Benton County continues ditch repair hearings after engineers report and notice problems; CD9 set for March 4, CD14 set for June 3

Benton County commissioners heard a detailed presentation on repair work for County Ditch (CD) 9 and County Ditch 14, including engineering summaries, construction bills and a legal finding that some landowners did not receive required notice for contract-acceptance proceedings.

Engineer’s findings and costs: Houston Engineering summarized field re‑establishment work, sediment surveys and the repair report used to design repairs and cost estimates. For CD14 the repair report estimated a total project cost of about $979,000; the largest single line was construction, with the final construction contract amount reported at about $520,000. The CD14 package included purchased wetland credits (about $44,000) to offset regulatory impacts, plus engineering, administration and viewer damages included in the repair total.

For CD9 the repair report’s engineers estimate was in the low‑to‑mid‑six‑hundred‑thousand range (the report cited an engineers’ construction estimate near $636,000), and the construction contract for CD9 was reported at roughly $300,000 after competitive bids. In both systems engineers documented channel sections with multiple feet of sediment buildup, fallen trees and culverts elevated above original channel bottoms that reduced capacity.

Legal notice defect and next steps: Rinke Noonan attorney Hannah Shackle Danson told the board the CD9 contract-acceptance mailing did not reach all required affected owners. Under Minnesota drainage law (chapter 103E), landowners whose property outlets into an affected drainage system must receive notice for contract-acceptance hearings. Hannah recommended the board direct staff to re‑mail notices to the landowners who did not receive proper notice and set a new public hearing date for the CD9 contract acceptance. "The board should direct staff to send notice to the landowners who were not sent notice for CD 9 and set a date and time for that contract acceptance hearing," Hannah said.

Board actions and scheduling: following the legal guidance, the board directed staff to send required notices and set a new evening hearing for CD9 on March 4 at 6 p.m. (to which landowners on CD9 and those on upstream systems CD12 and CD14 will be notified). For CD14 — where construction is complete but several landowners raised questions about whether specific clearing and mowing items were finished — the board set a continuance and scheduled a follow-up hearing on June 3 at 6 p.m. to allow staff and engineers time to re‑inspect disputed work and for viewers to answer redetermination-of-benefits questions.

What landowners raised: many landowners used the hearing to seek clarification of benefit calculations and to request verification of quantities the county’s inspector recorded during construction. Multiple speakers asked how work paid from the project contract had been measured and whether the contractor had been fully paid for areas that some residents say remain uncleared. Commissioners and staff said the county will compare inspection records and, if necessary, ask the contractor to complete missed work or reconcile quantities.

Why it matters: repair and maintenance of main open‑channel ditches affects drainage, farmland productivity and flood risk across multiple townships. The proceeding also triggers assessments: the repair costs will be allocated to benefited properties based on the earlier redetermination of benefits, and landowners should expect assessments tied to the final accepted project cost and to the board’s later decision on payment period and interest terms.

Next steps for affected residents: the board asked staff to re‑mail notices for CD9 to the owners identified as missing from the original mailing. Landowners wanting parcel-specific explanations of the redetermination of benefits were asked to sign a list that county staff will forward to the viewers (H2 Overviewers) for one‑on‑one follow-up. The board also asked staff and engineers to recheck disputed field sites and to prepare documentation (including drone or photographic evidence where appropriate) before the June 3 continuance.

Legal context: Rinke Noonan advised the board that earlier orders in the repair process are final because the appeal window has closed, but the specific contract-acceptance step requires correct notice; failing to cure the notice defect could expose the county to legal challenges to the contract-acceptance step.