. But we have approximately $2 million that we have set aside for that. 

But again, until those projects are clearly defined—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I understand. 
46 

Mr. HOLSTEN. The way we also manage our State resources, it 

is based upon project ready and whether it is a State-Federal partnership and local matches that are required. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. So we can urge them to at least approach you about some of these projects. 

Mr. HOLSTEN. Absolutely. We are working with all of those communities in the Red River Valley. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Thank you very much. And thank 

you, Governor Hoeven. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you. 

Representative Peterson. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Don’t forget St. Vincent, okay? That is one other community that 

has some needs up there that probably can’t get dealt with otherwise. So—— 

General WALSH. It is on the list, Congressman. 

Mr. PETERSON. And the other—I just wanted to say that I talked 

about the Southside project before, but I don’t think that there is 

consensus yet on the Minnesota side, from what I hear. There is 

no question. 

And I think they have said today they are going to try to work 

those out, and everybody seemed to be on the page they are trying 

to work it out. But there are questions. And I don’t know exactly 

how people are going to get comfortable that this doesn’t affect the 

Minnesota side without the Corps coming in and saying it doesn’t. 

You are kind of going ahead of the Corps having—I mean, you are 

not going to be able to say that, are you, until you get the whole 

study done? 

So I don’t know how we get the assurance for the residents, the 

community, and the leaders. I think that is kind of the question. 

So we want to work with you, but I don’t think we are there yet, 

and hopefully, we can work through it. 

General WALSH. That is why we are working on the dialogue, to 

see if we can get there. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Congressman Pomeroy. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I took a slightly more positive conclusion away from our Washington, DC, meeting than the comments of my colleague Collin just 

reflected. I understand we have got issues to work on. Nobody is 

going to blow anything by anybody. This is going to be a consensus 

resolution. We all get that. 

And in the early stages of these many, many meetings, as we 

work this through and the studies progress, I think we are going 

to have better luck if we talk about the process rather than talk 

about the reservations. We all understand—the reservations are 

just kind of a matter of record. We all get that. 

But if we talk about how concerned we are at every time we get 

a chance, we may never get past these concerns. So let us just let 

the process work its will and I think these studies are going to be 

enormously helpful in terms of guiding us, giving us the information we will have to make informed judgments. 
47 

General Walsh, you have got a couple of things in here that I 

want to note in your testimony. And as a proclaimed honorary citizen of Fargo, we expect a little more of you than some of this—— 

Senator CONRAD. He hasn’t filed his returns yet. 

Mr. POMEROY. Some of the qualified comments you make in your 

testimony, you indicate, ‘‘Federal projects will never totally eliminate flood risk in the Red River basin. The citizens need to take 

responsibility for reducing their own flood risk.’’ We absolutely get 

that. 

You go on to say, ‘‘Where Federal projects can be justified, we 

will pursue them in concert with local communities.’’ You indicate 

in your testimony the low-hanging fruit has already been done. But 

obviously, where circumstances compel, we have to act. Circumstances compelled the response in Grand Forks and East 

Grand Forks. That wasn’t low-hanging fruit. 

And yet, to be in those communities, as you were, during this 

flood event with people that woke up every day pinching themselves. They couldn’t believe it. That is the first time in the history 

of this region, major flooding and the citizens of East Grand Forks 

and Grand Forks secure. 

It goes to show you what permanent flood protection can achieve, 

and so, obviously, when driven by circumstance has to be part of 

the response. Now how do we get there? Will we get there by the 

cost-benefit analysis? And this is a part of your testimony that 

maybe concerns me the most. 

You indicate, ‘‘Even though we see the potential for catastrophic 

damages in rare and extreme events, such events occur too infrequently to carry much weight in the economic analysis. As a result 

of these factors, the projects do not tend to be very well justified 

on an economic basis.’’ 

What we are seeing is that the rare and extreme event is becoming commonplace up here. The 100-year flood is the decade flood, 

and we have constantly amazed ourselves at having survived a 

once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, and just a few years down the road 

we are fighting another one even more threatening. 

I remember one time during the flooding, I talked to Colonel 

Christensen about this. And he indicated there was some effort 

being made to have models reflect that 100-year events aren’t 100- 

year events anymore. Do you acknowledge that your testimony may 

give way to some evolution of these models to capture what we are 

actually experiencing? I mean, again, we have come to know the 

500-year event, the 100-year event. These are really meaningless 

to us because we seem to be seeing them many times in the course 

of a career. 

And therefore, the modeling, which is part of your cost-benefit 

ratio determination, needs to reflect we saved, by your own figures, 

$2.5 billion in Moorhead-Fargo. We absolutely believe that it is not 

going to be 100 years until we face that kind of threat again. Will 

your models reflect that perhaps this isn’t rare and extreme? This 

is basically a cloud hanging over the head of this community that 

needs to be addressed. 

