Connect with us

North Dakota

Upstream landowners ponder discrepancies between North Dakota, Minnesota F-M Diversion payouts

Published

on

Upstream landowners ponder discrepancies between North Dakota, Minnesota F-M Diversion payouts


CHRISTINE, N.D. — Josh Granholt has spent much of his life on quiet farmland tucked into the bends of the Red River.

His family has farmed land near Christine for more than 100 years. Those fields give way to forested groves along the river, where he and his parents live today.

Despite their proximity to the river, the main houses on the Granholt family’s farmsteads have never flooded, even in years where cities to the north were inundated with water.

“The old timers put a house where it made sense and didn’t flood, not where it looked cool, because they didn’t want to deal with it,” Granholt said.

Advertisement

The construction of the

Fargo-Moorhead Area Diversion

upstream will change how Granholt’s land floods. He hopes to get compensated fairly for newly flooded land — and equally to landowners on the Minnesota side of the river.

Josh Granholt, a farmer near Christine, N.D., said most of the buildings on his family’s land, as seen on Monday, March 3, 2025, have never flooded, but now with the F-M Diversion nearing completion, there is potential for flooding for landowners upstream of the diversion.

Chris Flynn / The Forum

Advertisement

The diversion is a $3.2 billion flood control project designed to protect the Fargo-Moorhead metro from extreme floods. When operational, the project will hold water south of the metro behind a 22-mile earthen embankment. Three gated structures will control the release of floodwater into the Red River, the Wild Rice River and a 30-mile diversion channel that arcs west around the cities.

In order to hold water south of the embankment, the Metro Flood Diversion Authority, a governmental entity that oversees parts of the project, needs to secure property rights to store water on the land south of the dam. It has been doing so in the form of flowage easements. Property owners are paid for giving the Diversion Authority the right to flood their land.

The Granholt family properties are among those the Diversion Authority is in the process of securing property rights for through the eminent domain process, which allows a government to take land for public use.

Proposed flowage easements on Granholt family land pay for flooding in places that have never flooded before. But on the Minnesota side of the Red River, flowage easements cover far more land and stretch farther south along the river.

Advertisement

Josh Granholt, a farmer near Christine, North Dakota, shows where his family land is on a map of Richland County at his office on Monday, March 3, 2025.

Josh Granholt, a farmer near Christine, N.D., shows where his family land is on a map of Richland County at his office on Monday, March 3, 2025.

Chris Flynn / The Forum

Different states, different rules

In Minnesota, maps for the project show the Diversion Authority is acquiring flowage easements well into Wilkin County, about 30 miles south of Moorhead.

Advertisement

In North Dakota, a majority of flowage easements are in Cass County. Flowage easements in Richland County are along the Red River or waterways that flow into the Red River. The southernmost flowage easements in North Dakota are southeast of Christine, across the river from Wolverton, Minn. Wolverton is about 22 miles south of Moorhead.

Differences in flowage easements between North Dakota and Minnesota come down to the fact that the project involves two different states with different permitting requirements, Diversion Authority Executive Director Jason Benson said.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources permit requires property mitigation for up to a tenth of a foot of impact of the principal maximum flood, Benson said, which is “kind of the biblical flood, something that’s hard to comprehend.”

On the North Dakota side, the state requires mitigation for up to a half foot to the 100-year or 500-year flood levels, whichever is a higher impact, he said. A 100-year flood has a 1% chance of happening in any given year, while a 500-year flood has a 0.2% chance of happening in any given year.

“We’re applying Minnesota permit and regulations and rules for Minnesota residents and land mitigation on the Minnesota side. We’re applying North Dakota rules, regulations and law for land that we’re mitigating on the North Dakota side,” Benson said.

Advertisement

Permitting differences are the

basis of landowner countersuits in the eminent domain process.

Landowners represented by attorney Cash Aaland began filing counterclaims in eminent domain proceedings in February, alleging that North Dakota landowners are not being paid for all the water that could be displaced onto their property, or for the resulting damages, when the diversion’s southern dam holds back a maximum amount of water.

