Commission - Regular Meeting

And then we're going to talk about the Big Sioux diversion dike channel project. So if you've got something that you want to talk about besides that through the drainage board, that's what the sign-in sheet in the back. After we get the official presentation, then the public's going to have a chance to speak. When you come up, these mics are, they stay hot. So you don't have to push any buttons up here. They do want you to sign your name, print your name so it can be read, and sign up here. And that goes to the minutes of the official minutes of the Traders Board. And then there's a sign-in sheet being passed around that's going to be put into the written document. All right, it is 6 o'clock

We'll call the meeting to order of the Brookings County Drainage Board on this Monday, June 8th, 2026. If you could please rise, remove cover for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Number three on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Motion is second. Any comments? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. Number four is an invitation for a citizen to schedule time on the Commission agenda for an item not listed. There is a five minute time limit per person. Anyone wanting to speak during this agenda item must sign in prior to the start of the meeting. No Commission action will be taken during this agenda item. Any requested action item may be scheduled for a future meeting date. And we have a lot of people signed in. I don't know if there's anybody that wants to talk on something other than what's listed. Mr.. Chairman some of those are going to be people that didn't realize yeah, that's why I just want to make sure Moving on number five regular business a presentation from banner associates on the draft environmental assessment study

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. My name is Kelly Busher and I have here also Kent Johnson. We're with Banner Associates. We have been working with the county for several years to look at some possible solutions for flooding along the diversion channel off of the Big Sioux River. So what we would like to do tonight is give you a brief update on where things are at with the work that Banner has done. and spend some time going through an environmental assessment that we have drafted uh... one of the important components of an environmental assessment is to hear the public input and comment and so uh... this meeting is also going to be an opportunity to hear any additional public comment and to be considered as we finalize the environmental assessment with that with your permission we'll go ahead and go through the presentation that we've put together here So for our agenda for tonight, we'll just talk a little bit about the project location and background, make sure everybody's clear on where this is at, the current conditions and the purpose of the project, the alternatives that were considered, and then the primary focus of the presentation tonight will be on the environmental impact analysis that Banner has done. Then we'll close that out with if the project goes forward any additional permitting or regulatory requirements that the county would have to meet for the project And then the public comment and next steps if the project goes forward so first of all this uh... this area is located about almost two miles southwest of the city of brookings that the area shown right here and then to zoom in a little bit more uh... you can see the big sea river on the west side of this image and there's a diversion channel that has been created going off to the west uh... from the big sea river this uh... this property is uh... Well, I'm going to go through kind of a history of the project here, so we'll get into that right here. So in the 1960s, some diversion structures were built along the Big Sioux River. There was a levee system that was constructed. And along this portion of the Big Sioux River, what we've been able to determine from kind of our research as we've worked on this is that an area was kind of carved out of that diversion structure and then managed to allow flow to go off to the west for agricultural purposes, and that it would be blocked off when people did not need the water. As time went on, that wasn't really actively managed, and it began to erode. Prior to 2011, that structure eroded through, and the Big Sioux River started to increasingly shift into that diversion channel off to the west, especially during flooding conditions on the Big Sioux River. Following 2011, we started seeing, you know, if you're looking at aerial photos, anything like that, you can really see that the hydrology has changed significantly in that area. And there's been, we've measured some, we and East Dakota have measured the flow on there, and we've seen flow anywhere from 50 to 70 percent of the Big Sioux River flow is going down that diversion channel at times. So there's a significant portion of the Big Sioux that is now going through this channel. And what's resulted is downstream we're seeing some flooding farmland and then there's been a threat to infrastructure, in particular the bridges and roads downstream along this diversion channel. So in about 2020, Brookings County requested that Banner start looking at the option of restoring that levee along the west side of the Big Sioux to try to control and manage the water that was entering that diversion channel and reduce the flooding effects along there. So we started working with the county to begin some engineering studies and feasibility assessment to see if this was what would be proposed. And following that initial assessment, we started reaching out to first the NRCS, the Natural Resource Conservation Service. The property owner at this area actually has the property enrolled in a wetland easement with the NRCS. And as that easement is currently written, it does not allow any construction. So for this to move forward, the NRCS would have to agree to temporarily allow this construction to occur. So the NRCS was the first agency we started dealing with on this project. And then once we kind of had worked out a proposal and the steps that the NRCS would need to see, Banner began reaching out to landowners in the area and having stakeholder meetings starting in 2024. We had one-on-one meetings, mailed out information to people that had easements along the big Sioux River there and began those face-to-face meetings and then where we're at now is we've got an environmental assessment drafted and that was necessary that's something the NRCS is requiring we'll talk a little bit more about why that's required here shortly So the current conditions, this is the diversion channel looking south. So up to, like I said, up to 70% of the Big Sioux River has been measured going through this channel at times. You can see that at times there's a lot of flooding along the channel. That channel just really is not able to handle the amount of flow that it's seeing. It's getting outside of the banks. And scouring threatens the bridges on 216th Street and County Road 12, along with other transportation structures downstream. There's a concern that with those heavier flows, those structures may not be able to withstand that. To repair or replace those structures, it could cost several millions of dollars for the Brookings County taxpayers. And that was why the county wanted to look at, is there another alternative to try to get that flow back to where it had been going into the Big Sioux River? So when we do an environmental assessment, the first step that we have to do is we have to discuss what the purpose of the project is and what the need is for that project. So in this case, the purpose of the project is to reconstruct that diversion structure at the confluence of the Big Sur River and the diversion channel. to return the majority of the flow back into the main channel of the Big Sioux River. And then the way it's designed right now, it would allow a small portion of that water to normally divert into the channel through a culvert, as well as allow during higher flows in the Big Sioux when we'd be reaching those higher flows, water would overflow into the diversion channel and continue to go down there during those high flow events. The need for looking at this project is to protect the transportation infrastructure from the ongoing scouring and erosion damage, reduce flooding on agricultural lands downstream of the diversion, and then restore the Big Sioux River's historic flow patterns. so when we do an environmental assessment there's some specific federal regulations that we have to follow and consider and when we're looking at that and you'll hear me talk about it yet that for the environment assessment so uh... the first federal law that we had to operate under is something called the national environmental policy act or nipa and that is an umbrella regulation that requires any federal agencies when they're making decisions or approval or providing funding for a project that they have to assess the environmental effects of their decision. So this, the EA was done under the auspices of the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. And then since it's an umbrella, we have to look at any other environmental or historic cultural resources that might be impacted. So we looked at, under the National Preservation Historic Act, it was required that we do a cultural review. We have to consider if there's going to be any impacts to cultural or historic resources as a result of the project. We have to look at if there's an impact to endangered species. uh... can't can't affect endangered species but the project uh... since this is right along the river the clean water act is going to be one of the primary guiding federal authorities as well for regulating this project on the clean water act was passed to protect and preserve water quality in the united states and and specifically here in south dakota and then finally uh... back in nineteen seventy seven president carter passed issued an executive order on wetlands and he required that if there has to be an effort to minimize the destruction or loss of wetlands and sometimes you'll hear that referred to as no net loss of wetlands that's a goal of any federal decision-making So what we looked at, we looked at a couple of different alternatives underneath, but we have to consider the alternatives. The two alternatives that were considered, we'll go through just real briefly here. First of all, we looked at a no action alternative. Let's let things stay the way they are. So, um, the, the diversion structure would not be constructed. That levy system would not be restored in that area. And the big Sioux river would continue in its current flow pattern, um, going down that diversion channel. Probably if past history is any indication with increasing volumes, increasing erosion along the diversion channel uh... when we look at the the effects of an action we have to look at three different things we have to look at the direct effect so physically doing something or in this case not doing something what could be that kind of indirect impacts those that ripple effect of what happens and then kind of look ahead of what some reasonably foreseeable effects would be and in particular for this alternative some of the reasonably foreseeable effects are to believe it'll be create a continued increase flooding agricultural land along the diversion channel continuing migration of the river there uh... and there's a potential for uh... progressive infrastructure damage and rising repair costs for the county in the township along this area As part of considering this alternative, we looked at the potential costs, looking at replacing the 216th Street Bridge. It's not big enough to handle these higher flows, so to design something that could handle the higher flows that we're seeing on the diversion channel, it would have to be longer and higher, and the bridge would be almost doubled in length. For the 217th Street, there's culverts in that area We would need to put more culverts in up to 40 72 inch culverts It's a lot of culverts in there and then at the 469th Street or County Road 19 bridge again, that bridge would have to be doubled to handle the expected flow along the diversion channel and So we put together some rough estimates, some preliminary information on what this might cost. And it could be anywhere between $7.8 million and $12.45 million in cost to replace these structures. That would be with the no action, do nothing alternative. And then the county asked us to look at the alternative of restoring the levee. And we're calling this the proposed action since that's the idea that's being put forward here. So what that would do is restore the majority of the flow, but not all of it, to the main channel of the Big Sioux River. Continuing to divert a small portion downstream for livestock use and allowing water to overflow during high flow events into the diversion channel. As I mentioned before, this could go forward. The NRCS would have to approve lifting the restrictions in their wetland easement. And they refer to that as a temporary subordination of the conditions. That easement does not allow any land disturbance or construction. So they would have to lift that restriction temporarily for this to be built. That's the federal action that's guiding this environmental assessment requirement that we have to look at. They need to have this environmental assessment as they make a decision on whether or not they would suborn those restrictions on the easement. In addition, there would be another federal activity that would take place if the county agrees to go forward, if the NRCS lifts the easement restrictions temporarily, then the Corps of Engineers would require what they call a Section 404 permit. It's referring to a section in the Clean Water Act, And that's a permit that the Corps requires if anybody's filling a water body, putting soil into it, which is what would happen in this case to reconstruct that diversion. We'd put fill into the diversion structure and a little bit in the Big Sioux River. The cost that we've estimated for the construction of that diversion are about $300,000. As I understand it, the county is proposing to fund that themselves. There would not be any federal funding. So the federal actions that are guiding the EA are that NRCS decision on the easement and the Corps of Engineers permit. So the way we proceeded with the EA is taking those two different alternatives that were considered. We looked at those direct effects from either doing nothing or constructing the channel, as well as those indirect and reasonably foreseeable effects that could occur to the different resources, environmental resources. So I'll go through, most of these I'll go through pretty quickly. I'd be happy to answer any questions on them, but we'll put the primary focus on the water quality and the hydrology modeling. So first of all, since we're dealing with the NRCS, one of the first things they want us to look at is impacts to soils and farmland resources from either doing nothing or for constructing the diversion structure. So with a no-action alternative, there would not be any construction-related impacts to soil resources because there would be no construction. But there could be impacts in terms of continued soil erosion along the diversion channels, what we're seeing now, and we believe that would continue. And then there could be some long-term indirect degradation of the downstream farmland from ongoing channel instability and flooding. So those are the potential effects to soil and farmland resources from doing nothing. With the proposed action, there would be temporary soil disturbance during the dike construction, obviously. Riprap would be placed on the dike and erosion protection to stabilize the Big Shube River channel to make sure we don't see it erode out again. With the construction, the area where it would be constructed, there would be no conversion of prime farmland. The NRCS doesn't want to see you taking farmland out of production, prime farmland out of production. Because of the easement that's in place, it also does not allow any farming. So there would be no impact to farmland by filling this area. It would be about 0.9 acres. It could be prime farmland if it was drained, but the easement doesn't allow any farmland production. And then the long-term stabilization of the downstream soils by putting the flow back into the main channel of the Big Sioux River, where it's better able to handle that higher flow. So under the Clean Water Act, one of the things that we'd be looking at is filling some area of the wetland. So this very colorful picture here, I'll explain the colors I have up here. So what we've got with the green and red strip that goes through there, that is where the dike would be reconnected to the existing levee system. And the red area is where it would be done right in the diversion channel or within a water body. So those would be direct impacts to that wetland and the stream there. Those would be permitted impacts because the intention would be for that dike to stay. The light green and the purple, those areas could see some temporary impacts during the construction as equipment's in there as they're moving dirt around. but the expectation would be that would be restored back to its current condition as kind of a wetland area there. So that's what would happen under alternative two, that direct effect from filling in the wetland there. Again, with the no action alternative, there would be no construction within the wetland. And I'm gonna turn it over to Kent. He's done a lot of the modeling on the hydrology here, so he'll walk you through these impacts here.

