It's shortsighted to approve $63 million for flood mitigation projects statewide and then veto $25 million for wetlands ("Pawlenty slices public projects," March 16). Could we combine the two ideas and create spring wetlands in these flood-prone areas to hold floodwater? These spring wetlands, if properly designed, could have many positive environmental impacts, in addition to providing the benefit of nesting cover and feeding areas for waterfowl and pheasants when they most need it. TOM KLOECKL, PINE CITY
• • •
It seems ironic that just as we watch our state's rivers rise toward flood stage, our governor sees fit to veto wetland restoration projects from the state budget. Instead of addressing the problem of flooding by restoring some of the wetlands drained a century ago in ignorance of their purpose, we will scramble every spring to find more funds for sandbagging, dike building, mold abatement, reconstruction, respiratory care and all the other expenses that follow a flood. Over the years, floods will cost taxpayers far more than the prevention achieved with a strategically placed wetland. CHERI REGISTER, MINNEAPOLIS
• • •
To what degree do political impasses between Minnesota and North Dakota, as well as Canada, prevent construction of an effective flood dike on the Red River? REED SAUNDERS, ROCHESTER
