Fargo‑Moorhead diversion update highlights DNR quarter‑mile zoning recommendation for Clay County

Eric Dodds, an AE2S consultant on the Fargo‑Moorhead diversion project, updated Clay County officials on construction progress, property acquisitions and a recent state-recommended buffer that could affect development near the southern embankment.

The recommendation of particular interest to Clay County comes from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as part of a dam‑safety and public‑waters permit (condition number 45). Dodds said the DNR “recommends that local government units adopt requirements that no development be allowed within 1 quarter mile of the dam or along river channels.” He added the diversion authority itself does not have zoning power and has instead sent letters to affected local zoning officials — including Clay County — asking them to consider the recommendation.

The quarter‑mile suggestion matters to Clay County because a portion of the diversion’s southern embankment runs along the county line and crosses locally controlled roads and property. Dodds described the southern embankment as roughly 22 miles long, with three major control structures (the diversion inlet just south of Horace, a structure at Wild Rice near I‑29, and the Red River structure) and multiple county and township crossings in Clay County at roughly 130th, 140th, 150th and 160th streets (Comstock Road).

Construction status and land rights Dodds said the overall project was about 61% complete at the time of his briefing; the diversion channel work (P3) is about 56% complete, the federal southern‑embankment work about 68% complete, and remaining in‑town levee work in Fargo and Moorhead about 80% complete. He said roughly 28,000,000 cubic yards of material have been excavated from the diversion channel so far, toward an estimated 40,000,000 cubic yards total.

On property rights, Dodds said the construction footprint acquisitions are “nearly 100% complete,” with a small number of parcels still undergoing court valuation because voluntary agreements had not been reached. Upstream mitigation easements — the easements that allow intentional flooding of mitigation areas while permitting some continued farming — were reported to be about 60% complete overall, with roughly two‑thirds of the Minnesota easement acquisitions finished. Dodds said the authority has acquired rights to about 160 Minnesota parcels but some valuations remain pending and a few are in active eminent‑domain status.

What the DNR recommendation would mean locally Dodds told the commission the DNR’s quarter‑mile recommendation follows a breach analysis the agency conducted; the analysis found that, in a breach scenario, “the water would dissipate both velocity wise and and depth wise within a quarter mile,” which is why the agency selected that buffer. He emphasized the diversion authority can only pass the recommendation along to local zoning bodies, not impose it.

Clay County staff said the diversion authority did send letters to local zoning officials in 2021 about the DNR recommendation and that the authority “does not have zoning authority” and does not intend to enact zoning for political subdivisions. The diversion authority offered to present to local governments and discuss potential local responses, which is what prompted the briefing.

Local responses so far and easement limits Dodds cited Pleasant Township (North Dakota) as an example of a jurisdiction that has adopted development restrictions tied to the embankment: Pleasant Township’s rule bars buildings within 350 feet of the embankment toe and extends other restrictions to 450 feet; nonresidential uses are allowed in the 350–450 foot band but residential sleeping quarters are not. Fargo staff members have said informally they would likely avoid residential zoning adjacent to the embankment but might accept nonresidential uses; Dodds said those conversations were preliminary.

On the Clay County (Minnesota) side, Dodds said some areas are covered by flow easements held by the diversion authority. He described the county’s flow easements as “zone 1,” the most restrictive category, and said zone 1 easements “prohibit any development” — including new structures. He said the diversion authority, as easement holder, has obligations to enforce those easement restrictions, and that in practice some development questions are resolved through coordination between local zoning administrators and the diversion authority.

Technical freeboard and elevations During questions, Dodds gave elevation figures for the embankment: the top of the embankment is about 928.5 feet; the probable maximum flood (PMF) water surface elevation is about 923.5 feet, leaving roughly 5 feet of freeboard at the PMF. He gave the 500‑year flood elevation as about 922.5 feet and the 100‑year elevation as about 921.5 feet, which corresponds to about 7 feet of freeboard at the 100‑year event.

Other local implications discussed Speakers noted at least one solar array has been built close to the dry side of the embankment and that developers in nearby Wilkin County coordinated with the diversion authority to set panel and control‑box elevations above expected flood levels. Commissioners asked staff to produce options for local policy responses. County staff offered to prepare a residential build‑out scenario showing how many homes could be constructed inside a quarter‑mile buffer under existing zoning and density rules; the suggestion drew a comment from one commissioner who favored considering a larger buffer (about a half‑mile) as a policy option.

No formal zoning action was taken at the meeting. County staff said they would continue to coordinate with the diversion authority and could bring back a more detailed analysis, and the commission indicated interest in continued discussion.

Ending The briefing served as an informational update; Clay County officials did not adopt new zoning at the meeting. Staff said they will provide additional materials if the commission requests a build‑out scenario or a follow‑up discussion on buffer options.