Thank you, Kelly. Can you hear me okay? All right. So what we're seeing here on the left side, that's a result of the hydraulic model I put together. It's a 2D HECRAS model. I did this in 2021, and that model was built using both survey data in that vicinity of the the diversion channel and the Big Sioux River and then the rest of it was LIDAR data, elevation data spread across the rest of that area basically. So in that model, there's a water level decrease in the diversion channel if that proposed action goes in place, if that structure goes in place. And for 3 1⁄2 acres, there's a drop of at least 0.6 tenths of a foot. And then 545 acres, yeah, sorry, that's that little red area within the diversion channel. So it's an immediate direct impact right there of a water level drop. And then the orange areas and part of the yellow is the 545 acres where the water level drops a tenth to 0.6 feet of water. And the reduced flooding alleviates downstream farmland and infrastructure impacts in that area in the orange, red, and yellow. uh so then the water level increased conversely it's like a flip-flop here the green that's where the water levels rise and i should have prefaced that with this is a flow for a a growing season flow and i'll go through how that that flow that cfs calculation was was determined um on the next slide here but Just basically, if you put that structure in place, you'll have a water level decrease in the areas of the diversion channel and downstream, and on the Big Sioux River, there'd be an increase. So there's 478 acres where the water level rises 0.1 to 0.6 feet and in the green, light green, and 27 acres where the water level rises over 0.6 feet, which is adjacent to the Big Sioux River. And I don't know if you can tell from this, but it's the green areas are a little, they appear a little bit more squeezed in. It's because the main channel of the Big Sioux River can handle more water. It's had flows going through it for, well, as long as I can remember, I guess. And then the diversion channel areas, It is pretty channelized north of 216th Street, but just after 216th Street, it's kind of like a bathtub where it just kind of wants to spread out once it's over top that edge of the tub, so to speak. So I'll go on to the next slide and show you how I determine that flow for that figure. And that's a wetland flow determination that I used in the model for that, and that was recommended by the NRCS. It's used in that publication. You see NEH, which stands for National Engineering Handbook. uh... and they go through this this determination of flow if you see on the right there there's a big you know picture that's one year uh... twenty nineteen uh... the stream gauging station flows downstream at the big sioux river just right at the county county line uh... so each day you see there each cell there's a uh... average or a mean discharge at that station uh... over that day and then what we do it gives we'd go through the growing season which is highlighted in green and determine the seven days where the highest low occurred so it's just a basically a summation of uh... the highest seven days and i picked the lowest flow within that uh... red circle area And that's used in this calculation. So each year, or yeah, each year we'll come up with a flow and then we'll rank these from the biggest to the smallest and then we'll just pick the median flow. So it's right in the middle which is what median means for, or which is what median means. So this process, you rank the daily flows. This is applied to hydraulic design, mostly for wetlands, ecological low flow assessment. Key concept on here is that this links flow magnitude to time-based frequency, not storms, not like a 100-year frequency storm. So this is a seven day growing season flow and it's applied to our hydraulic model like we saw in the results from that figure on the last page. Okay, so floodplain management and water quality. No direct impacts. Again, if we're not doing anything, there's really no impacts to water quality. We're not stirring up the river. We're not filling anything. And it'll continue to operate the way it is today. However, there may be some impacts to infrastructure such as bridges, agricultural land, and we already kind of went through how that total for replacements of bridges is estimated there. And then alternative two, which is putting that structure in place, there's really no significant change to the 100-year floodplain. uh... you know that wetland flow that uh... showed that's just it's basically like full channel flow within the main channel a hundred-year flow uses yeah i mean it's a big wide flood plain diversion structure is just like a speed bump to it so it's not impacting hundred-year flows and the reason that is that the dike over tops during those high flow events it'll continue to use the all the bridges along 216 216th street for instance so it's it's uh it's not really impacting that that uh big flood event that you'd have just again the wetlander lower flows so the total cost for that structure again is estimated to be about 301 000 Versus the cost to those bridges is is quite a bit different. So Maybe some of the permits required would be the floodplain development Permit application that's with the county There may be another drainage permit we need with the county as well And then flood control permit that's with the the state Department of Ag and Natural Resources Um, so temporary water quality impacts, there's going to be some, because we're filling in that, that diversion channel and right alongside the big Sioux river. Uh, so those could be thought of as temporary and once it's stabilized, you shouldn't have any of that anymore. Um, there'll also be a stormwater permit. I required if we're disturbing more than one acre. uh... one thing i want to show you here is like this isn't addressing all the float and i i hear from time to time uh... we're just getting so much more water in the system uh... it's due to you know the city and i'm not arguing against that uh... it's due to agricultural practices tile maybe that is the case i don't know for sure but one thing i did notice in this is just the brookings south dakota National Weather Service station, their weather station where it collects information on rainfall. The annual precipitation is increasing, and this is from 1893 to 2025. That red line is a trend line. And as you see over that however many years it's increasing Likewise we're showing something with the stream gauging station at the Big Sioux River at the county line also That that line appears to be increasing with a major one thing I'd like to point out. Can anybody tell? What what is missing from that bottom graph? Who's been around well a long time and? What would you expect from the knowledge of flood event of record here? In 1969, that was the flood of record, and I purposely left it off of this graph because it's kind of an outlier. It's so early on in the period of record, but when I go to this Next graph, that includes it. But what you also do see is that that red line is also increasing, just slightly. But I'm just pointing out that that's kind of an outlier in the whole period of record there. Not trying to trick you, I'm just kind of pointing that out. Okay, I guess.