General WALSH. Yes, sir. And that is what the LIDAR study that 

I talked about in my testimony should help us figure out whether 

the 100-year was the 100-year. 
48 

And also, the second item is we are changing our vernacular 

from—I have explained to people from California to New York that 

100-year is just a statistical number, and we are reflecting back to 

1 percent chance a year of flooding, so that people don’t think this 

is only going to happen once every 100 years. 

You have a 1 percent chance every year of a flood if you live in 

that type of a flood zone. So we are trying to change the vernacular 

as well. 

Mr. POMEROY. I appreciate changing the vernacular. But I also 

appreciate changing the percentages. If Devils Lake, for example, 

was a jackpot, we would have won the house several times over because we seem to keep hitting that 1 percent or smaller. 

And frankly, in Fargo-Moorhead, we feel like we have been hitting that 1 percent regularly. One percent has got to be bigger than 

1 percent, or we wouldn’t be hitting it that often. 

Thank you, General. Your honorary status still is secure with 

me. 

General WALSH. Thank you, sir. 

Senator DORGAN. Let me make just a brief final comment. I 

know that there are a lot of people who, having been through this 

flood season this spring and been very concerned about whether 

they would prevail or lose their property or have to evacuate and 

leave, they are very impatient. And the fact is developing a comprehensive flood control plan is not the result of waving a wand. 

It is a long, tough slog that requires a lot of agreement and meetings and consensus being developed. 

And we have had people ask us, the three of us and perhaps you 

all, well, why did Grand Forks and East Grand Forks get a project 

12 years ago? Was it because they got the flood? They say we 

should have had some bad news so that we could have gotten the 

project. 

You know, that is not the way it works. And I just wanted to end 

this with an understanding that the way it works is when local 

governments reach agreement. 

Grand Forks and East Grand Forks reached an agreement very 

quickly, but they had the added benefit of having a comprehensive 

study already underway that had begun 2 years prior. And so, after 

having been evacuated, they moved right straight ahead, and their 

project is complete. 

It is not as if Fargo and Moorhead each haven’t improved their 

flood control and their flood fighting capabilities. Each has invested 

in various component projects and buyouts and so on, but neither 

has agreed, and there has been no agreement on a comprehensive 

plan for Fargo and Moorhead. 

And the question is will that occur now? My guess is it is likely, 

and this hearing, the meetings in Washington that the Governor, 

that we all attended and other similar meetings will make that 

judgment, will determine whether that is the case. 

My hope is that it will be the case because I believe there needs 

to be a comprehensive flood control plan developed, planned, and 

finally built. 

Let me thank all of you for your testimony. 
49 

ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks, and we will 

also invite others who wish to submit testimony for the permanent 

record to do so. 

[The statements follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERALD H. GROENEWOLD, DIRECTOR, ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER

Thank you, Senator Dorgan and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this 

opportunity to provide testimony on a flood mitigation concept recently evaluated 

by the Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC). 

As many of you well know, the Red River Basin is subject to frequent damaging 

inundation from minor and major flood events, with a truly devastating flood occurring, on average, every decade. Within the last decade, billions of dollars have been 

spent on flood preparation and recovery efforts within the Red River Basin, which 

underscores the need for implementation of alternative flood mitigation approaches 

to augment conventional flood control structures. 

The EERC recently completed a federally funded multiyear effort that evaluated 

the feasibility of employing a basinwide, distributed, temporary storage strategy as 

a means of augmenting existing dikes and controlling the devastating effects of 

springtime flooding in the Red River Basin. With funding provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and input 

and guidance from two advisory boards, the EERC conducted both hydrologic modeling and field demonstrations of the concept. The flood mitigation approach, referred to as the Waffle® concept, could be accomplished by temporarily storing 

springtime runoff in existing ‘‘depressions’’ within the basin, primarily ditches and 

low-relief fields bounded by existing roads. The storage areas, roads, and existing 

drainage systems would act as a distributed network of channels and control structures to temporarily store water until downstream flood crests along the Red River 

and its tributaries subside. 

There are two kinds of dikes: those that have been breached, and those that will 

be breached. Absolute security from flooding requires augmentation of dike systems. 

The results of the EERC’s effort demonstrated that the Waffle concept is an excellent means of augmenting dikes and mitigating damage from large springtime 

floods. This approach is particularly effective as a means of intercepting, controlling, 

and reducing overland runoff and, as such, could be implemented as a stand-alone 

flood mitigation approach or as an augment to conventional flood mitigation measures. The study estimated that, if implemented, the Waffle would reduce peak flooding by as much as 6.2 feet along the Red River during a 1997-type event. The predicted net flood mitigation benefits of the Waffle over the next 50 years for the larger communities along the Red River were on the order of hundreds of millions of 

dollars, with some implementation scenarios exceeding $800 million in net benefits. 

These benefits could be attained with participation scenarios encompassing as little 

as 5 percent of the basin’s land area. The Waffle concept protects the entire basin, 

not merely a few metropolitan areas with large dike systems. Unquantified benefits 

of the Waffle approach also accrue to those areas with limited or no flood protection 

measures, such as agricultural lands, farmsteads, smaller communities, and rural 

infrastructure. For instance, frequent and severe road washouts, which often decimate county road maintenance and construction funds, are easily prevented with 

Waffle-type storage. The approach also provides ancillary benefits through reduced 

soil erosion and increased soil moisture and groundwater recharge during dry years. 

