After hearing opposition and some support for the project at a public hearing on Monday, the drainage authority for the two counties continued the hearing to March 29 for final approval. The continuation was approved to allow the viewers to make some final corrections on a few of the properties being assessed benefits.
Downstream landowners expressed concerns that the estimated $2 million project will burden them with large assessments while not providing the benefits ascribed to their parcels. They also charged that the project will add to the water problems they experience.
“If we are not moving more water faster, what are we doing here?” said property owner Brad Olson of the possible impact on his lands.
He said the more than $38,000 he is being assessed for benefits could only be realized if he added an extensive tile system as well as a pumping station. The channel is not being lowered enough to allow downstream properties to outlet tile systems into it.
Wayne Karels, a downstream landowner, told the drainage authority that there were no damages being provided for more water being “dumped” on downstream lands, his included. He pointed to the increasing frequency of downstream flooding due to increased drainage and precipitation in past years.
The drainage authority is planning to remove sediment and cattails from a portion of the channel and replace culverts for the repair. Originally constructed in 1910, the channel connects wetland complexes in an area running from east of Appleton in Swift County to near Milan in Chippewa County.
An engineer’s report noted that no significant maintenance has been undertaken on the system, and that sediment, cattails and failing culverts impede its flow. One township road has been closed due to chronic flooding, and others along its approximate seven-mile path are routinely overtopped in the spring.
Landowners in the upper portion of the system petitioned for the project. The system has been the source of controversy dating to the mid-1980s, when downstream landowners and residents in Montevideo downstream of the system protested it. The project did not go forward when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not approve a permit.
A redetermination of benefits for a 2015 project to improve the ditch went to court. It was challenged by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as an improvement and not a repair.
An out-of-court settlement reached in September 2019 allows for the repair of the system, but the channel cannot be excavated below its original 1910 depth. The restriction protects wetlands, including some considered to be the best remaining in Chippewa County, that would be lost by lowering the channel below its original depth.
The settlement also requires that a structure be built to protect a public water body in Big Bend Township of Chippewa County. That adds to the project’s costs, as do two other issues that make this one of the county’s costliest ditch projects. Much of the work will take place in wetlands, and consequently mats must be used to hold machinery. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is also requiring that spoils from the channel excavation be removed and deposited on upland sites.
Upstream landowners petitioned for the project to improve farmland drainage and address the spring road flooding.
“It’s in desperate need of repair,” Bergen Johnson, a landowner, told the drainage authority. He said the spring flooding limits his access and has him worried about emergency vehicles being able to reach his home.
But others downstream told the drainage authority that the repair will only mean more water coming at them, and it assures that their driveways are underwater no differently.
Autumn Lee told the drainage authority that the repair work ends at her family’s property. The family will be assessed for benefits they could only realize by a major investment in drainage and pumping.
Project engineer Mark Origer, of ICS Consultants in Mankato, said the channel cannot be lowered downstream of the Lee property due to the settlement.
The repair project is calculated to provide more than $4.4 million in net benefits, but the potential benefits would be more than $10 million if the channel were lowered below its original depth.
Other concerns raised at the hearing focused on the assessed benefits and the effectiveness of the project.
Cory Netland, wildlife manager with the Minnesota DNR, questioned benefits assessed to 191 acres of wildlife lands. There are only 23.25 acres of food plots on those lands, and they are not used for commercial purposes.
The viewers use a formula that assesses benefits on wildlife lands at the rate of 10 acres per 40 acres in the parcel, based on the premise that there are food plots on those acres and also that water leaving that portion of the land increases the downstream burden.
Bob Nielsen, representing Kragero Township in Chippewa County, said the township is “caught in limbo” by the project. It will share in the costs for a culvert replacement, which could reduce the flooding impact on the road. But he pointed to the limited improvement in drainage efficiency the repair will make possible, and asked if it would work sufficiently to justify the township’s investment.
Others do not expect it to work. Dave Shemon said flooding on his downstream land has continued to grow through the years, and expressed his frustration at upstream drainage.
He said a boat floated on to his land during a previous flood, “and it is still on my land.”