Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Reservoirs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors press for unanimous approval on eminent domain, question water‑allocation language in draft reservoir commission agreement
Summary
Crawford County supervisors debated a draft 28E intergovernmental agreement to form a regional reservoir commission, pressing for unanimous votes on eminent domain and raising concerns about contract language that could give regional utilities priority over local allocation. No final vote on formation was taken.
The Crawford County Board of Supervisors spent a large portion of its June 30 meeting reviewing a draft 28E intergovernmental agreement that would create a regional reservoir commission to manage water resources, distribution and potential reservoir infrastructure.
The board’s discussion focused on governance, water‑allocation priorities, eminent domain and financial risk. Chair Craig Dozark led the review and directed staff to return revised language. Several supervisors said the draft, as circulated, gave too broad a set of powers without sufficient county controls.
A point of contention was eminent domain. One board member argued the county should require unanimous approval to authorize condemnation; another proposed adding explicit steps—good‑faith negotiations, independent appraisals and a public hearing—before any takings could proceed. The board asked legal counsel to change the clause so that use of eminent domain would require unanimous approval by the commission’s members.
Members also pressed for clarity on how water withdrawals and permits would be allocated during shortages. Under text in the draft, DMU and a regional rural water system appeared to have priority for withdrawal permits; several supervisors said the county needs guarantees that municipal and county needs will be protected and that the commission’s distribution policies be explicit.
Financial governance drew sharp questions: who would sign loan documents, how debt would be apportioned if the commission borrowed funds, and whether the county or other members would be on the hook if the commission were sued or became insolvent. “Money issues should always be unanimous,” a committee member said during the debate, arguing that borrowing and other financial commitments require the highest level of agreement.
County staff said the draft would be edited and returned in redline form to the regional partners and that the board expects final language to address unanimous votes for high‑risk actions, detailed allocation protocols for drought conditions, and reporting and budget ratification requirements.
No action was taken to form the commission at the meeting; supervisors instructed staff to redline the draft and seek comment from the regional partners and legal counsel. The item will return to a future agenda once edits and partner responses are received.