While the permit requirements are different in the two states, Granholt thinks Minnesota and North Dakota landowners should receive the same treatment.

“If Minnesota gets paid for everything, for an inch and above, not only do I think we should be compensated, but we should know where that is,” Granholt said.

Advertisement

Further, Granholt worries that if 6 inches of water did fill the flowage easement area, more shallow areas of water would stretch farther onto his property.

“Does that mean there’s going to be 5 inches someplace we’re not getting compensated for?” Granholt said. “Because whether it’s 1 inch or 1 foot in your basement, it’s still water in there, isn’t it?”

Josh Granholt, a farmer near Christine, North Dakota, lives near the Red River, as seen on Monday, March 3, 2025, which is upstream of the FM Diversion and could potentially flood his land.

Josh Granholt, a farmer near Christine, N.D., lives near the Red River, as seen on Monday, March 3, 2025, which is upstream of the F-M Diversion and could potentially flood his land.

Chris Flynn / The Forum

Advertisement

Ken Knudsen lives a couple miles north of Granholt, northeast of Christine. His land is similar to Granholt’s — a grove of trees in one of the Red River’s loops, with a house built high enough to avoid flooding.

With the proposed flowage easements on his land, Knudsen expected to negotiate an amount for the water that could be stored on his land and a payout for the tear-down of a garage turned “man cave.” Finding out that Aaland thinks that water could go higher was not good news.

“I don’t want to move, and I don’t want to sell and I don’t want to fight floods that I’ve been told shouldn’t happen to our place,” Knudsen said.

The land Knudsen lives on was one of the original farmsteads in the area, he said, meaning that the brothers who moved there got to pick the best plot of land.

“I’d like to see that our farm doesn’t flood and we can just stay there, and it’s a beautiful place to live and pass it onto our kids and whatever,” Knudsen said. “If we’re going to end up having to fight floods every time they use the dam, then we’d have to think differently.”

Advertisement

The Diversion Authority does have a mechanism for landowners to bring forward claims if diversion operations flood more land than flowage easements cover. In such cases, landowners will be able to bring claims to a dispute resolution board created by the Diversion Authority. That board will determine if damage was caused by the project.

Granholt said he’s aware of that process.

“It’s usually easier to get it the first time than to come back and ask for more,” Granholt said.

Josh Granholt, a farmer near Christine, North Dakota, lives upstream of the FM Diversion near the Red River, which could potentially flood his land, as seen on Monday, March 3, 2025.

Josh Granholt, a farmer near Christine, N.D., lives upstream of the F-M Diversion near the Red River.

Chris Flynn / The Forum

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

North Dakota

Armstrong opens application period for Governor’s Band/Orchestra and Choral programs

Published

on

Armstrong opens application period for Governor’s Band/Orchestra and Choral programs


BISMARCK, N.D. – Gov. Kelly Armstrong today announced the opening of the application period for school, community and church bands, orchestras and choirs across North Dakota to apply to serve as the Governor’s Official State Band/Orchestra Program and Choral Program for the 2026-2027 school year. 

The Governor and First Lady will select the two groups from the applications received based on musical talent, achievement and community involvement. The governor may invite the groups to perform at official state functions held throughout the 2026-2027 school year, including the State of the State Address in January 2027 at the Capitol in Bismarck. 

Interested groups should submit an application with a musical recording to the Governor’s Office by 5 p.m. Monday, May 4. The Governor’s Band/Orchestra Program and Governor’s Choral Program will be announced in May. Please complete the application and provide materials at https://www.governor.nd.gov/governors-chorus-and-bandorchestra-program-application. 



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

North Dakota

Greenpeace seeks new trial, claiming jury pool biased in case over Dakota Access Pipeline

Published

on


Greenpeace has asked for a second trial after a judge entered a $345 million judgment against the organization in a landmark case brought by the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The case “threatens to result in one of the largest miscarriages of justice in North Dakota’s history,” attorneys for the environmental group wrote in a brief filed last week.