So that was the work we looked at the impacts for water levels along the Big Si River and the diversion channel. We also needed to, as I mentioned early at the beginning, we needed to look at impacts to wildlife and any threatened or endangered species that might be in the area. With the no action alternative, things would continue as they are, so there would be no direct impacts to wildlife or endangered species. and no reasonably foreseeable effects to those uh... but with the proposed action there could be minor short-term wildlife disturbance with the construction activity and filling in the area uh... we also looked at are there any is there a potential for any endangered species to be in this area And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified eight federally listed species that are either threatened or endangered that could be, should be, once were in this area. And for seven of those species, they've agreed with the assessment that there would be no effect. It's butterflies and bumblebees and things like that, plants. But the one species that they want to talk about more is the Topeka shiner. The Big Sioux River and its tributaries are an area that have been identified as Topeka Shiner habitat. And honestly, here in South Dakota, we have some of the highest numbers of Topeka Shiner. So U.S. Fish and Wildlife is very protective of the fish and of the habitat for these fish. So they said this is an area where there could potentially be Topeka Shiner. And so we're still consulting with them on... whether or not this project could impact them negatively and discussing with them potential mitigation efforts and best management practices that we'll have to do to protect the Topeka Shiner. So far what they've talked with us about is avoiding construction from mid-May to the end of July because this is the spawning period for Topeka Shiner, so we're not disrupting them at their most vulnerable stage. They're also going to require that there's erosion controls in place. When you get sedimentation into a river, you can have impacts to where they where they live and where they reproduce so they want to make sure the erosion controls in the area are good and effective and are inspected regularly and so those are the two of the big things that they've identified as best management practices they want to see but that consultation is continuing so we have not completed that yet We're also required to look at air quality, plant, and riparian resources when we do an environmental assessment. We're very fortunate here in South Dakota, we don't have any areas that are considered not meeting the state and federal air quality requirements. So it might be a little bit of dust with the construction, but otherwise there would be no impacts to the air quality in very short term from a little bit of dust. We're not expecting any direct impact to plant resources with the no action alternative, although we certainly could see some indirect effects from continued erosion in that area. With the proposed action, there would be disturbance of the vegetation during the construction. Those areas would be reseeded with native species and erosion control in the dike itself. There would be a permanent impact to the riparian areas, which is those are those areas right up along the river and the channel that have become kind of wetlandy areas. There would be a permanent impact where that dike is placed that would stay put and you would lose that riparian area. And then we also had to look at the social and cultural resources, the effects from the project. So with alternative one, Again, things would stay as they are. However, we could see long-term adverse impacts to transportation structures, resources in the area, and recurring repair and eventual reconstruction of these roadway crossings with the no-action alternative. If something is constructed, we actually had to have somebody from Augustana University who's got a background in archaeology and cultural resources go out and take a look at the area where this would be constructed to make sure that there weren't any remains, cultural things, historic sites, something that would be culturally significant. and they said that there would be no historic properties affected from this study that they did. They actually went on site and looked at it. As far as any other social impacts from the construction, obviously there would be some noise against some dust, minor scenic and recreation impacts while the construction's going on, no long-term effects from that. The beneficial long-term transportation effect was that it would take that pressure off the transportation structures along the diversion channel and put the water back into the Big Si River where those structures were designed to handle that higher flow. And then there'd be no permanent closures or relocations of any public roadways. This would be done on private property. So once we had gone through, laid out the alternatives, looked at the environmental impacts, we've got here just kind of a summary chart on a comparison of the alternatives with some color coding to show the effects. The different criteria that most likely be influenced by doing nothing or doing the project would be flood reduction, infrastructure protection, cost to the county and to the township, and then the environmental impacts of it. So with the no action alternative, we wouldn't see a flood reduction. We would probably see it worsen. the infrastructure would continue to be at risk and The projected cost of the county to repair and replace this could be in the millions between eight to twelve and a half million our initial estimates The environmental impact while there would not be construction so there'd be no impacts from that we would see that ongoing degradation along the channel the continued erosion and flooding along the diversion channel. With the proposed action, Alternative 2, there would be a significant reduction in the flood flows along the diversion channel, but as Ken showed you with his modeling, there's going to be some slight increase along the Big Sioux River. So that one's kind of got two colors, two considerations there. With the infrastructure, it should be protected along the diversion channel and the Big Sioux River better able to handle it. There certainly would be a cost to the county to do this as well, but the projections of about 300,000, 301,000 are lower than the millions that are estimated for the repairs of the bridges and the roads. Environmental impact, we outlined what kind of impacts there would be, and between U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the state, Corps, we'd be required to mitigate those and minimize those environmental impacts from the... from the construction activities and building this as well as those reasonably foreseeable effects. So with all of that, the county has not yet made the decision to move forward with this. So I did want to lay out that if you choose to kind of go through a few next steps that you'd have to go through. So with what's been identified with the project, if you go forward with the proposed alternative of constructing the diversion structure, there'd be some regulatory commitments that you have to meet and some mitigation that would have to be done. Got it summarized on this table here. So if the NRCS lifted their temporary restriction on construction, allowed this to be built, then a regulatory commitment would be that you'd have to have a section 404 permit, which would require you to minimize the water quality impacts and minimize the footprint to the extent possible of what's being filled in there. That permit may also require you to do some mitigation, some compensatory mitigation is the term they use, which means build more wetlands to make up for what's lost with where it's built. So that would be a mitigation measure under that. For the state, if the disturbance is over an acre, and right now we're expecting it likely would be, You would have to have a permit from the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources for construction stormwater. If more than an acre is disturbed, you have to have this permit from DNR. And what they require is that you have erosion controls in place, that you're minimizing the erosion at the site and the sediment that's getting into the water bodies nearby. DNR would also require a flood control permit, which is through their water rights program. uh... and then the county would need to assess it for a drainage permit and floodplain development permit since this is in the the floodplain so the county would be involved with with that's uh... regulatory step there uh... that in any additional mitigation that have already talked about uh... as i mentioned the topeka shiner we were likely going to have some restrictions on when and how we construct and they're gonna wanna make sure those best management practices are in place for controlling erosion You'd have to have permanent stabilization within 14 days of construction ceasing so this can't stay open and disturbed for a long period of time. And talked about the wetland compensatory mitigation. And then there would also be a requirement that the contractor has a hazardous materials safety protocol to make sure they're not having spills of any chemicals on site, fuel, and a plan in place if, heaven forbid, there was something like that. So that would be something required. And so as far as the progress on each of those things, so the NRCS wetland easement, we have not, the county, and we're working with the county on this, since a decision has not been made on this project yet, that application has not been submitted, but this assessment, this environmental assessment is a key component of that application. So if the county chooses to go forward, the environmental assessment would be finalized and we'd complete the application and send that off to the NRCS. So that's in progress as far as the status. The permit from the Corps to fill in that area, that 404 permit, we've not submitted that yet to the Corps. If the county decides to go forward, if the NRCS lifts their easement, then we'll proceed with the Corps on getting that permit from them. uh... that the need for compliance that overarching environmental umbrella uh... that required this p a uh... we've got that environmental assessment drafted uh... we've reviewed it with both nrcs in the court engineers to make sure it meets what they need to see for their their decision-making uh... so that's drafted and then uh... working on finalizing public scoping tonight and if the county decides to go forward then will finalize that environmental assessment The cultural review has been completed. As I mentioned, Augustana University went out, and that's been shared with the State Historic Preservation Office, and they've agreed that there will be no impact to cultural resources. And then finally, we're still in the process of coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on endangered species impact to the Topeka Shiner. And then just real briefly, I wanted to share with both the drainage board and the public here what has been done in particular for scoping as far as looking into the project and reaching out for public input. So in July and August of 2022, that's when those landowner information packets were sent out and those in-person meetings were held with people. uh... based on that uh... banner associated put together feasibility study in a summary of have the next steps and uh... that was shared with uh... the drainage board uh... can't and i actually attended that meeting in august of twenty four the public open house to receive some more public input for us to share what what we had done today can give a status update Looking forward then, November of 2025, we sent out scoping letters to federal, state, and local agencies inviting their input and review of this potential project. We also sent it to elected officials at the federal, state, and local level and downstream landowners. In February of 2025, that public comment period closed. And the comments that were received were reviewed and addressed in the draft EA that you see before you now. In February of 2026, Kent and I came back before the Drainage Board and answered some questions, gave you a little bit of information on where things were at and answered questions that the Drainage Board and the public had. And then now, today, we're at this public meeting. So that's, I guess, the stakeholder engagement that's been done so far on this. The key concerns that that we've heard really are captured in basically three areas where the concerns are There's concerns with downstream flooding impacts on homes and agricultural properties on both sides both the diversion channel and on the Big Sioux River each Landowners on each side have that as a primary concern the Is the river going to change course further? If you look at aerial photos, you can see the Big Sioux has not just stayed in one channel. It has moved and evolved and it's pretty flat. As Kent said, the flood plain spreads out when we get a lot of flow through there. So just concerns on the effects to those landowners with this change of putting that levy back in place. and then there were concerns raised about the notification involvement of people that were directly affected property owners so i know when we were here back in february the drainage board said they wanted to provide another opportunity for public involvement which is why we're here today and we made the the draft ea available the county put it on their website for people to look at it ahead of time before we came here today to to speak to it In the public notes, the county said they could send comments to that email address, and then, of course, we're having this public meeting here today, so as far as the process from this point forward. Next step, so what we've completed is that scoping. We've done the agency consultation, stakeholder outreach. Ken's completed his hydrologic analysis, and we've got a draft of the environmental surveys completed. Currently, this is available for public review. We're holding the public meeting today and collecting additional public comments. As far as upcoming, if the drainage board and the county commission decide to proceed with this project, then we will address any additional comments that come up tonight, finalize the EA, and begin submitting applications to the NRCS and the Corps of Engineers. when, if those get approved, obtaining those permits, complying with those permits, finalizing the design and doing the construction on it. And then, of course, implementing any mitigation measures that are required from the different agencies and entities. And with that, questions?

What questions from the board?

If we decide to Proceed with this what kind of timeline are we looking at in idiot like from now with all the steps left?

To be put in place start date for construction would possibly be when I guess I can kind of speak to at least as far as wrapping up some of these these steps and I think the NRCS, we've worked very closely with them. It sounded like their approval, once they get their complete application, 30 to 90 days, but they said they really try to keep it more on the 30 days, and they're very familiar with this project. So we're hoping we would have that approval within 30 days. The Corps of Engineers, since we've not started that process, that's gonna take a little bit longer, and there would be a public notice with their process of 30 days, so it might be later this summer, even into the fall, before we have the Corps

Permit and I guess I'll let you speak to as far as design Yeah, I would speculate, you know, we'd want to get out there and grab some more survey data I think that area has changed since we initially surveyed it back in I don't know 2020 or whenever that started So that I'm always told they're out about two weeks after that we we've kind of had some preliminary plans put together already just kind of layout type concept So we'd further those along and I would say maybe three months by the time we get them together We probably need to send them to NRCS for review. I don't know how long they will take I'd assume maybe a month and then after that four month period we may maybe have some minor corrections to make And then soon go out to bid. So I'd say conservatively five months.

