Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Confined Feeding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DeKalb County board approves Graber confined feeding operation despite drainage questions
Summary
The DeKalb County Drainage Board approved a development plan for a confined feeding operation on County Road 28 after engineers said on-site measures would slow runoff; board members questioned the absence of a retention pond but approved the plan with a favorable recommendation from the surveyor's office.
The DeKalb County Drainage Board voted Dec. 18 to approve a development plan for a confined feeding operation at 7735 County Road 28 in Butler, with a favorable recommendation from the surveyor's office.
Brian Munch, an engineer with Munch Engineering, represented property owners Leila Leroy and Shyla Graber and described the proposed facility as “approximately 700 feet in length, 128 feet in width,” with exterior pasture area and a recessed manure pit. Munch presented a drainage analysis showing the site’s peak flow for a 100-year storm at 49 cubic feet per second (CFS), and contrasted that with a regulated drain capacity he said exceeds 1,000 CFS bank-to-bank.
“The building’s approximately 700 feet in length, 128 feet in width,” Munch said during his presentation. “Our peak flow at the 100 year storm event was 49 CFS, which is a fraction of what the regulated drain is passing.”
Board members pressed staff and the presenter on runoff controls and whether a retention pond would normally be required. An unidentified board member asked, “With any kind of building site, haven’t we had retention ponds?” Munch and other staff responded that the design changes the drainage pattern, adds collection ditches and rock check dams, and will slow and disperse flow before it reaches the regulated drain.
“We’re actually slowing the water down compared to what it does today,” Munch said in response to the concern about downstream impacts.
After discussion the board moved and seconded approval and adopted the plan on a voice vote; the transcript records the motion and the chair’s statement “Motion carries,” but does not include a roll-call tally.
Why it matters: The plan directly borders regulated drains identified in board documents; changes to drainage patterns and on-site runoff controls shape local flood risk and may affect downstream landowners. The board relied on a surveyor’s recommendation and the engineering analysis presented; members asked staff to confirm follow-up oversight and permitting requirements.
The board did not record a roll-call vote; next procedural steps noted in the meeting included standard permitting and follow-up by county staff.
