Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Petition Dismissal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delaware County commissioners dismiss Watson Ford No. 25 drainage petition, citing cost concerns
Summary
After testimony from landowners and an engineer’s presentation, the board voted unanimously to dismiss the Watson Ford No. 25 drainage improvement petition, finding the nearly $1.0 million estimate and increased scope meant costs equaled or exceeded projected benefits.
The Delaware County Board of Commissioners voted to set aside its prior order and dismiss the Watson Ford Number 25 watershed drainage improvement petition, citing a revised construction estimate and testimony that the project’s costs now outweigh its benefits. The board approved Resolution 26-561 on a recorded unanimous vote.
Commissioner Benton said during deliberations that, given the revised cost calculations, he would "ask that we deny the petition." Commissioners who spoke during the discussion said they were not convinced testimony justified moving forward after the project estimate rose substantially since the first hearing. Several residents had testified they expected little to no direct benefit but would face substantial special assessments.
Brett Bacon, deputy administrator for Soil and Water Conservation, had presented a total construction estimate of $975,540.60 if all sections were approved and explained that the project includes a main, a submain and five laterals. Bacon also noted the first‑hearing estimate (about $394,684) was prepared before COVID‑era construction cost increases and that later amendments expanded the project scope.
Opponents told the board that longstanding residents and farmers would shoulder significant costs to benefit future development. Christina Mosher, a longtime resident, argued the county "has not demonstrated that the benefits to existing residents outweigh the cost being imposed on us," noting scope creep and rising maintenance obligations. Supporters, including several farmers, had urged approval to address persistent flooding and requested longer repayment terms for large assessments.
With the petition dismissed, the board also voted separately to distribute the project’s procedural costs to landowners (see Votes at a glance). The dismissal means the board will not confirm construction assessments or authorize the improvements proposed under the petitioner’s plan; property owners retain the option to pursue cooperative fixes or file new petitions that would alter scope and assessments.
