Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Flooding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident pleads for help as recurring tile failures flood his home
Summary
Dave Stevenson told the Grant County Drainage Board that chronic tile failures have left his property periodically submerged for years; board members described repair options but identified private‑property responsibilities and potential partial cost contributions.
Dave Stevenson told the Grant County Drainage Board that repeated tile failures and a high water table have left his Troy Avenue property regularly flooded for years, sometimes making his septic and interior plumbing unusable for days.
"The tile ran through my property and it collapsed around 2000," Stevenson said, showing photos the board displayed. He said standing water has increased in frequency and depth over the past five years and that his septic and leach field are submerged “from two to 14 days” after heavy rains. Stevenson said he takes photos multiple times a year and that the problem persists despite prior spot repairs.
Board members explained several facts about responsibility and possible remedies: once a tile enters private property the owner generally bears responsibility for maintenance and repairs, and in Stevenson's case a new lateral (8‑inch tile) to tie into a field main could reduce local ponding but would not necessarily solve broader outlet or watershed limitations. The transcript shows an offered installation cost of roughly $4,700, with a contractor or neighbor offering to accept $1,000 from Stevenson toward the work; board members cautioned there are no guarantees that a new lateral will fully resolve standing water if the downstream outlet remains impaired.
Contractor and staff comments emphasized the limits of local drainage systems and the role of larger mains and outlets in moving water away from low‑lying properties. One staff member said field inspection (digging or camera work) would be needed to determine whether a proposed tie‑in yields the expected flow improvement.
Board direction and next steps: members recommended that Stevenson pursue a specific repair estimate and, if he chooses to proceed, use the local contractor arrangement discussed during the meeting. The board noted the drainage board itself has limited maintenance funds for old tiles that have no maintenance account and advised Stevenson to coordinate with staff for follow‑up inspections and a repair plan.
Stevenson’s case will remain part of the board’s maintenance and repair work queue; no formal board appropriation or binding commitment to fully fund the repair was made during the meeting.
