Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Petition Cd63 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McLeod County accepts petition to use County Ditch 63 as outlet; engineers and viewers to be appointed
Summary
The county board accepted a petition from Nathan and Dean Diesterhaft to use County Ditch 63 as an outlet and directed staff to appoint a viewer and engineer to assess capacity and benefits; petitioners were told they typically bear related costs and staff will return with technical findings.
The McLeod County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 17 accepted a petition to use County Ditch (CD) 63 as an outlet for property owned by Nathan and Dean Diesterhaft and directed further proceedings, including appointment of a viewer and an engineer.
Janet of the auditor/treasurer office summarized the findings‑in‑order included in the board packet and said the petitioners had filed to utilize CD 63 as an outlet. "The drainage authority is authorized under Minnesota statute 103E.401 to consider the petition," Janet said, explaining the statutory process that would govern the next steps.
County counsel emphasized that acceptance of the petition at this stage is procedural and that technical review must follow. "If this petition is accepted, directing the further proceedings is really what the board will be directing — staff to work with the petitioner to figure those things out," the county attorney said. Counsel and staff explained that the petitioner is typically responsible for costs associated with the petition (viewer, engineer), though those cost allocations can become more complex if broader system benefits are found.
Commissioners asked whether the property lies within the CD 63 watershed and whether an abbreviated assessment could control costs for the petitioners. Staff said they would verify watershed placement and proceed to appoint a viewer and an engineer to provide a capacity assessment and benefit analysis. The board voted to accept the findings and to direct those further proceedings.
What the decision means: Acceptance allows the statutory process to commence; it does not constitute approval of construction or a permanent change to the drainage system. The appointed viewer and engineer will produce reports that the board will consider before making any final determinations.
Clarifying details: petitioners are Nathan and Dean Diesterhaft; the drainage authority role and the process were cited to Minnesota Statutes §103E.401; petitioners were told they are generally responsible for petition‑related costs; staff will check whether the property already lies within the CD 63 watershed and will return with more information.
Next step: county staff will appoint a viewer and an engineer, gather technical findings and return to the board for future action.
