The Big Flood

The flood of 2009 had everyone on their toes. Cities all over North Dakota were in panic mode because of the rising water in spring. The water flooded much of the land causing thousands of dollars in damage. People had to get evacuated from their homes. I don't know one person that would want to get evacuated from their homes every year because of the spring flood. It wasn't a good deal especially the Fargo/Moorhead area. Millions of sand bags had to be made for Fargo, Valley City, and other towns. Luckily we have many nice people that volunteered their time to make those sand bags. Grand Forks didn't have to do much sandbagging. After the 1997 flood that nearly flooded the whole town, they built huge dikes along the river on both sides to prevent flooding. So far it as worked. Grand Forks had learned a lesson from the past. I just hope and I bet many more people hope Fargo and other towns can do the same thing "learn from the past." They let water out all winter long on Ashtabula dam. That made so the lake could hold more water and slow the running water down to let the river height go down as well. So far Fargo is trying to make up a diversion plan. They talked about making a diversion channel that goes around Fargo or goes on the other side around Moorhead. They also talked about is to make dams and tributaries on the Red River. The other thing they are talking about is making huge dikes on both sides of the river like Grand Forks. There's pros and cons according to some people in the area. With making huge dikes according to the article, he says it will make the river downstream higher and cause way worse flooding than it already does. If they decide to put in dams and tributaries that will flood the farmer's crop land. The farmers are not going to be happy with this idea. With making a diversion channel according to the article it will cost $783 million dollars of local funding. The people of North Dakota and Minnesota are going to have to pay for that out of their own pockets. I'm sure some taxes and other funding will go up for the whole state. The only ones that should have to pay are the people that live next to the Red River. It is their choice to liver there or not. These plans are raising many different arguments and sides. It doesn't matter what plan they do use people are going to hate it and people are going to love it. The people are mostly pushing towards the diversion channel. They say it protects the greatest amount of people, provides the greatest number of benefits, and takes the most land out of the flood plane.

Tosses verdict

That's crazy how a judge can overturn a jury's verdict. In the Case of Alphonzo Williams, Judge Ralph Erickson had presided over the juries reasonable verdict. Williams was arrested in March of 2009 in Fargo during an undercover sting and accused of taking part in a drug-dealing conspiracy. The trial took place in November in federal court. The jurors found Williams guilty on three of four drug-related counts. In January Erickson took the extraordinary step of throwing out the jurors' verdicts on the charges of Williams. It was the first time Erickson has ever thrown out a jurors' verdict in his 16 years of being a judge. Erickson said there wasn't enough evidence to prove that Williams was part of a drug conspiracy. They say it was a little bias because there were 12 white jurors and Williams is a black man with a known drug trafficker. I believe there was no bias for the man. The appeals court could affirm Erickson's ruling, it can call for a new trial, or it can decide Erickson is wrong and order him to sentence Williams. I argue with the ability that the judge can overturn a jurors' decision but with the courts acceptance. Some people are saying that they rather see ten guilty men go free than one innocent man gets convicted. When they arrested Williams and Booker, Booker had cocaine and heroin on him and Williams had just a half-gram of crack, that's known as "personal use" amount in his pocket. The police officer never talked to Williams and made a deal to sell or do anything with crack. Williams was not charged with possessing drugs but rather conspiring to distribute drugs. With the jury hearing William's prior convictions of possession with intent to distribute crack were unable to ignore the evidence that should have never been brought up. That is unfair for Williams that the jury heard that evidence. With knowing that evidence the jury already had in their minds that Williams is a drug dealer. To get convicted of crimes by a jury there needs to be so much evidence that it basically proves that person getting accused is guilty. If there is a doubt that the person is innocent than there must be more evidenc to prove if they are guilty. From the evidence shown I think Williams is innocent. What do you think? It would be nice to see what the courts do to the judge's decision, if they keep it, give him a new trail, or sentence Williams. I think the courts will argue with the judge's decision.