Scott County Ditch Board continues County Ditch 5 hearing, appoints viewers after formal objection filed

The Scott County Ditch Board on Aug. 19 continued its public hearing on a petition to abandon County Ditch 5 and accepted a formal objection from a benefited landowner, triggering a statutory viewers’ inspection. The board appointed a viewers’ team and set a continuance for Oct. 21, 2025, to receive the viewers’ report and resume deliberations.

County staff presented the results of additional fact-finding required after earlier continuances. Chris Lage (staff presenter) summarized follow-up work on the Bradshaw Lakes watershed, discussions with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Department of Transportation, and a local drainage inspection. “Our recommendation is for full abandonment of County Ditch 5 as we do not feel it’s financially feasible to repair the ditch,” Lage said, adding that repair would likely require expensive engineering study and wetland mitigation and that, in staff’s view, repair would not provide the relief some landowners seek.

Staff told the board that MnDOT reported no planned work on the Highway 13 culvert in the next 10 years and estimated the culvert’s remaining life at roughly 50 years. Staff also reported that portions of the ditch are very flat, some spurs (Spur 3 and Spur 4) no longer function as constructed and that the Bradshaw Lakes Wildlife Management Area (a DNR-managed property) is crossed by drainage paths used by some property owners. Staff warned that re-opening or repairing the ditch could increase channel instability and downstream erosion and decrease water quality compared with leaving the ditch in its current, largely stable state.

Attorney Andrew Kolp (Ditch Board attorney) reminded the board that Minnesota Statutes section 103E.811 governs ditch abandonment decisions and that the board’s finding must be based on whether the drainage system continues to serve a useful purpose to any affected property, whether it remains a public benefit or utility, and whether restoration is practical. Kolp said the board must appoint viewers to inspect any property for which a statutory objection is filed.

Tim LaCroix, attorney for landowner Drew Stilwell, filed a written objection at the hearing under Minnesota Statutes §103E.811 and asked the board to appoint viewers to evaluate the ditch’s utility for Stilwell’s property at 23980 Newport Avenue. LaCroix asked that Stilwell be allowed to be present during the viewers’ inspection; Kolp said that is customary and would be coordinated. Kolp estimated viewer work would take about 30–60 days.

Board member Mr. Cherry moved to appoint H2OVER (the viewing firm previously used by the board) as viewers for the objection and to continue the hearing; the board seconded the motion and a voice vote carried. The board formally continued the hearing until Oct. 21, 2025, to receive the viewers’ report and any subsequent deliberations.

The board briefly reopened the public comment period at the meeting’s request. Local landowner Ron Malika described drainage and tile issues on his property and asked that viewers examine a particular spur and culvert (Spur 4 and the culvert under County Road 200 & 40th Street) during the inspection. The board then voted to close public comment until the Oct. 21 continuance.

Next steps specified on the record: the board accepted LaCroix’s written objection into the record; staff will coordinate viewer selection and scheduling (H2OVER was proposed); viewers will inspect impacted properties and submit a report to the board; staff and attorneys will incorporate the viewers’ findings into draft written findings and the board will reconvene Oct. 21, 2025, for further action.

Because this matter pertains to the formal statutory abandonment process, the board did not reach a final determination on abandonment at the Aug. 19 hearing. The ultimate outcome will depend on (1) the viewers’ inspection and report, (2) the board’s weighing of the statutory standards in Minnesota Statutes §103E.811, and (3) any additional evidence presented before the board at the Oct. 21 continuation.