Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Watershed And Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landowners press county to speed repair of Drain 4, say they will share costs
Summary
Local landowners presented plans to rebuild the Drain 4 channel (Americold Road corridor), described as repeatedly inundating thousands of acres; they said they have already contributed about $310,000 and seek Water Resource District cooperation and permitting support.
Landowners and farmers asked the Grand Forks County Commission on Feb. 4 to support a multi‑mile reconstruction of Drain 4 (referred to in testimony as the Americold Road channel), saying repeated backups and high water have repeatedly inundated farmground and caused crop losses.
What was presented: Paul Spole, who identified himself as a stakeholder and landowner in the drainage area, and an engineering team from Barrien/Burien & Associates presented a conceptual plan calling for lowering an existing drop structure and improving nearly nine miles of channel and culverts. The engineers recommended lowering a hydraulic structure by about six feet and extending the ditch west beyond the interstate to create a properly graded drainage channel. The petitioners said they have already invested about $310,000 toward preliminary work and bond support and proposed forming a watershed LLC (A & W Watershed LLC) to carry the project.
Why it matters: presenters said the corridor affects roughly 24,000 acres and that, in certain storms, thousands of acres would be inundated; they said the Army Corps of Engineers' previous work left the downstream outlet at an elevation that produces backwater for the basin and reduces drainage effectiveness.
County and water‑district process: attendees and county officials discussed the Water Resource District's role and the need for federal permits (notably, U.S. Army Corps authorizations under Sections 404/408 where Corps facilities are involved). County staff and water‑district representatives explained that the water board has an appointed engineer under contract and that certain federal permits require 60–65% advance plan completeness and may lengthen the schedule; petitioners said they experienced limited responsiveness from the water board's engineer and asked the board to consider a new engineering approach.
Public ask and commissioner response: petitioners asked the county to encourage the Water Resource District to move the petition forward quickly, consider alternatives presented by the petitioners' engineer and accept collaboration to avoid repeated crop losses. Commissioners said they would review the timeline, advise the water board members that petitioners want an expedited path, and that the water board and commission would try to ensure county road and culvert impacts are reviewed by county highway staff.
Quote (from petitioner): "We're not here for a handout, we're here to assess ourselves to get this thing done," said Paul Spole, a landowner and stakeholder who presented the petition.
Next steps: petitioners asked the Water Resource District to accept either the submitted design or evaluate alternatives; county staff said engineering and permitting decisions rest with the Water Resource District and federal agencies, but commissioners pledged to review the engineer contract and seek faster communications between the petitioners and the water board. Petitioners said they will not stop pursuing the project and said they are prepared to be assessed for costs if the district proceeds.