I

After permanent yeah, so so it may be it probably be into next year as far as the construction season.

I would think So in reference to the NRCS per easements of course we're 2002 I believe the land changed hands and it the previous owner Stopped blocking this this diversion channel correct.

That's my understanding

Do we know when that area was put into that conservation easement or that wetland easement?

We know it. I would need a few minutes to look it up prior to, it was under the previous landowner, I can tell you that. But I'd have to look up when that easement was done.

And then looking at the yellow, green, orange, green map, the downflow in the orange areas, How many of these wetland easements and stuff are in there that would be affected by doing this project here?

How many easements are within that area affected?

Yeah, because if the county blocks this, the wetlands and the orange, it's going to drop the water level there. It's going to affect those easements if there are any wetland easements. So are we going to have to or how many is there down until the county line, that we will have to get permits and stuff for those, not just this one up here.

I don't believe we need to get any permits for the downstream easements.

Yeah, no, permits are needed. As far as the Corps of Engineers, nrcs originally when we were speaking with the nrcs they were wanting to look at every single and and that was part of why you can't get such a wide modeling impact as we've been speaking with them now their only decision is going to be on you know and action in looking at this map right here this whole map Hopefully people online can see this as well, but it's just right here at the top of that red area where the diversion challenge That's the only area where they're issuing any kind of approval or authorization. They're not They're not requiring any approval or any consideration of changes in those wetland easements if the flow changes But correct me if I'm wrong didn't you mention that any any action that we would take that would change any wetland easement whether it be there or downstream would require a permit or weekend uh... i guess i i i was mistaken on i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i when we started looking at this the scope of the ea we asked them specifically what area are we looking at are we looking at i've been calling this a little dipper kind of shaped like a dipper here this area are we looking at that are we looking at the whole diversion channel are we looking at the entire watershed And the NRCS said this is the area they're concerned about. This is the only place where they're issuing approval, where they're taking any kind of an action. So their focus is very narrow as far as what they're approving now.

And that's more than likely because of construction equipment and things like that. Right. All right. So then to build on that, these permits and stuff, Do they typically issue these? Do they deny them? Are they more worried about protecting those wetlands and those wetland easements? Historically, what is the rate of or the percentage that they approve versus deny?

Since I don't want to speak for the NRCS and I don't want to leave the impression that I'm able to speak for the NRCS but you know our conversations with them have been We've put in a lot of work the county's put in a lot of money and time into this Please let us know if you're not willing to approve it if you're not willing to give some consideration to this and And so they have not given us a no. They do still need to go through their process. It's actually going to have to go through their headquarters, which I believe is out of Washington, D.C. So they will have to talk with those people. But they've already been having those conversations. And so they haven't said no. We've asked them to please let us know. We don't want to keep moving forward with this if it's dead in the water with them. And they've told us to keep moving forward. So that's all I guess I can say.

So then with that Section 404 permits, kind of the same question.

Same question. With them, and I've worked a lot with Clean Water Act permitting, not 404, but Clean Water Act permitting. And what both the Corps and the state with the Clean Water Act permitting, they do. Actually, I had somebody say this very succinctly to me one time. Their job is not to say no. Their job is to say yes, if. what i expect we would get from the court is a yes you can do this if you meet whatever conditions mitigation that they require that's what i anticipate we would see from the court again it's their decision ultimately there'll be a public input but that's typically their process is yes but you have to meet these conditions

so then sorry i'm hogging it a little bit but um so then transitioning to if we do nothing uh we mentioned about and i'm just going to round up 13 million to replace bridges add 40 culverts raise the road and and road bed working on on the road bed how long of a stretch of 216th or our county road would we have to raise and how high would we have to raise it?

I initially did some calculations to determine that 40 culvert number, and that was just so we could raise it so it would be passable for a 10-year event, like a normal off-system gravel road. I don't remember how high I needed to raise it, but enough to have it above the 10-year event.

And by making it higher, then it makes it longer, too. That's why that number got so much bigger in terms of nearly doubling the length of the bridge by having to raise it.

But I'm not talking just the bridge. I'm talking about the entire road. Is it a two-, three-mile stretch that we would have to raise? What would we have to do there?

Yeah, good question. I think it was just a mile stretch, and I don't believe it was the full, you know, foot of gravel, of course you're going to have some variation in elevation along that profile of the road, but I was looking at that mile, just a mile south of 216th Street.

Because just as a tangent, when they did that US 81 just south of 14 where it turns off there, I mean they raised that several feet through that and so are we going to be HAVING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 217. OKAY.

YOU MADE COMMENTS ON THE BRIDGE THREATENING INFRASTRUCTURE. CAN YOU TOUCH A LITTLE BIT ON THE BRIDGE ISSUES?

YEAH. I guess we'd have to look at bridge inspection reports to see how much they've changed over time. Probably want to look at it prior to that diversion channel being formed and then seeing if there's any change after that. Those bridge replacement, or excuse me, bridge inspection reports, they're more looking at the structure itself, but they do also look at the channel, if it's eroding, if there's flows impacting the wing walls or the back walls. But it's not really monitoring how much scour is happening, other than we're measuring the channel in that face of the structure. We can look at that. I'm just saying I don't know if we can definitively say that that's due for replacement just because of this last 10 years of flow under there.

Along this dike, it's been there for many years. There's other areas that have been breached and kind of formed some small streams. If by building this structure, will that cause some of the other areas to essentially become bigger and essentially flow so south of 216th Street that could still see most of that water and

That's a tough one to answer. I think that, yeah, you're right. A lot of those areas have breached. I don't know how you would quantify it, but there is potential for another area to break through and then drain into the diversion channel. I'm not saying it's not possible, but by putting this back in place, we're protecting it in that section. That's all I guess I can say on that.

Do you anticipate if you put that dike in, do you anticipate any backup upstream from that?

It'll continue it would continue to operate the way it did before the breach I guess that's the best way I can answer that so yes according to this this Figure it would return to the way it was before 2011 and So compared to today, those water level rises in that stream are right along the right side of this figure. 0.1 to 0.6 feet, 478 acres, and 27 acres where it's 0.6 feet.

And maybe to make, because this was one thing even that I wasn't necessarily clear about when we first started looking at a map like this. This doesn't mean that the water is going to be 0.6 feet higher all the time, permanently. This would just be during that growing season, that little bit higher.

Yeah, that high flow period that we'd normally expect. Again, that's the median flow over that time period.

Yes, and that dike, if I remember from the previous presentation you guys did, the height of that is set at flood stage. When we get more rain than normal, it's not going to do anything to control flood. It goes up and over that and goes just like it normally does. It's not going to back that up. It's not going to stop any flooding. It's just set at that flood stage so we don't make that problem worse.

And that's why, because it's such a large floodplain, Ken's described it as just kind of a bump in the road. When you get the Big Sioux River flooding, it's going everywhere. And it will be able to go over that. So it would just be more that ongoing flooding that's occurring from the diversion channel getting flow more frequently that this is looking to resolve.

Yeah, when I was out there today, you look at that and the two bridges, they're very Drastic difference you know on the diversion channel now the water is probably 18 inches below the bridge You go to the other big Sioux bridge, and it's probably eight or nine feet below that so There's a lot more a lot more water can flow through the main channel where it was before Those bridges weren't built to handle that at higher flow the expectation was the flow was going to be much lower through there

I guess I'll start. You had mentioned enough of Commissioner Jensen's question. What exactly is the scouring that you're predicting to be an issue with the bridge?

refers to what hopefully i understood your question right uh... what scouring looks like under that bridge basically scour can happen any number of way you can have continual flow and that continual velocity under the bridge start to erode away you've got eddies downstream concrete out what's that eating the concrete out but well it doesn't need to create east the foundation under the concrete potentially uh... can get away around the outside and get at the back wall and then before you know you have a failure behind uh... the wall on the above the bridge and that that's a problem if you have a that if you have a high water event where you've got water maybe going over the road Then you lose the bridge because you actually have a failure behind on the road where you'd lose the bridge and you can't pass over the... So that's a safety issue then, but... Yeah. And then high flow events cause scour, too, because there's so much flow going underneath the bridge, it's building up on one side and putting a lot of pressure underneath it. So we call that contraction scour. And that's forming a bigger hole under the bridge, essentially. So all that material gets shoved downstream. And a lot of times on the downstream side of a bridge, you'll see a sediment deposition hill or whatever. And under the bridge you got a big hole, so it's just kind of moving it dumping it downstream unless it keeps on carrying it downstream Okay, and then what what is this particular bridges score?

I know we get them done what every two or four years every other year we do one half the county we get This bridge had a current score, and where does it rank I?

I don't have that number in front of me right now It we inspected every other year, and I think it's still in pretty good condition I don't know that it's up for replacement anytime soon, I guess We'd have to get one of our bridge.

You know the bridge inspector in here to address those kind of issues And then the original channel where we built the new bridge, what's the potential capacity for?

that channel Until the river is not sedimented in Yep Unfortunately, we don't build bridges on the county level for a hundred year event, and that's kind of how I think of You know your design.

I believe that may have been a 25 year event What I'm saying is at the county line where the river exits you've got a measurement of 490 cubic feet of

yep and that was that what that specifically for that wetland uh... flow determination for their model or modeling results they wanted to see so the channel when we put the dike back in the original channel is that capable of handling that much flow yes it it handled it but well

It's not the same as it was before. Your own report says it's all cemented.

