Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Reconstruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineers propose three alternatives to address flooding in No Name Creek watershed; board to contact petitioners before hearing
Summary
Banning/Vending Engineering presented three options — large upsizing, targeted submain repairs, or an expanded grass waterway — with costs from roughly $11/acre/year (maintenance fund) to more than $400,000; the board agreed to contact petitioning landowners and delay a reconstruction hearing pending DNR guidance and landowner support.
Joe Miller, an engineer with Vending Engineering, presented three alternatives the engineering team compiled for the Abe McConnell / No Name Creek watershed, which the board is considering for reconstruction.
Miller said the most comprehensive option would upsize low-end tiles to 30–36 inches, a solution that would “address the undersized installation” but carries the highest estimated cost (engineers’ ballpark exceeded $400,000, about $624 per acre). As a lower-cost approach, engineers recommended a 15-inch submain repair focused on recurring tile holes and maintenance; that option had an estimated project cost under $150,000 and would translate roughly to an $11-per-acre annual maintenance assessment if funded over 20 years. A third option would enhance and extend the existing grass waterway to handle surface water, an option estimated near $300,000 and requiring right-of-way acquisition in places.
The surveyor (Surveyor, S2) emphasized regulatory and practical constraints: wetlands and historical installation records are incomplete, and reconstructed tile may be limited by DNR mitigation rules. “Before moving forward with the hiring of an engineering firm, we should table until we get a straight and precise answer from the DNR of what any mitigation costs will occur and what we’re allowed to do through the wetlands,” the surveyor said.
Landowners at the open house described persistent flooding and sinkholes on farmland drained by the system, telling the board any solution should consider both short-term repairs and long-term feasibility. JB Chapman (landowner, S13) and others urged a stepwise approach: clear and dip problem reaches first, and avoid immediate full reconstruction unless smaller fixes fail. Chris Daniel (S14) said recent work had “substantially improved” conditions but that some sinkholes and incomplete restoration from earlier projects still exist.
Board members asked engineers for a delineated watershed shapefile so the county can separate accounting and assessments by watershed. One board member recommended the county create a separate repair account for the delineated watershed rather than pool funds across unrelated areas.
The board did not schedule a reconstruction hearing at the meeting. Instead, members voted to postpone setting a hearing date until the surveyor contacts petitioning landowners who were not present and until the board receives additional regulatory guidance and a finalized shapefile for watershed delineation. The surveyor also said the county will investigate ownership of any vacated rights of way recorded during previous reconstructions.
What’s next: The surveyor will contact the petitioners and clarify DNR permitting constraints; the board will revisit whether to proceed with an engineering contract and whether to place a reconstruction hearing on a future agenda.
