Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Maintenance Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators consider barring delinquent landowners from voting on drainage projects
Summary
House Bill 12-80 would prevent landowners who have failed to pay required special assessments from voting on whether a watershed district can obligate the district for the project costs; supporters said the change would prevent landowners who decline to pay from blocking repairs and maintenance.
Senators on the Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee heard testimony on House Bill 12-80, a measure aimed at streamlining approvals for maintenance and construction of legal drains by withholding voting rights on project obligations from landowners who are delinquent on required assessments.
Representative Mike Brandenburg, the bill sponsor, described longstanding difficulty with Legal Drain 11, a multi-county system that supporters say has generated increased flows onto Sargent County property after culvert work on a state highway. Brandenburg said the drain is "41 miles long" and that when Highway 13 culverts were upsized the county below the highway experienced long periods of inundation; he said many affected roads and private properties remain compromised.
Brandenburg said Ransom County, which sits upstream in the watershed, has historically refused to pay assessments levied for work on that drain and has consistently voted against projects. "If they have a vote, they're now with Ransom County in this watershed, they'll vote no because they've always voted no," he said, arguing that excluding nonpaying landowners from votes would allow Sargent County to move forward on necessary repairs.
Testimony in support came from Sargent County water board members and local farmers. Steve Hansen, a Dickey County farmer and irrigator, said restricting voting rights for delinquent payers is "common sense" and protects districts from being blocked by those who refuse to pay. Sergeant County Water Resource District board member Lucas Chimenowski told the committee the county has been assessing Ransom County but that Ransom refuses to pay and has "no interest in ever paying it." He described Ransom County as a recurring obstacle to local projects.
Opponents, represented by Sam Wagner of the Dakota Resource Council, raised a narrower constitutional concern: members advised that, in some cases, landowners involved in active litigation have been told by counsel to withhold payment during court proceedings. Wagner proposed an amendment to carve out an exception for landowners with active litigation related to the project so the measure would not curtail their ability to pursue a court challenge.
Committee members discussed sequencing and legal risk, noting the matter could intersect with a separate bill to define watershed districts. Representative Brandenburg said he had discussed the issue with the attorney general's office and suggested the committee coordinate with related committees to reduce legal uncertainty. No committee vote was recorded in the transcript during the hearing.