Yeah, and it changes over time, too. I mean, it's changing paths and everything. So, I mean, I'm not going to say it's exactly the same. We have the model set up as it's not changing. You know, the terrain is not changing. And that's what I can tell you. I can't tell you, like, predict where it's going to change or anything like that.

But I mean, in the report it says for a temporary period of time until the channel is ate back out, we're going to have elevated flooding or elevated water levels in that area until the bottom of that river gets eaten back out.

You can see it a little bit in this picture I just put up here that because the flows have been a little bit slower through the Big Sioux River, there's been more sediment deposition.

Right, because the water's diverted, it's going slower and dropping stuff in that section. So my theory is that it can no longer handle what the exit is because it's too shallow. And so then, to bring to my conclusion, you've built out the, it costs this much to do nothing because we may potentially have to replace this bridge and put some culverts in and maybe another bridge, and those are expenses that we have. But if we're going to build this dike and we don't do any, Preventative type measures to prevent flooding in the original channel that is no longer large enough to handle that flow That's an expense that we're not seeing in our cash flow comparisons of what the cost and expense is Correct I did not address how you know what that expense is I don't know what it is I can't tell you what you You can't just shove three inches of pipe in a two-inch pipe Expected to not flood out everybody on that side for miles especially Anytime it rains three inches in castle. Yeah, I agree So um but missing part of the report and the financials on it

Yeah. Now, so the, I believe that that main channel would also eventually hit its equilibrium where it's going to, you know, carry that sediment that settled in it downstream too. Eventually, I guess it might do that.

Eventually, but I mean, we've got substations in people's houses and structures all along there too that are going to flood out

and cause problems as well and so there that isn't the zero cost on that side if we've spent a three hundred thousand dollars there is a cost there it's just a matter of who's going to pay it now it's fair to understand though i'm more referring to those uh... within the bank flows that channel capacity has changed slightly since you know that diversion opened up And when we're talking flooding, you know, like using the whole floodplain, I don't know that it's changed that significantly.

The floodplain has initially changed. Yeah.

Once it's accessing the flood, I mean, it's widening out so much, the amount that's going through the channel isn't significant at that point.

But it's going to build up right ahead of bottlenecks.

And it's hard to quantify how quickly that sediment would get washed out. I mean, you can see a single event that's raging through there and completely scour it out, and otherwise it could be slower trickling. Yeah, so it's hard to quantify that, yeah.

But yeah, there's a lot of scenarios and everything that could be modeled. It takes a long time.

It's not necessarily my job to come up with solutions, but if we can build a dike that will divert half the flow of that river for $300,000, we can sure up our bridges with some riprap and prevent that scouring from happening for about the same amount of money. because we're not trying to divert the flow first and then build it in. We just have to reinforce what we already have. And if the bridge isn't already on replacement list, it's probably not that bad a shift.

Yeah, I agree with that assessment. I will say that downstream main channel bridge was just built in 2021, I believe. So that one's sized for it. This other one is not. I don't know when that was built, probably the 50s or 60s, I imagine. But it is quite a bit smaller, too.

And that bridge is shot regardless so much water is flowing underneath it yeah, it might be Simple question so we divert that to the big suit of the main channel where it used to be do you anticipate that that's gonna hold up flow and

In the Big Sioux River?

The Big Sioux versus the diversion channel, can more water flow through that side than where it is right now? Have you done that calculation? We go to divert that.

Yeah, that's already part of it.

To follow up on Doug's question, I know the bridge is a lot wider. It looks like a lot more water could flow through there. Do we know that answer?

Well, this is what the model result tells me. I don't know how much has changed since, you know, when I looked at it in 2021 or whatever, but it may have filled in or there's maybe more sediment in the main channel. I don't know. But yeah, if you're going to, you know, put the plug in the dike, you know, where the dike is supposed to be for the diversion channel, all that flow is going, you know, back where it used to be Before it washed out for the diversion. So yeah, I think you know, there's Compared to today.

It's gonna raise a little bit and and you know that flow it's You know, I have the numbers right here and it can kind of see from this this image that the green is a little more channelized where the orange and yellow is more spread out that's somewhat reflective of the channel being able to contain more of it and Less going out

And maybe that's a good way of looking at it. It handles it better than that downstream area from 216th Street. It's pretty wide. It's not as channelized as the main channel, I guess I would say.

I don't have a problem with getting the river back where we say it's supposed to go because we built a bridge there. But, and it makes sense to send that water there, but we can't have a cost comparison and say that there's zero on the other side. I don't know whether there's, it probably can't get permitted to dredge it out so it gets back, so it can handle that as part of the project, but I would, that would be the only way to do a cost comparison, a true cost comparison of what it's gonna take to do one side or the other. Otherwise, we're gonna have,

A county full of people that aren't very happy no matter what we do if that's not included in what the solution is supposed to be Can you did the hydrology study for the the river bridge when that was planned and everything How far upstream do they check channel depth and everything?

During that study, we go 1,000 feet upstream and 1,000 feet downstream. That's the minimum. On a big Sioux River, we likely went further than that, I'd say. I don't know if we went all the way up to where this diversion structure is, but I'd say we probably went about 1,500 feet upstream. And that's a requirement. 1,000 feet up and downstream is a requirement of Office of Bridge Design in their analysis.

Is there a way to check that now?

Yeah, I can go open up that model and find out.

What the depth actually is now compared to then? I mean, how many years ago was that study done? Probably a

It actually happened we did that one twice because I don't know if you remember extended the bridge, you know, yeah that the state required, you know change their requirements for scour calculation and and that Made us go back to drawing board before we got the finish line on that first design. So yeah, it I can look back and find that information out.

Any other questions from the board?

I think we'll have more questions. I guess I'd like to hear some of the concerns from the audience and then come back around full circle.

We're going to move on to public comment period with with the amount of people we have we will ask you to come up sign the paper that's up there if it's still up there it should be state your name we're in a limit to five minute per person so that we can make sure that we get everybody to come in and and visit and let us document any questions and hear your concerns. I do have a couple things up here but I will be putting a timer out. I'll notify 30 seconds and then the timer will go at the five minutes. We will open it up to public comments so who wants to go first?

Thank you for letting us comment. My name is Steve Wicks. I live east of Nunda, but we own land right north of Lake Campbell. There's about 310 acres plus. And for the last, since 2004, we used to raise crops down there in that flat. And we haven't done anything since. Now, the river, I call it the one that comes out of Lake Campbell. You guys failed to realize that Battle Creek, which runs all the way about six miles north of Madison, and then it comes north and goes into Lake Campbell. Kelly, you know what that is. That actually backs the Sioux River up because there's a lot of water that comes through there. You're talking... probably ten, twelve miles of watershed. So if you don't put that dike in, it's just going to back the water up further, because it's so flat. And by that time, if you have that dike in, that is going to let that water go south. Because as flat as it is, it's going to go wherever the lowest part is. And I've seen it over the road in Sinai, on that Sinai oil. It backs it up. There's a lot of water that comes through there. You got Lake Badoos, you got the two lakes east of Nunda, you got Green Lake, and you got several sloughs that all run into Lake Campbell. And that is a lot of water. That's probably, in the spring when it's flooding, it's just as much water as the Sioux River, to be honest with you. So I would like to know, to us, we're not getting any value out of that property. And we're getting taxed for good ground. I talked to your auditor two years ago, and I said, how do you... Soil if it's under two feet of water, you know, how do you how do you affect the value of it? You know you just can't so We would we're in favor of it. I have that dike put in because it's not doing us any good We've got 240 acres. We can't even sell It's worthless last year it flooded four times and And if Esteline and Castlewood get another three, four inches, it'll be flooded again. That's how quick it comes up. It's bank full now. But we're not getting any rain over by Nunda. So you're in luck, let's put it that way. So I just, I'm in favor of it and there's a lot of people probably thinking the same way. That they, we can't even keep fence, we can't raise cattle down there, we can't do a thing. down there. And you take 240 acres and you pay taxes on it, that's a lot of money. So thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Steve.