After a three-week trial roughly a year ago, a Morton County jury directed Greenpeace to pay Energy Transfer about $667 million, finding the environmental group at fault for inciting illegal acts against the company during anti-pipeline protests in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017 and for publishing false statements that harmed Energy Transfer’s reputation.

Greenpeace denies Energy Transfer’s claims and maintains that it brought the lawsuit to hurt the environmental movement.

Advertisement

Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion in October slashed the jury’s award to $345 million, though he didn’t finalize the award until late February.

Greenpeace is now taking steps to fight the judgment, which includes its motion for a new trial.

The environmental group’s reasons for the request include claims that the jury instructions and verdict form contained errors, and that Energy Transfer was allowed to present unfair and irrelevant evidence to jurors. The group also alleges the jury pool was biased.

Greenpeace says the jury’s award assumes that Greenpeace was entirely responsible for any injury Energy Transfer sustained related to the protests. Jurors were not given the opportunity to consider whether Greenpeace was only at fault for a portion of the damages, the organization wrote in its brief.

Attorneys for Greenpeace also referenced the mailers and other media circulated to Mandan and Bismarck residents before the trial that contained anti-Dakota Access Pipeline protest and pro-energy industry content.

Advertisement

The environmental group seeks a new trial in Cass County, arguing in part that the jury pool in the Fargo area would be more fair because its residents did not directly experience the Dakota Access Pipeline protests and because the local economy is less dependent on the energy industry.

If Greenpeace’s request for a new trial is denied, it plans to appeal the case to the North Dakota Supreme Court, the organization has said.

Greenpeace previously asked for the trial to be moved from Morton County to Cass County in early 2025, which Gion and the North Dakota Supreme Court denied.

The lawsuit is against three separate Greenpeace organizations — Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund.

Energy Transfer as of Wednesday morning had not submitted a response to Greenpeace’s motion for a new trial. Previously, the company has defended the jury’s verdict and disputed Greenpeace’s claims that the court proceedings were not fair.

Advertisement

Energy Transfer has indicated it may appeal Gion’s decision to reduce the award to $345 million.

Greenpeace will not have to pay any of the $345 million judgment for at least a couple of months, Gion ruled Tuesday.

Court documents indicate that the organization could have to pay a bond of up to $25 million while appeals proceed, though the environmental group has asked the judge to waive or reduce this amount. Gion has not decided on this motion.

He noted that obtaining such a large bond will be challenging.

“The magnitude of this matter defies simple decisions,” Gion wrote.

Advertisement

Energy Transfer in court filings urged the judge to require Greenpeace to post the full $25 million.

Any bond money Greenpeace provides would be held by a third party while the appeals proceed, according to Greenpeace USA.

Greenpeace International has filed a separate lawsuit in the Netherlands that accuses Energy Transfer of weaponizing the U.S. legal system against the environmental group. Energy Transfer asked Gion to order that the overseas suit be paused while the North Dakota case is still active, which Gion denied. The company appealed his ruling to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which has yet to make a decision on the matter.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

North Dakota

Minnkota Says Cost of Data Center Power Project Rises Won’t Affect Customers

Published

on

Minnkota Says Cost of Data Center Power Project Rises Won’t Affect Customers


(Photo by Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor)

 

(North Dakota Monitor) – The cost of the power line and substation needed by a data center north of Fargo has risen from $75 million to $110 million, but developers say the data center company will still cover the entire cost of the project.

Applied Digital needs the project to power its data center being built between Fargo and Harwood. The data center requires 280 megawatts of power at peak demand.

Advertisement

Applied Digital will pay for the project but it will be owned by Grand Forks based, Minnkota Power Cooperative.

The North Dakota Public Service Commission held a hearing in Fargo on what is known as the Agassiz Transmission Line and Substation.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending