Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Drainage tile permit hearing continued after neighbors raise downstream and ditch-maintenance concerns
Summary
An applicant asked to install 4- and 6-inch tile lines to drain low-lying farmland into a roadside ditch; neighbors expressed fears the outlet could pond or increase flows onto their fields and asked who will maintain culverts and ditches. The board voted to continue the hearing to January to allow coordination and highway-superintendent review.
An applicant identified only as Dan told the board he seeks a drainage permit to install 4- and 6-inch tile lines that will outlet into a road ditch on the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 94 North, Range 57 West of the 5th PM in Yankton County (SEG 128-132, 150-156). Dan said a wetland determination prevents draining wetlands and that the project is intended to dry low-lying areas so they can be productive and reduce short-term erosion: "the whole idea behind the tiling is, what it does is those low lying areas, it takes the water out of them so that there is no water in them" (SEG 250-255).
Neighbors who live adjacent to the proposed outlet raised concerns about downstream capacity and maintenance. Mark Hana said he owns ground west of the applicant and, while he "agree[s] with the tiling," he worried the pipe could route water to a low spot on his land and asked, "Is the county gonna clean it? Or who's gonna take care of that?" (SEG 348, 401-407). Larry Reining, who said he owns the 80-acre tract across the road, told the board the change could "just put water on me a lot faster" and reduce production on his south fields in wet years (SEG 423-460).
Board members and the applicant discussed watershed flow and routing options, including whether the tile could run east instead of north to mitigate impacts (SEG 643-646). The highway superintendent, Mike Sedlodcheck (mentioned in discussion, SEG 219; alternate spellings in the transcript), was asked to review ditch capacity and potential road impacts. An unidentified board member proposed continuing the hearing to a January meeting to allow the applicant, affected neighbors and the highway superintendent time to coordinate and research options; that motion was seconded and the board voted to continue the permit consideration to January (motion proposed SEG 608-612; second SEG 678-679; vote SEG 680-682). Board staff said they would send letters announcing the rescheduled date (SEG 688-694).
The action does not approve the permit. Instead, the board paused the decision to allow neighbors and county staff to evaluate ditch capacity, potential reroutes and maintenance responsibilities. Neighbors suggested pursuing a coordinated tiling approach among adjacent landowners if feasible; the board instructed parties to meet and asked the highway superintendent to examine ditches and culverts before the rescheduled hearing.