My name's Shawn Lesner. I live just 3-400 yards south of the proposed dike. I live on the east side of the Big Sioux River. I mean, I got a zillion questions, but I'm going to have to speed through this. I just want to make a comment to what Steve talked about, and I appreciate him. Barmer wants to protect his land down there, but the point is, and he alluded to it, even if you fix that dike, the understanding is the dike, it's still going to go around it in high water times, right? I've lived there 26 years and never past really mid-May, end of May, did I worry about flooding. It's flooding all the time now. Last July, my entire property was underwater. Today, I invited commissioners, you probably got your email, and others to come out and see it. My property on the east side of the Big Sioux River, a ways away from this dike, is flooding today. it's it's not a great problem to me i mean there's there's a lot of water going in that river and i'm not an expert on it can't brought it up and and people want to whisper about it but in my opinion all the drain tile has been put in over the years and the city's development i'm not complaining about it it's just that the physics of water the water's getting there ten times faster ten years ago fifteen years ago i said sit down the big sea rivers forty yards from a household the window i can see it and we'd get a rain up north and it would barely move, even big rains. Brookings County right now is in a drought. flip any map, it says we're in a drought. Matter of fact, a severe drought. My rain gauge in the last two weeks have got an inch and a quarter, and my ground is flooding. And I'm east of that, way east of that. It's flooding out of the Big Sioux, not just the dike. So again, my argument is that there's problems with the river, and we can't change it. I mean, nobody's going to sit and change and pull all the drain tile permits, and I'm not sitting here trying to go down that road. But it's that evolution-changing system. drain tile, the city's developing, a lot of the retention ponds, natural ponds, north side of Brookings, all the building going on, south side, all the building going on, everything's getting built. The water's just getting out of there faster. And whatever the rain was last Tuesday or Wednesday night, that river went up five, six feet overnight. And that was up in Castlewood, Esteline, whatever, 35, 40 miles away for a three, four inch rain. I got an inch and a quarter rain. And the river went up, I mean, So per the proposal, yes, they're going to put in the dike, but it's not going to work today. We're in a drought. Nobody's got rain. I've talked to others. The farmers are dry. It's dry out everywhere. Even Steve mentioned how dry it is everywhere. And it's flooding. So there's bigger problems there. Some of the things I want to address, you know, can't talk to some of this modeling. Well, this is five, six years old, five or six years old, right? And I mean, I live 40 yards from that. River's changing constantly on its own, constantly. So what, I mean, the point is it's not going to work. You know, today, Steve wouldn't have any crops planted. If he did, they're flooded. I have... My little Weasley 5, 6 acres of food plots are all underwater that I planted a week and a half ago. Corn is completely underwater on the east side of the river, not on the side where the dike is. And so every time it rains up north, it's getting there, getting there faster. I don't know how you're going to do it. The modeling, in my opinion... now it's a school the engineer civil engineer so i know a little bit about it but i mean it doesn't work down there because it's costly change in banks he wrote it was a concrete river system modeling may work but i i just don't see how it's gonna you know how skin and when cance asked some of these questions some of it was i'd believe i'd believe eventually i believe our i mean are we are we basing this on i believe you know uh... uh... stomach a lot like a zillion questions You know, and one of my questions was, was the new bridge, was this considered when it was designed that it was going to handle this amount of extra water? I mean, was that in the consideration? I mean, because you spent how many millions on that? And now, you know, there's arguably reports there's 50%, 60%, 70% of water in that diversion channel you're going to try to put back into the river. So it's going to double or more the flow. First of all, it's not going to stay in its banks, but then can the bridge handle it? Was that designed for that? And comments, nothing against you, Dave, but you referenced the distance between the bridge you know, there's only X amount under this bridge and there's six, eight feet under. There's two different heights of bridges. I mean, they're completely different. And I don't know the elevations, but the new bridge, which is just by my house, is way higher than the old. So I don't know how I'm going to finish all this. So the bottom line is I think there's other factors. I don't think the... dike is going to affect it you know in in low times but when are when is low times we're june 8th and my place is flooding last year was flooding in july so it's not going to work i mean i just i don't know how we're going to go around but thank you for your time

Hi, I'm DJ Wrecker. I live just kind of straight across from Lesner's there, right at the corner of 469 and 216. I've got a number of issues with this project, how they've described it and what they've been saying. The first thing I'd like to point out is if we can remember this flood map that I have right in front of me. I don't know, is there, can we pull this back up on the main screen? Can you guys all see that too? You have a screen in front of you? Okay. And it says right on the side, we're talking about lowering the water level in the yellow and orange areas, right? And raising it in the green. So we're going to talk about lowering the water levels in slough land and pasture land and raise it where everybody's houses are. How many people have counted how many houses are along the east side of the Big Sioux River? I am. A rough count tonight is 20 houses. That's 20 families. That's 20 farms that we are going to raise the water level on for slough land. I feel bad for the farmers that cannot farm anymore. I grew up on a farm, OK? I do feel bad. It is riverland. It is lowland. And we're going to trade that for houses where people live. That is ridiculous. Furthermore, if this dike is only at the floodplain, every time it floods, it will flood again, right? All of that orange, every time it floods, will fill up with water. So it doesn't matter if they get crops in the ground. If it floods and the water sits there long enough, you're not going to be harvesting them. But you know what it will change? It's going to push more water on the east side. Furthermore, I didn't hear any talking about how much more water, specifically in cubic feet or whatever, the Big Sioux River is going to handle. You kind of alluded to it like it can't handle what it used to, because it's not what it used to be, right? I know from my engineering classes that when you increase water flow downstream in one channel, you increase the speed and velocity of the water, right? All of that water at an increased speed is going to erode banks faster where everybody's houses are. For slough land. I also have a couple other questions. When we were on the slide about the bridges, I'm curious on how they came up with their numbers. On the 216th Street bridge, the existing bridge is 117 feet long and they say it needs to be replaced with a 212 foot bridge. Show me a 212 foot bridge along the Big Sioux River right now. On the 217th Street culverts, They said they need 40 72-inch culverts? That's 240 feet of culverts. Why? On a gravel road that nobody lives on. Where is 240 feet of culverts going? That doesn't even make sense. On 469th Street and the County Road 19 bridge, existing bridge, again, 112.5 foot, and it'd need to be replaced with a 212 foot bridge. That just logically doesn't make any sense. You're going to extend those bridges by 100 feet? And that's where that high cost estimate is coming from. That's where you get those millions of dollars. That doesn't make any sense. Show me where the numbers are that prove that. I'm also big into hunting and fishing, and I like the environment. I'm a big person. I like to go kayaking. I like to go boating, hiking, anything I can do to be outside. We are looking at, just as Commissioner Hostler said, draining a whole wetlands. Now, we had some numbers on here about seven of eight federally listed species, whatever. What about the flyway? That all of the orange and yellow that we're looking at draining is all the areas that ducks and geese and deer and all those things thrive in. And again, we're already losing habitat at an alarming rate. Why would we ruin even more of it? And lastly, I would like to ask, why were we never notified about this? On the board there, there were several times where they said we were notified. We were not notified. We didn't get any letters. We didn't get any phone calls. It came up out of the blue until somebody came to my house and knocked on my door and said it was happening. That's bullshit. Thank you.

Jordan Arneson, live right on the east side of the river, right on County Road 216. Gonna provide some metrics that they didn't have and that my curiosity got. I moved down on the property in 2019 where I didn't live on the river, near the river, by the river, I lived under the river. I set out the Topcon Transit out in the middle of the highway down there, in the middle of the line on 216. Got curious, because I was curious because I could tell just sitting in your pickup on the road, it's higher in the north, lower in the south. 2019 flood on that thing, 15 1⁄2 inches. That's how much that road is sitting there holding that river back. Bigger bridges would help, but if you're not going to build the bridge, the water's going to go someplace. 2020 flood on that one, 11-inch difference. That's how much he's holding it back. So you're going to take the flow of what they call a diversion channel. It's an old river channel. That river has moved all the way from Western Avenue all the way over to the other side of the lake. You pull up a satellite map on the thing, it is nothing but hooks and hooks and hooks everywhere where that river has been. So the river was here, somebody messed with it, it flooded, it went back to where it was. Now you wanna take the river from where it was and put it back to where it was again. Rivers move. So you're going to take the flow of that river that right now is taking 70% of the volume on a standard flow. You're going to put a plug in there. And then when she hits flood height, it's going to use that channel, use that same diversion channel, run underneath the same bridges, cause the same erosion that it's going to be. And you're going to take all the flow that was in a river channel, and you're going to push it across. I can tell you where the lowest part is on that thing until it finds a low spot. It's the ditch on 216. So now your county road is going to take everything that you had for flow in that river that you put a dike in, And the side of your roadbed is going to now be a river channel. What's the cost on that? Because now that river is going to flow for, well, somebody knows more than me, half a mile down your ditch. It's going to completely take out a driveway. Flow is going to get there. Flow is going to go. How do we plan on keeping the river where you want the river to be? Let alone the whole thing. You can look on the map when they have it there. Yeah, rivers normally take and just do this hard hook into the channel if that's where it was until we dug this channel over here. It went back to the old channel where it had been. But if you go and plug off that old channel, so then it can't flow in the old channel, it'll flow across the surface, it's going to erode across property, it's going to rip everything up, and it's going to take your county road that I have to pay taxes for and increase your guys' budget. Now for 217 where they're talking about their 40 culverts, go for a drive down that once. That thing is practically a Ford crossing on that thing on a minimum maintenance road that if the river decides it wants to come up six inches, that thing wants to be underwater. That's not a passable road now. It's not that anything's going to change on that thing by moving the river. It's below the river. So they're putting that in on their costs. Notion of that bridge that they're worried about that previously was brought up on that. It's a bridge from the 50s that's already tired, that's already getting its age in there. It's already going to need to be replaced. Obviously, when it goes to be replaced, you guys aren't going to put back the same bridge. You're going to be building the same thing as what was already there. The erosion that happens on that thing isn't from the end of July, early August, when you can walk across the river in a set of muck boots. The erosion that's happening on that thing is when that river is sitting there nine inches from cresting over that road, and I'm sitting out there with a transit. Why are we worried about trying to save the bridge on our cost analysis on this thing when the bridge is tired and the flood is going to go back there anyway? Should be worried about you put that thing in the middle of that river channel that's an old flood channel on that thing that's now active use. All that has to come across to get into that bridge to get underneath of that road. That road is a dam. I set a transit in the middle of it. I saw what the elevation was. So if it's going to flow across there, do a study. Figure out where it's going to go. When it runs down your ditch and now you've got a river running down the side of your road, now you're rebuilding a road. What's the cost on that? Thank you for your time.

