Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wright County drainage trustees debate beaver‑dam policy and review multiple drainage work orders
Summary
As drainage trustees the board reviewed historic drainage claims and work orders, considered contractor invoices, investigated a tile‑plugged site near Victor Avenue, and debated whether and how the county should pay for beaver‑dam removal and beaver‑tail payments in 'no‑man’s‑land' areas affecting drainage districts.
During the drainage trustees session the board approved earlier drainage minutes and reviewed several work orders for tile blowouts and ditch repairs (DD14 section 30; DD70 section 7; DD36 lateral A; DD200). Staff reported on contractor invoices from Mosdam Construction and discussed whether particular repairs were district work or private responsibility; staff said some mapping and coordinate verification would be required before payment.
Trustees heard a report of standing water caused by a suspected plugged tile near Victor Avenue and directed staff to investigate, television the line if needed, and determine whether Hener Construction should be assigned for repairs. Multiple members raised questions about whether trees and rooted tile in CRP ground are the district’s responsibility and agreed to follow up with FSA records and landowner contacts.
A substantial portion of the meeting focused on beaver‑dam removal and the county’s historical practice of paying beaver‑tail bounty claims. Trustee Jack Brighton submitted 28 beaver tails; staff said many came from areas not formally inside a drainage district but that affect district outlets. Trustees discussed possible policies to apportion costs across multiple districts (examples offered included pro‑rata splits or distance/mileage rules) and whether the county should require clearer documentation (work orders, signed landowner forms, mapped locations) before paying for trapping or dam removal. Staff were directed to contact the landowners for complete details and to return with recommendations; trustees indicated the topic could return to the next agenda.
