Dickinson County continues hearing on contested DD61 drainage plan amid pipeline liability concerns

The Dickinson County Board of Supervisors on April 1 continued a public hearing on proposed drainage improvements in Joint DD61 Branch 399 West after more than an hour of testimony and technical discussion about how a buried natural‑gas pipeline affects the project.

Colin, the district engineer, told the board the plan considered an open ditch along 230th Street of roughly 3,000 feet as a lower‑cost alternative to a larger tile project. He said that earlier engineering estimates put the open‑ditch price between roughly $450,000 and $520,000, but the pipeline crossing complicates the choice because the pipeline operator will not accept responsibility for future damage related to the district’s work and instead offered a standard crossing agreement that would place broad liability on the district.

The engineer said the crossing agreement would require the drainage district to accept responsibility for “operation or future maintenance” impacts to the pipeline, and he described risk‑mitigation alternatives including installing a long culvert under the line (about 130 feet of crossing), using aluminized corrugated pipe rather than standard galvanized metal, or upsizing and staying within the district’s historic easement to preserve legal protections. He cautioned that, while an exposure judgment could be large — “it could be in excess of $1 million” in some scenarios — courts historically have limited money‑damages claims against drainage districts, though case law could change.

Landowners and stakeholders pressed for clearer numbers. A written objection from HCN Limited Partnership (read into the record and signed by farm manager David Crier) said an open ditch would not meaningfully improve drainage for its 122.24 acres and opposed the plan given the pipeline company’s refusal to waive liability. Brandon Anderson, superintendent for the city of Terrell, told the board the city had discussed the ditch and did not see a guarantee of benefit to its residents and cautioned against imposing additional financial burdens on a struggling community.

Other landowners raised site‑specific concerns: Don Ericson said the project would require cutting six mature trees on his property and questioned why he should pay when camera inspection showed tree roots blocking an existing tile. The engineer said the camera did reveal roots and that cleaning alone may offer only a temporary fix.

Supervisors emphasized trade‑offs between cost and legal exposure. Some favored pursuing options that remain inside the drainage district’s original tile easement — a higher‑cost alternative that could preserve the district’s position in future disputes — while others argued the lower‑cost open‑ditch alternative could be the foundation for later work. The board asked staff to develop cost comparisons for alternatives that would keep the new channel within existing easements or otherwise reduce liability exposure and to prepare a pre‑classification assessment so landowners can see parcel‑level cost estimates.

After extended public comment and technical discussion, the board voted to continue the hearing to April 21 at 9:30 a.m. for additional analysis, outreach and revised cost estimates. No final construction decision was made at the April 1 session.

What’s next: The engineer will prepare a cost comparison and pre‑classification of assessment schedules, and the board will reconvene the hearing on April 21 to consider those figures and any revised agreements with the pipeline operator.