Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br /> <br />Under North Dakota law, specifically N.D. Cent. Code § 61-32-03, any party who seeks <br />to construct surface drainage improvements that will drain sheetwater must first obtain a <br />surface drainage permit if the drainage will impact a watershed area of 80 acres or more. <br />Under Section 89-02-01-03 of the Administrative Code, a permit is required for <br />construction of new ditching, including deepening or widening an existing ditch or drain. <br />Sections 89-02-01-05 and 89-02-01-02(10) provide a “maintenance” exemption for <br />removal of silt and vegetation from an existing ditch; however, the Administrative Code is <br />clear that deepening or widening an existing ditch does not qualify for the maintenance <br />exemption, and does require a surface drainage permit, but only if the drainage will impact <br />a watershed area of 80 acres or more). <br /> <br />In this case, if the watershed area drained by the deepening or widening of the <br />152nd Avenue ditch was 80 acres or more, the work would have required a permit under <br />Section 61-32-03. However, in this instance, Mr. Lysne found the watershed area <br />impacted by the ditch improvements was less than 80 acres and, therefore, Mr. Baumler’s <br />improvements to the 152nd Avenue ditch did not require a surface drainage permit under <br />North Dakota law. <br /> <br />Similarly, the field ditch improvements in the NE 1/4 of Section 29 included new drainage <br />and, under Section 61-32-03, would have required a permit if the improvements drained <br />a watershed of 80 acres or more. However, in light of Mr. Lysne’s findings that the field <br />ditching does not drain a watershed of 80 acres or more, those improvements did not <br />require a surface drainage permit under North Dakota law. <br /> <br />Because neither of the drainage improvements required a surface drainage permit, under <br />Sections 61-32-03 and 61-32-07 the Board had no choice but to dismiss the Complaint <br />for Water-Related Issues regarding allegations of unpermitted drainage by Mr. Baumler. <br /> <br />In light of the lack of jurisdiction over the Complaint for Water-Related Issues, the Board <br />determined dismissal was the only option available for the Board. Manager Gust moved <br />to dismiss the Complaint for Water-Related Issues filed by Kim Bruesch due to lack of <br />jurisdiction under Sections 61-32-03 and 61-32-07. Manager Sundberg seconded the <br />motion. Upon roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />The Board directed Sean Fredricks to prepare the requisite Notice of Decision and to <br />provide the Notice to the parties of record. The Board directed Mr. Fredricks to include <br />copies of the aerial photograph and maps presented today by Mr. Lysne along with the <br />Notice of Decision. <br /> <br />Despite the Board’s lack of jurisdiction, Mr. Fredricks noted the Township has jurisdiction <br />over improvements to their road ditch, and the Township possesses enforcement <br />capabilities under N.D. Cent. Code § 24-06-26.2, 24-06-26.3, and 24-06-27. <br /> <br />2024 budget and 2023 maintenance levy assessments <br />The Board tabled discussion on the 2024 budget and 2023 maintenance levy <br />assessments until the next meeting as the Rush River Water Resource District Master