Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Districts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wright and Webster counties approve MOU authorizing drainage repairs up to $5,000; pipeline removal raises concerns about tile mapping
Summary
Wright County trustees approved a memorandum of understanding with Webster County authorizing joint drainage repairs up to $5,000. Separately, Wright County staff reported discrepancies in GPS coordinates for the A-line pipeline removal by DKM Enterprises LLC and will map affected drainage districts for future monitoring.
The Wright County Board of Supervisors, meeting as drainage district trustees, approved a memorandum of understanding with Webster County authorizing trustees to approve joint drainage repairs of up to $5,000.
Courtney Morris, Wright County drainage administrator, gave a detailed update on removal of the “A-line” pipeline by DKM Enterprises LLC and reported multiple discrepancies in the GPS coordinates DKM provided. Morris said she marked 15 coordinates as “close to” district assets and identified other points that were clearly off the pipeline path. DKM’s representative, Aaron Riggins, responded that some coordinate entries appeared to be typos and that his team would re-check the points in their app. Morris also reported that DKM said pipes crossing open canals and ditches were typically cut and capped rather than excavated, but that in a few locations contractors who were already working removed tile while on site.
The memorandum of understanding covers several jointly managed drainage districts. Morris identified the shared districts in the MOU as “DD 13-11,” “DD 90-409 Main,” and “DD 90-409 Lateral A,” and named one Wright County–controlled district as “B 46-92.” The trustees recorded an affirmative vote in both counties and the motion carried.
Morris said Wright County has not received applications from the company to work in drainage districts prior to the pipeline work. She said she had contacted the county drainage attorney, Eric Eddy, to ask whether the county can take preventive steps now or must wait until damage appears — which she said might not be apparent until spring or later. Morris said she will create a list of all drainage districts that were crossed and a second list of locations that are potentially near district assets so the county has a record if problems arise in the future. She also noted that all GPS pins provided by DKM are stored in the county’s ArcMap layers for later reference.
The trustees’ discussion distinguished between the formal action (the MOU approval) and operational concerns raised in the update about the pipeline removal. The MOU was formally approved; no follow-up action beyond the mapping and attorney consultation was mandated during the meeting.
Voices quoted in this report spoke during the drainage agenda item of the Wright County meeting and the associated conference call with Webster County.