Unlike conventional flood control approaches, the Waffle concept does not entail 

implementing drastic structural measures to intercept, retain, or divert large volumes of water in order to achieve flood mitigation benefits—instead minor structural modifications are made to existing culverts to retain precipitation primarily 

where it falls on the landscape. The aforementioned hydrologic and attendant financial benefits were determined assuming no structural modifications would be made 

to existing roads; however, the EERC estimates that by simply elevating certain 

low-lying areas on roads surrounding potential Waffle storage areas, the available 

storage volumes would double or, perhaps, even triple with only modest increases 

in utilized storage area. This could prevent some tributaries from even reaching 

flood stage, resulting in as much as a 10-foot reduction in the level of the Red River 

during a 1997-type flood event. 

This approach is an excellent means of providing an additional source of income 

to rural residents by allowing farmers to have two crops: stored water prior to the 
50 

planting season as well as their regular crop. The economic evaluation of the Waffle 

concept, conducted by North Dakota State University’s Agricultural Extension Service, concluded that the Waffle concept is economically viable even with sign-up bonuses and landowner reimbursements equivalent to twice that of the land’s cash 

rent. Thus rather than spending billions of dollars on flood preparation efforts or 

on damage to property and infrastructure after the fact, much less money could be 

spent on reimbursing landowners for temporary storage of water on their land— 

without taking farmland out of production. 

I urge the U.S. Senate to construct a program wherein landowners can be compensated for temporarily storing water until downstream threats from flooding have 

subsided. Given the history of severe and frequent flooding in the region, a 

basinwide flood mitigation approach like the Waffle is essential to long-term security from floods and the economic vitality of the region. Our results have shown that 

coordinated basinwide water management is viable, and the Waffle concept is an excellent example of an option available for implementation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTH DAKOTA FARM BUREAU

Senator Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to submit comments on Red River Basin flood control. 

North Dakota Farm Bureau is a member-organization, representing more than 

26,000 families across the State. Our purpose is to be the advocate and catalyst for 

policies and programs that improve the financial well-being and quality of life of our 

members. That is why we are taking an active role in the issue of water management for the Red River Basin. We have thousands of members—many of them landowners—who will be impacted by decisions made regarding future Red River Basin 

water issues. 

And it is our members who saw a need, took charge and developed the Farm Bureau Red River Basin Task Force, with the express purpose of evaluating a water 

management plan for the Red River Basin. As envisioned, the task force will gather 

information, identify individuals and organizations with access to appropriate data 

and correspond with other organizations. The information gathered will be used to 

build an all-encompassing management plan that takes into consideration the 

unique needs of landowners. The task force will be comprised of a chairman and 

eight other Farm Bureau members from across the basin. 

Unfortunately, Red River flooding has become a polarizing issue. This task force 

is interested in finding answers that will support landowners as well as communities in the Red River Basin. Without an active voice from landowners, committed 

to overcoming rural challenges with an eye on growing healthy communities, we feel 

the issue will continue to grow more contentious. 

The Farm Bureau has a diverse membership. In Cass County alone, we have 

more than 3,000 members who are urban dwellers. This diversity provides us with 

a unique opportunity to speak to various audiences and provide them with accurate 

and relevant information. 

Agriculture continues to be the driving economic force in the Red River Valley, 

as well as statewide. As such, agriculture must be part of the water management 

decisionmaking process. We respectfully request that our task force chairman have 

a seat at the table in any discussions regarding the future of water management 

in the Red River Basin. 

Thank you for allowing us to submit comments on this issue. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM MATHERN, DISTRICT 11, NORTH DAKOTA

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Senator Dorgan, thank you for holding your hearing in Fargo yesterday. We have 

much work to do! 

I wanted to make a comment for the record about permanent land use easements. 

My concern was also raised by General Walsh. He noted ‘‘flood-wise requirements’’ 

for flood plains as part of the solution to prevent wide spread damage. I agree that 

State and local governments must take more responsibility in this area. 

We have dealt with such legislation in North Dakota with little success but maybe 

a greater awareness of benefits of such land use could lead to another outcome. 

There are many natural resource and conservation organizations that could be invited to take part in the flood prevention discussions. This would lead to a greater 

awareness of the use of flood plain management to benefit not only people living 

in flood danger but also to landowners. 
51 

My background includes having spent time in the Netherlands to learn about 

dikes, floodplain requirements, and water policy. I work at Prairie St. John’s hospital situated next to the Army Corps dike built in the 1960s in Fargo and serve 

on the appropriations committee designating State match dollars for such projects. 

Please consider broadening your discussions in this regard. I will to do the same. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Senator DORGAN. The hearing is recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 5:52 p.m., Wednesday, May 27, the hearing was 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

Æ