Hi, my name is Terry McCutcheon, and we live in a spot where we kind of know some of the area pretty well. We live on 469th Avenue between 216 and 217. And the diversion channel and the main river channel from where we're at on 217 are just a little shorter than a quarter mile across. And what we've experienced down there, we've been there since 99, and what we've experienced down there is that whether the water's up, and it seems sometimes to be up in one channel higher than another at different times, it always seems to meet in the middle, and that's 469. So I think that with a diversion channel, I'm not sure, But it's still going to pass in that area anyway from the main channel to the diversion channel. uh... or the diversion channel to which to the main channel and so it's it's one of those things and we talk about infrastructure uh... it washes out uh... two seventeen that's replaced i think you're and i don't know if it was the the bridge uh... the the big flood a number of years ago on 217, just southeast of us. We're on the east side of 469th Avenue that was taken out at that time and never replaced. And so those are just some questions that I have. Will that diversion channel really keep that area from flooding? Will it prevent the infrastructure replacement that happens on a yearly basis there whenever it floods the other thing question I had too is is the water treatment plant how will that be affected by the channel change and Will they have to make any infrastructure replacements and infrastructure upgrades in order to accommodate for that channel going in that direction on the east side there?

Thank you. My name is Ron Stee and I bought property or farm out on 219th Street, which was half mile east of Madeira Monument. Over the years, I have watched and I haven't heard your engineers talk about it at all. is the groundwater level of that east side of the river and where it's at. Three quarter inch rain 15 years ago, Lyle-Monsay had groundwater on the east side of Old 77 above ground. I have watched that every year Just keep moving a little at a time, and it's about a half mile north of our 219 farm right now. In wet years down there, I've drilled a post hole, and within 20 minutes, I had water that far from the top of the hole. No one's talked about that. On 217th, I don't know, there's 40 culverts going in or something. I am assuming that is taking Brookings runoff, dumping into the Big Sioux. And you know that is not going to decrease. That will only increase. And that'll come in 217th, 18th, 19th, down to the Moody County line. That whole pastureland area down in that area will totally be flooded with not much of an inflow of water. And you've got Brookings that no one has addressed. Roger Telkamp told me, and he used to keep pretty close tabs on things out in that area, from the Sioux River Bridge on the interstate to Flandreau, there's not much over a foot of drop. That is calm water right along that, from the Sioux River Bridge going west and then going up. The other problem in that, the Sioux River, it's never been touched for 100 years probably. You've got dead trees. You've got silting. I've got a little pond in town just from soil particles in the air. I take out that much silt in the bottom of my pond every year, and there's no way it can run in. It's coming this way. And I have a big concern about adding more water to that channel when nothing has been done to the existing river to try to get more water flow. And then the poor drop in elevation from the interstate bridge down to Flandreau. I thank you.

My name's Chas Ackerberg. I live on 216th Street. I guess, thank you for all your numbers. I know people have questioned it tonight. I assume you're a professional. I assume you do a good job, so thank you. I guess to me, the problem is it's going through a slough, the water, so it's slowing down, so it backs up and it's flooding, right? So if the dike would have just been redone when it broke, This conversation wouldn't be happening. So now we're talking about not doing something that we should have already done. So why would you not do something again to fix the same problem? The water slows down. People on the east side think it's going to flood. Your numbers have said it's going to flow over the dike anyways. So I don't understand what the huge issue would be. Like, the problem is getting the water moving. Well, getting the water moving is putting it back in the channel, let it scour it back out and get it gone. Brookings builds more, puts more concrete in, people tile more, whatever. It'll scour it out and get it gone. That's the issue. It's sitting around and slowing down through a slew. I'm not a professional. That's just my opinion, but that's all I've got. Thank you. Thank you.

My name's Rob Hexum. I live down on 217th Street and 468th. And we have some farm ground. Not farm ground, let's specify. None of that in there is farm ground. It's grassland. And it used to be productive, good grassland until that dike blew out. And now it does nothing but hold water and grow cattails and willows. If we had the opportunity to put that dike back in knowing it's never gonna Completely shut the flow off because you're gonna put a culvert in it for one thing when it comes to a high water event It's gonna go over But the chance to keep the water To move the water back into the river channel on a normal basis would give all that ground in the orange and yellow the opportunity to dry out and go back to production. And we could hay it, we could graze it, and it would be useful ground where now it's nothing but cattails and willows because it never dries out. It never gets an opportunity. And yes, the water moves way faster than it used to. So a couple inches up north makes a big difference. But if we could have the opportunity to try and get that ground dried up, we would see some production again. Thank you.

Thank you for this opportunity, my name is Craig Wadsworth and my folks live on for 60 nights Our biggest concern is that dike is put in that they will have water on their land all the time So I remember correctly last year there was actually water back there and my daddy didn't think he was gonna get hate out of it either So if you put that dike in I'm concerned that it will be higher on them as it will as last year and before I can remember times, even with that dike being out, walking in water all the time. As a kid, I can remember going out there and spiking carp, because they were my folks' front yard, and that dike wasn't there. It was there, it wasn't there. So if that dike's put there, Which I don't know what the levels are or where the level will be Will that create more water for my folks because I know for 69th now It goes over in like three spot two spots already So and it's pretty close Right there by the highway that it goes over already And it goes over on the other end of the mile from my folks's so is that road stops the water there and just dials up on my folks. And then listeners are the same. I'm just worried that there'll be more water there and won't wash their place out. And it might not, I don't know. But that's just my dad's concern and everybody's. Should be looked into how much water will be put in there at those high times. Because it only takes one high water level to wash a place out. So is there not enough bridges on the highway to let the water go through more? I don't know. Maybe nothing I said makes sense, but I had to say something. Thank you.

My name is Rolf Baron. I live pretty close to this proposed project. And you guys have my letter and know my concerns. I have a question. We're talking about repairing this. Dyke. Pretty elaborate system that George Magstead and these guys put in way back in the day. There's a lot of it on my ground. Are you guys willing to maintain the rest of that dike system? You're going to fix this part of it. If something happens to the rest of it, are you going to maintain or fix the rest of it? If along that new channel or the old channel, if it gets damaged or wants to come out somewhere? That's my only question I have. I need that one answered. I don't expect it now though. You can take some time. Thanks.

I have one question. Could I have That slide that shows where the dike is at, the graph and everything.

Which one did you want?

I think it's back for the, actually there.

That one. That one right there. I guess I got several questions related to the dike. How long is the dike again from the northern part to the south part again?

I think it was about 250 feet.

The area In the light green I Would like to know what the elevation is in that darker colored area And how far does that sense go up is that lower than the light tan area and Red area No, I'm talking about at the end of the dike On the north end There's that darker area above the light green area along that red line Is that higher than the light Area along the river the main channel of the river is Or is it lower?

Lower. To the west is lower than the green area, the dark green area.

Okay. And so the dike is going to be at flood level at the top?

We're tying into an existing levee on the north and the south side.

And the levee is going to be how wide and how long and stuff like that?

No, it's going to vary a lot through that area.

240 feet doesn't seem like a very long dike. I live on the south side of 216 on the corner of 4469 and 216. And I did a bank stabilization on the south side of my house. We're only like twenty more like fifteen yards from the actual river itself uh... so we've lived there since two thousand five and we built the house quite a ways back from the edge of the river and Experts telling me that this is far enough away from the river, you shouldn't have any issues with this. So in 2022, I got it on my phone, but I can't remember the exact time. Anyway, and I built a deck out over the river. Candy levered it out over the river. And the river was flowing right below us.

And I got pictures of the grandkids looking down into the river, about the middle of the river.

So in 2022, I went out there that spring, and I looked at the end of my Canada-Lewis area out there, and the poles that were in the ground were dangling in the air. I lost about nine feet of bank in the 21 years that we've lived there. Well, actually, in about the 18 years that we lived there. So I had to go get a bank stabilization evaluation and assessment. And that took five months to get that done. And then getting everything organized and everything else took us until January before we got the bank stabilization done. It's 220 feet, and it's working very well, okay? About where that red part's at, let's say that that's part of my channel, because it's like a peninsula right at the very end there. And right at that point on that little peninsula like there, when we first got there, there was a small island there. And over the 21 years that we've lived there now, that island has converged with the rest of that peninsula. So there's no, actually it has to be almost flooding before it'll start coming around that side of that previous island. Now it just goes all around the outside. And so it's changing all the time. So we got the stabilization done and it's working very well. But that's three years ago. Just beyond the stabilization of the rock, and we've got three and five foot rocks at the bottom and tapered all the way up. Just beyond the end rocks of that stabilization, In the three years that that's been there, I have lost another three feet of the bank beyond that. Where the river comes around, hits the rock, and that's strong enough to hold that rock away from the dirt. But as soon as it gets back to that rock, it's digging out on here.

Doc, can you wrap up, please? We've got your five minutes.

All right. The point is, and then on the other end of that is silting in because of the way the river has been changed. So if that darker area up there is lower than this other part, as soon as we get the flood, that's gonna go past that, it's gonna hit that smaller area, it's gonna come around, and it's gonna go back to that original diversion channel. And it won't take long for it to eat that little section out from where the dark area is to the main channel, and it will be flowing just like it was before.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?

I'M GREG SCHLINZ. I had the pleasure of living on 216th where the sewer water dumps into the river. So I moved there in 96, right before the flood in 97, so I'm very well aware of what the river can and can't do. I made that choice when I was brought to land. I like it the way it is right now where the water is diverted away. But my real question is, and I would hope that you asked the same question, is who's funding the research on this dam restabilization? And if they are, why are they doing that? And I suggest to you that, or submit that perhaps it has more to do with the reading of the flow of the river based on how much water goes down so that the city sewer can dump more water into the river. Because I can tell you that's what's gonna happen. And I can also tell you that when more water comes through my land to that sewer area, the pipe will back up to the sewer plant, then they won't be able to discharge their water into the river, which will create another problem. So I'm just asking, who's paying boundaries to do what they're doing? Thank you.

You didn't have to sign it. Come on up. Yep.

