Dilworth considers lawsuit to stop decision on flood control

Dilworth's attorney got a call late last night asking him to come to today's flood meeting. Once here, Tim Keane, gave the Metro Flood Study Work Group this lengthy letter obtained by WDAY. In it, the letter cites what Dilworth wants done before a diversion is built and if those things don't happen, It may be against the law.

“These events are uncharted waters for the city of Dilworth.”

In a surprising move, the city is taking the fight for a North Dakota diversion and against one in Minnesota to a new level. It's hired an attorney, Tim Keane, to support its cause.

“To ensure that no decision is made before all environmental options are considered.”

The city cites a Minnesota rule that says environmental impact studies, which have not been done, need to be on all options. The city and its attorney call the process flawed and are questioning numbers from the Corps.

“Is 200 million dollars closer to accurate or is Aaron Snyder closer to accurate.”

The latest difference is the cost to move the railroad. The Corps says its 75 million dollars. BNSF says it's 200 million. Mayor Chad Olson says that alone could change the outcome of the federally preferred plan.

“If industry's requirement, the cost benefit analysis moves the NED plan closer to the option everyone supports, that North Dakota diversion option.

The Corps doesn't blame Dilworth for protecting its interests.

“We've said all along that these are preliminary numbers. We're still working on the study. We're looking into all issues Dilworth has raised.”

Dilworth leaders say a Minnesota diversion will risk the city's water supply, lead to up to 4 million dollars per year in loss revenue, and will stop it from growing. They're asking for more concrete numbers and an agreement that if the city suffers any costs or financial losses because of a Minnesota diversion, it's repaid for those. If not, a court battle could be in the works.

“That'd be up to Dilworth and others affected but that certainly is one of the possibilities.”

This letter also says there will be no project without local funds, including from Dilworth, if a unanimous decision isn't made. It's urging the group to reject the Minnesota plan now. City leaders will not say how much taxpayer money is being spent on that attorney.

About two hundred concerned homeowners came to the meeting to voice opposition to a Minnesota Diversion. Not one person stood when asked who supported that option.

People who spoke say we need to spend whatever it takes to protect against a 500 year flood. Opponents argue a North Dakota option only makes sense for generations to come.

With a North Dakota diversion rather than a Minnesota diversion, Moorhead and Dilworth would not have a new manmade obstacle to infrastructure extension as they grow

“A North Dakota diversion is the best one of the two. To put it in sports vernacular, you can go for the gold or go for the bronze and if we've got a chance. We've got to go for the gold.”

Some homeowners worry water retention and downstream impacts are not being taken into account.

A warning from Fargo mayor Dennis Walaker about flood protection, he says the Minnesota 20k plan doesn't provide enough protection for Fargo. That's the option the Corps of Engineers says has the best cost-benefit ratio.

Walaker says if that option is picked, Fargo would have to protect itself and put in a 160 million dollar south side plan.

“We can't look at this thing from one year; you have to look at this as a 50 year plan. And that's for our children and our children's children. And that's what it's all about. We need something; we've got to put an end to this.”

Walaker says Fargo can't pay for a North Dakota diversion, even with the extension of its sales tax.