Laserfiche WebLink
FEB 21992 #�oug 48 PnF 807 <br />history of the District and the canal. If and when <br />development does take place, improvements to the ditch are <br />going to have to be made. He noted that the water that is <br />causing the damage is not coming out of the District; the <br />2200' in question is not in the District. <br />Commissioner Lyons expressed concern about <br />impinging on other canals if this run-off problem increases. <br />Engineer Davis stated part of the solution could <br />come when the Comprehensive Land Use Plan drainage element <br />is adopted. He added that they have been following the. <br />recommendation of the Soil Conservation Service in this <br />matter. <br />Administrator Nelson commented that if Corrigan <br />and Ro-Ed would want to develop, they would have to have a <br />development plan for drainage. <br />Discussion ensued. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by <br />Commissioner Wodtke that the Board accept the <br />recommendations of the County Administrator, as stipulated <br />in his memorandum of January 27, 1982. <br />Discussion followed, and it was determined that <br />the County did not plan to continually maintain this canal. <br />Commissioner Bird stated that he would amend his <br />Motion that it be a one time situation and that the County <br />would not maintain the canal in the future. <br />Engineer Davis interjected that the wording should <br />allow flexibility and that the County would have the right, <br />and not the obligation, to perform selective maintenance in <br />the future, subject to the approval of the Drainage <br />District. <br />Commissioner Bird pointed out that at the present <br />time there is a clear picture as to the percentage of <br />