Residents, farmers tell commissioners costs and notice problems outweigh drainage proposal benefits

A string of landowners opposed the Watson Ford Number 25 drainage petition at the Delaware County final hearing, arguing the county had not shown benefits exceed costs and raising procedural concerns about notice and maintenance. Speakers representing residential and farm parcels described little on‑site benefit and said assessments would place lasting burdens on owners.

"The benefits do not outweigh the cost," Christina Mosher told the board, asking commissioners to reject the petition because it would require longtime residents to pay for infrastructure that will also serve future development. Multiple speakers raised similar points: some said they had already paid for localized fixes, others said they had no flooding or that prior road projects had not addressed drainage and may have worsened conditions.

Several residents said they had not received timely notice of this hearing. Cheryl Shoemaker said she only knew to attend because she had participated in the earlier hearing that was continued; Claire Reynolds said she did not receive notice and described persistent pooling that evaporates rather than flows off her parcel. In response, county staff and Brett Bacon explained the statute’s definition of "benefit": if water from a parcel enters the proposed improvement, the parcel is deemed to have benefited and thus may be assessed. Bacon said some parcels could pursue cooperative projects with neighbors or file separate petitions to gain connectivity if they are not included in the current design.

Opponents also flagged ongoing maintenance costs (the engineer cited typical annual collections of 2.5–5%) and questioned reimbursement for properties that already paid for improvements. Those concerns factored into the commissioners’ later decision to dismiss the petition.