Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Petition Denial topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Petition to remove obstruction denied after board cites 8-foot elevation difference

Morgan County Drainage Board · June 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A resident's petition alleging the lake dam was causing flooding onto her property was denied after staff told the board the dam's top is roughly 8 feet lower than the property, making the claimed backflow physically implausible; staff noted the complaint has recurred over the past decade.

The Morgan County Drainage Board reviewed a petition filed in April from a resident who said a dam on a nearby lake was causing water to back up onto her property. Board staff reported that the top of the dam is approximately eight feet lower than the resident's property and that, as a result, the lake could not be the source of the alleged backup.

"There's no way possible that that lake can be causing it cuz it's it's like 8 ft," a board member said during the discussion, describing elevation readings and noting the top of the dam sits well below the homeowner's land. Staff cited specific elevation comparisons mentioned in the meeting (examples given in discussion included figures such as 764 down to 756 and references to 754 near the house) to support the assessment.

The board said it had addressed similar complaints about the same property about 10 to 11 years earlier and that the issue keeps recurring. Because the technical evidence did not support the petitioner's claim, staff denied the petition. Board members also noted that some related issues fall outside the board's jurisdiction and cannot be resolved by the drainage board alone.

The denial is recorded as a staff/board decision; no formal vote transcript for the denial was provided in the meeting record. Staff told board members they would communicate the outcome to the resident and that inquiries about the recurring complaint would be handled by staff follow-up.