1) I oppose the dike on principle - the dike will further take away from the river's ability to act as a river. The river must be allowed to flood and ebb to remain a healthy habitat. Yes the river has been much manipulated already (closing off the back side of Harriet "island", scouring and dredging the bottom to create the federally mandated 9 foot channel, historic wing and closing dams, the lock and dam system, and, of course, building the St. Paul airport where it is, in the FLOODPLAIN while destroying many acres of valuable wetland) but that is the reason to be more careful, not less careful, about further manipulation.
The cost of the dike, if built, can be measured in both out-of-pocket expenses and long term ecological costs. The latter is more difficult, but very possible, to assess. Those total costs must honestly be measured against benefits. The Corps of Engineers simply has no credibility left in such an undertaking after the debacle of their cost/benefit assessment of the expansion of the locks on the upper Mississippi.
2) The airport dike, if built, will increase springtime flooding up stream, not down stream. The state now has a policy of no net loss of wetlands. How about the City adopt a concomitant policy of no net loss of flood plain through the City boundaries.
3) If the idea is to make downtown more convenient to business jets, what about a more direct connection between downtown and MSP - like light rail - see if that does not accomplish what some feel is needed before putting in the dike.
4) The airport lies with a "critical area" as protected by the state's Critical Area Act and within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area governed by that federal statute. Those laws, and the policies they are meant to effect, must be upheld by local officials even at the expense of their better judgment or the influence of dike proponents.
5) Absolutely an EIS is necessary - and it must actually compare all reasonable alternatives including both moving the airport off the river to re-create the floodplain and the "no-build" alternatives (unlike the Ayd Mill EIS which only considers one "alternative" - a contradiction in terms).
6) If the dike is built, you can expect additional dike-dependent development. Once the dike is built it will be there forever, minimally one hundred years, regardless of what ecological damage becomes clear over time. We have made similar mistakes with the river before (locks and dams in the gorge between Minneapolis and the Mississippi's confluence with the Minnesota, for example where the industrial benefits used to justify those structures never materialized). Suppose we can learn from past mistakes?
Brian Bates, Mac/Groove Michelle Hoffman wrote:
I'm opposed to the dike for 2 reasons:
1. the environmental impacts are controversial, and;
2. the positive impact upon the tax-paying public is pretty far down on the "trickle" scale.
I can choose whether or not I want to use a park. I can only wonder if those jets flying in and out every day are positively impacting me. If they are, by how much?
_____________________________________________
To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
_____________________________________________
To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
