Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Debris Removal Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee elects leadership, reviews draft debris‑removal program with 10‑day cleanup goal
Summary
The Diversion Authority’s new Debris Removal and Restoration Subcommittee elected leadership and reviewed a draft program required by the settlement agreement. Staff outlined event‑specific eligibility, a proposed 10‑day cleanup objective, contractor rosters, notification methods and reimbursement timelines; members raised questions about timing, owner/operator roles and contractor assignment.
The Diversion Authority’s Debris Removal and Restoration Subcommittee met for its inaugural session to elect leadership and review a draft program to remove flood debris and restore eligible non‑structural property damage, staff said.
Jake Gust, who served as the meeting’s temporary chair, opened the session and members confirmed a quorum. The committee elected a chair (nomination carried) and confirmed Ken Law as vice chair by roll call.
Justin Fischer, director of lands for the MFDA, and consultant Eric Dods (AE2S) led a presentation of the staff‑draft framework required under Article 19 of the settlement agreement. Dods summarized the central aim: "the purpose of the program is simply to provide a reliable process for removing that debris and allowing the farmers to get in the fields as quickly as possible," and said the proposal reflects producer input and the settlement’s guardrails.
The draft program proposes an event‑specific approach. After project operation (when gates move and waters back up), staff would define an eligibility area using hydraulic models, aerial photos and field observations, notify recorded landowners, and allow landowners to choose whether to self‑perform cleanup or request contractor assistance from a pre‑qualified roster. Eligible work would focus on debris removal from tillable land and non‑structural repairs such as culverts and field approaches; structural damage, fencing, drain tile and historic debris were described as generally ineligible.
Dods explained a 10‑day cleanup objective appears in the settlement agreement and was included to reflect producer concerns about field drying. He cautioned that event variability could make that timeline impractical in some zones and emphasized an adaptive approach: "10 days was just sort of a rough...10 days sounds appropriate," said committee legal adviser John Shockley, noting the agreement contains mechanisms to consider alternate timing if the subcommittee recommends changes to the JPA.
Members pressed staff on several operational points. Producers and county officials said timing decisions—when to enter soggy fields—should rest with the landowner or operator to avoid rutting; speakers recommended light‑footprint equipment such as tracked skid steers. Committee members also raised the common landowner/tenant disconnect: staff said notices are sent to recorded owners via county tax/GIS records and owners may formally designate a tenant as the program contact and beneficiary by providing contact information.
On contracting, staff proposed recruiting a roster of pre‑qualified contractors each year (soliciting interest when flood forecasts indicate likely operations), entering master agreements and publishing contractor contact information so landowners can choose. Staff warned of capacity risk if many landowners select the same contractor and said assigning contractors by zone or otherwise structuring assignments is an issue for the committee to weigh.
Staff proposed administrative timelines: define eligibility within seven days of operation, allow landowners to request assistance or self‑perform within the program’s 10‑day window, require reimbursement applications within 60 days, and targeted Diversion Authority payment within 45 days after application. Documentation standards would include hours logs, before/after photos, hauling records and invoices. Dods recommended using standardized FEMA equipment rates and state Davis‑Bacon wage rates for consistency.
Staff also said the Diversion Authority would keep small, temporary debris staging parcels near farming areas to sort and process material rather than sending everything directly to landfill.
The subcommittee identified several questions for future meetings: whether eligibility criteria are practical, how to balance flexibility with fiscal accountability, whether contractor assignments should be free‑choice or managed by zones, and how best to communicate notice and timelines to absentee landowners and tenants. Members discussed meeting frequency and scheduling options and agreed to continue work at subsequent meetings.
The new subcommittee did not vote on substantive policy changes at the meeting; the session focused on reviewing the staff framework and collecting initial feedback. The packet discussed during the meeting will be circulated to members for follow‑up, and the committee will address outstanding operational and procurement choices in future sessions.
