[{"_1":2,"_75":-5,"_76":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6515064,"mediaKeyId","5021217-1a3421cc7263c9d46054e8286b09ceb1","parentId",5021217,"title","Kossuth County continues hearing on proposed Drainage District No. 4, Lateral 11 improvements after engineer outlines tile and ditch options","audioSeconds",2391,"startMs",11601,"endMs",2403405,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5021217-1a3421cc7263c9d46054e8286b09ceb1&start=11&end=2403","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5021217-1a3421cc7263c9d46054e8286b09ceb1/thumbnail_11601.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6515064/Kossuth-County/Iowa/Kossuth-County-continues-hearing-on-proposed-Drainage-District-No-4-Lateral-11-improvements-after-engineer-outlines-tile-and-ditch-options","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6515064-8927c39590f0ff77a46ce1c1b3a6c8cd/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447614&Signature=Iav28BQHvA4f7csxMsc2EbKkH0hQw3KzvPjGEz~Qdj0FfUsVkdBIuX3HE2fWInvVFLr5KcF432SeRwrbpxtYq6ziJsb3aaCwaTK73Q4v58IQ~NteaHPmdKbRNPVU2M1lHJRrHTTWFoF0j6Oc-beTwvE6pZ5eKhIHvfmD~XGC3iehGZ6wJs4bW8ms3FVZJt0z9Hci7JWcNcD648TVaIqklhWCGaoa3sx5BsBSdjxw9TPVg2ms7DMaq~gCUl1xe74lB4EH2N8OUFODF8krQqN3ICBaAJrY53thjWnvU4TAu2Fci2cJIUkkNPTmuBLqgmR5oVaaoCkv9NS1YEQ9s4RS8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Kossuth County","date","2025-06-19T01:29:23Z","article","KOSSUTH COUNTY, Iowa ' At a public hearing June 17, 2025, trustees for Drainage District No. 4 heard an engineering report on potential improvements to Sub Drainage District No. 9, Lateral 11 and received multiple written objections from landowners before voting to continue the hearing to July 1 at 10 a.m.

Engineer Tyler Conley of Bolton & Menk presented a preliminary improvement report that outlined two principal approaches: replace or upsize buried tile (closed conduit) to achieve a commonly recommended half-inch drainage coefficient, or convert some reaches to an open ditch. Conley said repair work to two existing tile lines through federally managed Union Slough property would proceed regardless of the district\u0000s decision because a separate grant-funded repair is already underway.

\"Improvement projects are different in that they are not mandatory,\" Conley told the trustees, explaining that repairs required to maintain original design capacity are mandatory but upgrades that increase capacity are optional and subject to remonstrance. He defined remonstrance for the record: \"Remonstrance is if a majority of landowners by count owning 70% of the acres by area Object.\" Conley also warned that converting or impacting farmed wetlands as part of an improvement could trigger mitigation obligations he estimated at about $15,000 per acre, and that certified wetland delineations would be the landowners\u0000 responsibility.

Why it matters: the hearing decides whether the district begins a formal improvement process, which would trigger reclassification of benefits under the Iowa drainage code and change how construction costs are apportioned. Conley said that state code (Iowa Code chapter 468) generally requires reclassification when an improvement increases assessments by more than 25% of the original district assessment.

Most substantive details and options

- Capacity targets and geometry: The engineering report sets a design goal of roughly a half-inch drainage coefficient (the amount of water removable from the landscape in 24 hours). To achieve that across the lateral, Conley said the district would likely need a 60-inch tile in much of the alignment, with a revised alignment to obtain required ground cover. He said the district\u0000s existing system currently yields about 0.15 inches per day, roughly a fourth to a fifth of the half-inch target.

- Union Slough repair vs. district improvement: A separate, largely federal grant-funded repair through Union Slough would replace two smaller lines with a single larger conduit; that repair is effectively \"shovel ready,\" Conley and other participants said. Conley noted that replacing the two lines with a 36-inch pipe across the federal land is already programmed and would restore capacity through that reach, but achieving the half-inch design would likely require an even larger conduit (for example, moving from 36 to 42 or 48 inches) and that upsizing could affect grant eligibility.

- Open ditch option and trade-offs: Conley described open ditch construction as legally permissible but not recommended; trustees and many landowners said open ditches carry ongoing maintenance, severance of cropland, and uncertain crossing costs where secondary roads or utilities are present. One landowner, speaking about severance, noted the difficulty of estimating lost farmland value when a field is bisected.

- Cost and bidding: Conley said his cost estimates used recent bid tabs for similar projects and included a typical 10% construction contingency. He recommended taking final designs to bid for better pricing but cautioned that preparing both ditch and tile options to bid would require substantial additional permitting (DNR and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and right-of-way work that would increase upfront cost and time.

Landowner objections and concerns

Trustees received multiple written objections and oral comments opposing either improvements in general or the open-ditch option specifically. Registered agent Joe Goshi (Global Enterprises LLC) submitted a formal objection and read a letter into the record; several other landowners or trusts (named in filings as Tom Gosche/Goshe, Judy Gochee, Janice M. Blake, Thomas J. Anton, Catherine J. Pullman Living Trust, Jay Goshi, Rick Bauer, Jim Dressler, and representatives for the Alfred Julius estate) also filed objections or stated preferences. Objections cited concerns about increased assessments, long-term costs of open ditches, severance of productive cropland, and the need for modern reclassification of benefits before construction.

Conley and trustees discussed options for limiting uncertainty: conducting a reclassification or \"preclassification\" to modernize benefit schedules; televising (video inspection) of tile reaches not yet surveyed to better document existing pipe condition; and presenting alternate bid packages (tile-only alternates) to produce more accurate construction costs. Conley said landowners are eligible for deferred payment options under Iowa code, typically between 10 and 20 years, and recommended considering the maximum deferral term for a project of this magnitude.

Decision and next steps

After public comment and discussion, a motion to continue the hearing for two weeks passed by roll call (motion seconded by Supervisor Wagner). Trustees set the continuation for July 1, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.; the board noted that because the date and time were set in the meeting, no additional mailed notices would be sent and asked participants to inform neighbors.

Quotations

\"Remonstrance is if a majority of landowners by count owning 70% of the acres by area Object,\" Conley said, explaining the statutory stop-work mechanism for improvements.

\"Improvement projects are different in that they are not mandatory,\" he added, contrasting repairs (required to maintain original design capacity) with optional capacity upgrades.

Several landowners submitted written objections; one objector who addressed the trustees said the open-ditch option was undesirable because of recurring maintenance and permanent loss of cropland.

Ending

Trustees left the hearing open and asked Conley to return with any additional cost detail, alternate bid approaches, and any information the district should have prepared for a reclassification if landowners request it. The hearing will resume July 1, 2025, at 10 a.m. at the same location; remonstrances must be filed before the close of the continued hearing to be counted under Iowa drainage law.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Kossuth County Board of Supervisors Meeting 6/17/2025 Part 2 of 3","oneSentenceSummary","County supervisors heard an engineer\u0000s report on proposed tile and open-ditch options for Drainage District No. 4, Subdistrict 9, Lateral 11, reviewed grant-funded repairs in the Union Slough (U.S. Fish and Wildlife) property, received written objections from multiple landowners, and voted to continue the public hearing to July 1 at 10 a.m.","taxTitle","Kossuth County, Iowa","taxId",69823,"location","headline","","shortSummary","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Kossuth County continues hearing on proposed Drainage District No. 4, Lateral 11 improvements after engineer outlines tile and ditch options