North Dakota v. Minnesota

Background

One State claims that actions by the State of Minnesota caused flooding along Lake Traverse and the Bois de Sioux River. The party that filed the bill asked the court for an injunction to stop the flooding. The opinion restores the case to the docket and contemplates allowing South Dakota to participate in the supplemental hearing.

Reasoning

The Court asked for more factual proof to decide whether the flood harms can be reduced by engineering work rather than by issuing an injunction. It authorized each side to call up to three engineering experts to testify about feasible projects and costs, specifically listing options like detention basins, a sluice dam, channel improvements, lowering Lake Traverse, and diversion of drainage water. The Court also allowed up to three witnesses per side to address fair ways to split costs among the States that drain into the Lake Traverse—Bois de Sioux watershed, including consideration of how much water each State contributes and who benefits. The Court will take testimony about flood conditions since the bill was filed and will consider a motion to consolidate a related South Dakota case.

Real world impact

The order moves the dispute toward technical fact-finding instead of an immediate court-ordered injunction. If projects are found feasible, governments may build detention basins, dams, channel work, or diversions, and the Court will have evidence to decide how to divide costs among States. This is a procedural step, not a final decision on liability or relief, so the outcome could still change after the additional testimony.