Accomack supervisors debate ditch maintenance policy changes, landowner easement concerns

Accomack County officials debated revisions to the county's ditch maintenance policy on Tuesday, examining whether perpetual easements should remain the standard or whether multiyear temporary easements would help secure more landowner cooperation.

The county's public works presenter, Mr. Hall, told the Board of Supervisors that operational responsibility for the ditch maintenance program transferred from Environmental Programs to Public Works and Facilities late last year and that staff prioritized project management and contractor excavation. Hall said the proposed policy revisions include housekeeping changes plus two substantive items: a requirement that landowner-installed features such as bridges and fencing be removed before excavation, and language authorizing the county administrator to accept temporary easements instead of perpetual easements for high-priority projects.

The proposed definition of a high-priority project, Hall said, is one that "addresses hazardous or potentially hazardous flooding conditions that threaten building structures, agricultural operations, or the health and safety of any person." That definition would allow the county administrator to approve temporary easements on an exception basis for those sites.

County Administrator Mike Mason explained why staff prefer perpetual easements, saying the county invests taxpayer money to improve ditches and needs a way to ensure ongoing maintenance: "When we're improving a ditch on anyone's property, we're investing taxpayer money into that ditch'and by doing that, we want to make sure that in the future we can keep that ditch clean ... and go in, with advance notice to the property owner, maintain that ditch." Mason also emphasized that county employees and contractors will not enter private property without advance notice and landowner consent.

Several supervisors and members of the public pressed for more flexibility. One supervisor proposed a multiyear temporary easement as a compromise; in discussion that followed, board members suggested a four-year temporary easement could be more acceptable to hesitant landowners while still allowing the county to make and protect investments. Staff said a temporary easement in prior drafts had been discussed as a one- to two-year period but that the board could define the period by policy.

Staff also described a "Ditch Maintenance Citizens Guide" that explains the county's procedures, including reinspection cycles and a notification schedule: a 30-day advance written notice of planned inspections, followed by a seven-day phone notice and in-person contact at on-site residents on the day of inspection. Hall said staff performs title research and makes reasonable efforts to contact landowners by phone and mail during project development.

Supervisors did not adopt the changes Tuesday; the board voted to table final action and directed staff to return next month with revised language and additional details on temporary-easement options. The board also discussed whether buying easements would ever be an option in rare, high-impact cases, with the county attorney noting purchase is legally permissible but that paying some landowners could raise equity and precedent concerns.

The board hearing lasted through detailed procedural and policy questions, and members asked staff to bring back a revised draft that clarifies notice procedures, the duration of temporary easements, and how towns'requests for funding will be handled under the policy.

Looking ahead, supervisors asked that the revised policy include an explicit temporary-easement duration option and clearer language on staff workloads and landowner outreach so elected members could weigh the operational implications when the board revisits the matter next month.