Fargo‑Moorhead diversion 61% complete; authority warns Minnesota funding and contractor disputes could affect schedule

Tony Greenberg, chair of the Metro Flood Diversion Authority, told the House Appropriations Committee the Fargo‑Moorhead Metro Flood Diversion project has reached roughly 61 percent net construction completion through 2024 and that the authority expects about 75–80 percent completion by the end of 2025.

Greenberg, a Cass County commissioner and the project chair for the year, said the public‑private portion of the project (P3) was about 58 percent complete and in‑town flood protection was over 80 percent complete. He told the committee the project has excavated 28 million cubic yards of material, driven 24 miles of piling and planted more than 35,100 trees.

Project timeline, certification and funding Greenberg said the authority anticipates moving toward full project completion in 2026 with a “soft opening” or initial operability in 2027. He noted there is a separate FEMA certification process that may take three to five years after construction is finished. On funding, the authority reported the federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contribution (approximately $750 million), state contributions including the $850 million bond provided by North Dakota, and more than $1 billion from local sales taxes and other local funding sources. The authority said Minnesota has put about $124 million toward its work and that roughly $60.4 million remains to be provided for Clay County and Moorhead wrap‑around projects.

Disputes, dispute‑resolution and contractor performance John Shockley, general counsel for the Diversion Authority, told the committee the project’s contract includes an alternative dispute resolution process designed to handle technical and financial disagreements more quickly than litigation. He said the process is currently on hold because a local media request prompted the North Dakota Attorney General for an opinion on whether dispute hearings must be open under the state’s public‑records/open‑meetings rules. “We are not currently in litigation,” Shockley said, and explained that the project agreement requires completion of the alternative dispute resolution steps before litigation can be filed.

On contractor performance, committee members were told that the authority has assessed approximately 473 non‑compliance points to the developer/contractor to date; the authority stated each non‑compliance point can equate to about $9,000 in potential off‑sets from final payments. Authority legal counsel said many disputes are resolved at technical and leadership levels before reaching the formal dispute panels.

Land acquisition and litigation Martin Nicholson, senior program advisor for the authority, provided a snapshot of right‑of‑way and easement status. For the construction footprint, he said there were 264 owners in North Dakota and 35 in Minnesota; the authority reported 292 were settled and 7 were in litigation for that footprint. For upstream mitigation easements there are additional negotiated, ongoing and litigated matters: Nicholson reported 170 settled, 53 ongoing and 75 in litigation across the upstream mitigation area; the authority said most remaining litigation is scheduled through 2026 with the goal of resolving acquisitions before 2027.

Schedule risk and contractor payments Committee members asked whether the developer or contractor has fallen behind. Authority counsel explained schedule claims are tracked in a detailed P6 schedule (roughly 18,000 activities), and that developer‑claimed delays (a cited 160‑day figure in materials) are disputed by authority technical reviewers. The authority reported the developer has paid its contractor in the neighborhood of $500 million to $600 million; the authority itself has disbursed roughly $20 million to the developer with additional draws in process. Authority staff said the project finance structure places the developer at risk for delay because availability payments depend on timely, certified completion.

Local and federal financing; operations planning Greenberg and staff reiterated that local sales taxes were approved by voters to support the project and that the authority has structured a stack of financing, including a WIFIA loan and other low‑cost instruments. The authority described transition planning from construction to operations and maintenance, including hiring an executive director for the authority’s operations phase and continued staffing to support O&M responsibilities.

Follow‑up and requests Committee members pressed for specific remaining Minnesota funding timelines and asked for more detailed accounting of project draws, legal expenditures and a public cadence of reporting. Representative Nathie requested quarterly reporting to the Legislature on the diversion; Greenberg replied the authority is willing to provide regular updates and said staff would coordinate with the committee.

Quotes from the meeting include Greenberg noting the project’s progress: “For a net construction completion percentage of about 61% of the project has been completed through 2024,” and John Shockley explaining the dispute process: “We are not currently in litigation,” and describing the pause on alternate dispute panels pending the Attorney General’s opinion.