Ditch 7 project scrapped by TRWD board

By Anna Jauhola
Kittson County Ditch No. 7 will remain in its current condition after the Two Rivers Watershed District Board of Directors voted to deny the petition for improvements.
During the continued final hearing on Thursday, Nov. 6 at the Kennedy VFW middle room regarding the proposed improvements, the board discussed verbal and written comments from the initial final hearing in September. The comment period was closed, but about a dozen landowners attended the meeting to listen.
In 2021, landowners along Ditch 7 signed a petition and put up a bond to request improvements on 4.7 miles of the ditch, stating it overflows during excessive rain events and causes damage to surrounding lands. Despite that, some of the opposing comments in this final phase came from the petitioners, said Board Vice President Roger Anderson.
“They put up the bill on this because they thought it was a good project and wanted to see it through,” Anderson said of the petitioners.
Although the engineers who designed the improvements and the viewers who determined the benefitted area did a thorough job, Anderson said the lack of support from east and west of the ditch is most concerning. He said the landowners have all had reasonable comments.
“The petitioners, again, they have done a yeoman’s job trying to get this. But, when the cost came out, not all of them were on board either,” Anderson said. “So in my mind, we’ve done everything that we possibly can to look at it.”
The estimated cost of the full improvements was $1.7 million, to be spread evenly among those in the determined benefitted area. Anderson said the benefits of the project are less than the total cost, there is a lack of support from the landowners, he wouldn’t want to use eminent domain to purchase land downstream. He said he’d listen to the petitioners if they chose to put up more money for further changes.
“I guess I am not in favor of approving this project,” Anderson said.
Board President Rick Sikorski agreed, noting the cost of $1.7 million ($104 per acre to landowners) was too much and people upstream are not happy about the benefitted area.
“I really feel sorry for the guys who signed the line to petition to improve it, because that’s the only way you can do an improvement is with a petition,” Sikorski said. “And when you do a petition, it costs money.”
The petitioners had to put up a bond, which amounted eventually to $50,000 to cover the viewers’ and engineering costs. That money has now been all used.
Board member Mark Langehaug said he agreed with Anderson on revisiting the questions from landowners on the benefitted area, if the petitioners wanted to increase their bond again. Otherwise, he also disagreed with the project as presented.
The board approved a motion to deny the project. They agreed the reasons include the cost is too high; the benefits are too little to justify the cost; there are more landowners opposed to the project than in favor; it’s not practical specifically due to the seven pipelines that cross the ditch limiting the depth of the ditch; and the cost to the landowners will be a hardship for several due to the overall farming economy and rising costs.