Red River is not all that divides Fargo, Moorhead

WASHINGTON - United by concerns over the river that separates them, Fargo and Moorhead are also divided over how to underwrite the battle against the Red River's recurring floodwaters.

The tale of the two cities became clear during high-level negotiations Tuesday in an ornate Senate conference room.

"We're from two different states, and there are two different philosophies on how things should operate," Moorhead Mayor Mark Voxland told a gathering of Minnesota and North Dakota officials, including Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Countered Fargo Mayor Dennis Walaker: "Our honeymoon is going to be over in six months, so we need to have a plan."

As leaders of the two states work toward a joint federal flood effort that could cost upward of $1 billion, one of the main sticking points appears to be topography.

Moorhead is one-third the size but about 4 feet higher in elevation than its sister city on the Red's west bank.

Accordingly, folks on the Minnesota side of the river worry that they may end up bearing a higher proportion of the two states' costs, relative to their share of the benefit.

Talk of a "basin-wide" compact and a new, mutual flood mitigation authority is in the air. "In the heartland, a rising river doesn't divide us, it unites us," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.

But sharp differences are coming into view as Fargo presses forward with a $161 million plan that includes a local half-cent sales tax -- one that would also be borne, Voxland noted, by Moorhead residents who typically shop in Fargo.

Complicating the flood protection efforts, the Red also separates two counties, two states, and two congressional districts.

U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat on the Minnesota side of the river, noted in a pre-conference strategy session that 80 percent of the benefit from the proposed Fargo project "is on the Fargo side."

Countered U.S. Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., "the costs and benefits will unfold equitably ... We're not conspiring on our side of the river."

Shared spirit

For any regional flood mitigation plan, both sides are counting on a hefty 65 percent contribution from the federal government, meaning that the two states are squabbling over potentially $350 million of the overall tab. The actual figure won't be known until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completes a study by the end of next year.

It also remains unclear whether the Fargo flood protection project would count as part of a larger federal plan. North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven -- Pawlenty's Republican counterpart in the meeting -- argued that the Fargo project should be considered part of any regional system, which would also make it count toward North Dakota's share of the overall costs.

"There needs to be a shared spirit of mutual benefit," Hoeven told reporters.

Minnesota officials aren't so sure. "It doesn't do one thing for us," Voxland said in an interview. In addition, the Moorhead mayor noted, the Fargo plan would cut a pair of channels to divert water through the Minnesota side of the river, a plan that has raised the ire of several Minnesota landowners.

Minnesota officials also complain that several Red River communities inundated in the '97 floods are still waiting for help from Congress. On the agenda in Tuesday's summit was to triage $6 million in federal funds for Ada, $5 million for Breckenridge, and $12 million for Roseau.

Instrumental in securing those funds is the chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development: U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota.

Dorgan, together with fellow North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, indicated that the money for the flood-ravaged Minnesota towns is forthcoming this year.

Pawlenty said he's also trying to include another $50 million for state-funded flood projects in this year's bonding bill.

Transition to prevention

On one fundamental point, there is broad agreement: The cross-state bickering needs to stop.

"One of the reasons we haven't gotten things done is too many of us are locked in our positions, including me," Peterson said. "Well, we all have to give a little bit."

Both states recognize that the long-term solution for the flood-prone Red River Valley involves not just more dikes, but holding areas to lower water levels during spring floods and store water for summer droughts. "In the future, we want to transition from fighting the floods to making sure they don't happen in the first place," Pawlenty said.

But apart from the uncertain federal funding for a wider system of upstream holding areas, there's the question of how to compensate farmers on both sides of the river for the land that would be required.

Peterson, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, which largely writes the laws on farm subsidies, is optimistic.

"I see a spirit out there now that we haven't seen before across the basin," he said.

Kevin Diaz • 202-408-2753