The Moorhead City Council on Friday hinted strongly that it will back a North Dakota diversion as the locally preferred permanent flood protection plan for the Fargo-Moorhead area.
The council's three delegates to the Metro Flood Study Work Group, which will soon vote on a recommendation regarding diversion options, all said a North Dakota diversion deserves further study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
"It's the only way to unite our valley," said Nancy Otto, referring to opposition against a Minnesota diversion that has come from places like Dilworth, which fears a project in Clay County will stunt Dilworth's growth and threaten aquifers.
Dan Hunt and Diane Wray Williams, who like Otto also serve on the flood study work group, said they also support further study of a North Dakota option.
The work group, which includes representatives from the city of Fargo as well as Cass and Clay counties, could vote on a recommended option as soon as Thursday, but officials have said they expect a vote may come March 25.
ADVERTISEMENT
Once the work group issues its recommendation, it will go to the Fargo City Commission, the Moorhead City Council and the Cass and Clay county commissions.
Last fall, the governing bodies of Cass and Clay counties, Moorhead and West Fargo and the Cass County Joint Water Resource District voted to support a North Dakota diversion.
Fargo officials have said they want a diversion but have not officially expressed a preference tied to a specific side of the river.
For a project to be considered by Congress yet this year, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must know the locally preferred option by April 15.
Area officials have said they are worried that naming a North Dakota plan as the preferred option could leave the region without a fallback plan if a North Dakota diversion, which would be much more expensive than a Minnesota diversion, fails to win federal funding.
Moorhead officials said Friday they are waiting for an answer from the corps on the question of whether both a North Dakota option and a Minnesota plan can be reviewed in time to meet deadlines for being considered by Congress yet this year.
Readers can reach Forum reporter Dave Olson at (701) 241-5555