Hello, I'm Brandon Bach. I live kind of north of this proposed diversion channel area. And just more of a comment than really any question, but with the questions that you've asked as far as stuff upriver, along with unknowns on what the old channel is going to do, There just seems to be way too much at stake with people in their homes. That seems to be way more of a value in my mind and the people that are behind me that have spoken before me as far as any value as far as a dollar amount. People losing their homes and going through heartache like that is a large, much larger concern than a couple extra tax dollars even if we had to pay more for culverts or even building a new bridge in order to provide that warm fuzzy that this diversion channel can be continued for use so i think that there's just too many unanswered questions at this point to be able to quantified data and actually come to a decision that this is going to be the best course of action. I think there's way too much at stake with the unknowns from the questions that even your panel has asked. That's all I've got. Thank you.

You didn't have to sign in at the beginning of the meeting. If you want to speak, come on up.

Northern Wadsworth, down by the river. There's three bridges within a mile of me. When we were in the drought this year, there was very little water running, and every one of them bridges was full of silt. Now you can't see it with the high water. But it seems to me, my opinion, we need to find a way to get rid of the water down the river rather than diking it up. You know, we're expecting that old river to do a lot more than it ever was designed for. Dairy's dumping in water now. Farmers dumping in water. from their grand tiles. That river can't get rid of it all. That's my opinion.

Briefly.

Jordan Artisan again. Quick follow-up question just popped in my head as my neighbor David Eggers was talking there. this does go in and with a silted up main channel that can't handle the flow which is going to raise it up until it clears the silt out eventually down the road with 20 plus homes mine and his being one of them is literally sitting on the edge of the river as the river tries to crawl towards it and he has to go and shore up the bank to stop it from crawling in if this goes in and it causes flooding that's never happened on homes the entire time that they've been built there since the 40s 50s 60s mine 1920 what kind of liability is this opening up the county to and Class-action things start getting talked about of hey I never flooded this place never flooded the guy that owned it before me never flooded and all of a sudden We're flooded out or he fell into a river just raising a thought Thank you Is there anybody else

that hasn't spoke that wants to come up.

Just kind of a follow-up question on his, if it's okay. A lot of people have built, our house has been there since the 50s. And so we understand kind of what's happening there. But we live with our son-in-law, Mark Hagen, and our daughter, Casey, and two grandchildren. And they're building a new house. And they build it according to what the floodplain level was at the time. What kind of an impact will this rerouting have for them to be able to have any kind of recourse? in case something happens based on then when they got the financing for the house and built their house according to the floodplain and what this may change. Seven inches is quite a height. So that's one of the questions I got. How will this affect

One last chance for anybody to come up that has not spoke All right, we're gonna be moving on to letter D discussion pops little actions on next steps I I do realize that everything takes money, and this year we do not have any money to do either in our budgets. We have budget hearings and stuff like that coming up in the end of June. What kind of discussion do we have? Board?

All right. First of all, I have one more question on... Map that we just had up there with that shows where the dike is being built I Just I pulled up my you got the little right to the west side. There's what looks like a pond And that's cattails What I'm guessing from what I can see going north is that a What is the shape of the dike going upstream from there to the north?

Yeah, there's a little, you know, I don't know if it's a foot or two foot high levee that we're tying into. You can't see it on this map, really, but if we had our survey map up, you might be able to see where those, what's going on elevation-wise as you move upstream. But it is tying into a

sort of man-made levy Is that part on the south end there? Where it's it goes green and blue it looks like is raised on the south is that part that you're tying into there Yeah, that's on the south side. Yeah, and then it looks like I don't know if on the north end of that It kind of looks like it might wrap around those trees in that little area and you go straight where it looks lighter is that a Is that what you're tying into?

Yeah, it's tough to tell from the aerial, but generally it goes north from there, upstream.

Board?

Well, first of all, I just want to thank everybody for coming, and I really appreciate this feedback. You know, as commissioners, we've got some more questions to ask Banner, and we're going to be in talks with them to better understand this. One comment that I heard tonight, you know, was about the silt part, you know, cleaning out the original river repeatedly. I kept hearing that. You know there was a group that that took care of some of that stuff, and they had a taxation And I forget all the details. I don't have them right here right now But that took care of some of that and that was kind of landowner led you know land owners worked with that and That seemed from just talking to a few guys you know like my uncle who's you know 82 now, but That group really helped take care of some of that kind of stuff Grassroots, you know the people are right affected by that and and yeah again.

I just want to thank everybody for coming tonight I Would like to say the same thing Kelly I appreciate everybody coming here and sharing their thoughts a lot of good insight and good input and One thing I want to really clarify is that this dike, none of this conversation is to solve flooding issues. None of this, not one part of this is to control flooding. It's simply to redirect that water from the diversion channel back to the main channel so that the water can flow better through there. And on the backside of that, to keep that other bridge, the west bridge, from eroding away and that we have to repair that at some time. So Jordan and Sean that live right there on it, the issues with the flooding, if this dike goes in, it's not going to change that. It's not designed to do anything for flooding. The only purpose of this is preventive maintenance to get that water flowing back into the original channel where it flowed for hundreds of thousands of years, whatever it was. When we have high water and flooding issues, it will go over that dike and then it will end up back in the diversion channel and during high water times and we'll go back there again. Again, nothing, the flood issues are not going to go away. I don't think it's going to get worse through that. I don't know where we're going with this, but when we put that dike in, through their numbers, they say it raises 7.4 inches Upstream well, that's not going to affect anything Until we get heavy rains and we come to the flood season again, then it's going to be exactly the same as it is now my perspective on this and when we were talking us through that it will flow better through there and it will Help alleviate the damage that's being done to that other bridge Rolf when you asked about Damage are we going to accept issues and challenges when it happens in the other. Yeah, I don't know What could possibly happen there because water flowed down there for a long time and again? This is all during just normal water flow when you get high water flows the dike becomes Irreverent it's it's it's not an issue when it starts flooding because it goes right over the dike and just keeps going the way it's going I So as far as who's funding it, the county has done research on this, done spending some money on that. There's some grants involved with this. And again, we're not trying to save farmland that's down there. We're not trying to direct it because some farmer wanted to do the motivation. The conversation that started this is, again, maintenance on that bridge. I'm going to just really hammer that, that that's what the motivation behind this is, to get water back in the channel where it's supposed to be. Really appreciate everybody coming up here, the thoughts. It's a very passionate, very emotional topic, especially for Jordan, Sean, all of you guys, Scott, these guys that live right there. That's what I've got to say.

I'd like to say this morning I did drive out in the area. We had an invitation from a resident out there. I drove around the mile north, and I drove down the Sinai Road, noticing the water, had a good conversation, and he brought up a few things that I hadn't thought about. Jordan, I believe, took the shot. The elevations out there appreciate that. I mean, I could see it on the north side of the road, the elevation of the water compared to the south side. Also, DJ, you've got a good point. Originally when we started this, there was talk on having to do some easements and stuff, and we're taking the water from one landowner and some of the people to the east side of the river. Yes, they'll probably have water that they don't have now. Everybody's right in what they're saying. It's just a tough decision. I mean, I've got everybody's name on here. If you're for and against, then it's about like the north and the south, whichever you live along that highway. And the one point is establishing the water back in the channel to basically clean out that channel. I would hope it would work. But that's the deal. Is it going to work? It's going to be a hard decision to decide not knowing 100% if it's actually going to do that.

I want to reiterate, and correct me if I'm wrong, Banners, this all started This dyke was opened by the previous landowner and not closed and because it was opened and stayed open That's what grew this area feeding the diversion channel, correct?

That's that's our understanding. You can see on aerial photos how the diversion channel has gone from Not even really visible to a very wide river and and it wasn't that a flood did

broke that area. It was, from what we understand, it was opened by a person and then it just from the past 20 some years opened because of the flow.

At one time there was some debris in the river at that location. Some trees. I think Bob, many, I can't remember what years that was and that caused the water to overtop that dike at that area. And that's when it started to open up. There was An individual offered to go out and repair that area. The landowner at that time would not permit that to happen, and it just continually grew and grew. I don't remember the years on when that happened, but there's some actual pictures where those trees were jammed up in there.

I do also want to reiterate thank you very much for the public and everybody coming. We specifically scheduled this in an evening so that we could make sure we had as many people show up as possible to have those conversations. I did also I was out there early this morning before we got notified to give one of the landowners a call out there and I was driving around as well. I didn't call them to go into their area but From my previous career and and that with the Sheriff's Office And the flooding out there. I am very aware what it will do Throughout the history of that But I do want to thank everybody for for bringing up valid questions you know Commissioner Jensen had a very good point that there's there's there's a big decision we have to make and and whether we make one decision or not it's going to affect our some people one way and the others another way and and I think the biggest thing we need to do is gather as much information as we can and and make the most informed decision that we can so I appreciate everybody's input and and that Do we have any other comments from the board?

Yeah, I guess I live in that area and drive through there and see it probably every third or fourth day and So I'm well aware of how things go up and down and flow and there is getting to be an awful lot of pressure in that West Bridge and we have to be cognizant of that and be wise in our decisions we make concerning that. On the other hand, I just have a lot of questions about any of the feasibility of this and if we do have a successful dike repair, there's going to have to be some mitigation as far as cleaning out the rest of the channel to get that to flow without Flooding out all those homeowners It's it's not a three hundred thousand versus twelve million dollar choice.

It's it's somewhere in the middle of that And banners I think you have a list of questions that you guys need to address and answer and bring back to us as a board Before we can make that informed decision So I would leave it there with that Moving on to item number six, adjournment. I would look for a motion to adjourn the Brookings County Drainage Board.

Second.

Any comments? All in favor of those signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Thank you very much.