homepage logo

Supervisors Hear Flooding Remedies For DD #180

By Staff | Feb 7, 2012

The Palo Alto County Board of Supervisors met Jan. 31, to conduct an informational meeting on Drainage District 180, Lateral 30 Tile. Every seat in the boardroom was full to hear several options proposed to alleviate the associated flooding.

Kent Rode, engineer with Kuehl & Payer, addressed the reason for the drainage petition.

“During rain storm events, a large area north of 25th Street becomes inundated,” said Rode. “The flooded location includes farmland, residential lots, and a commercial storage and parking area. A major concern is the frequent flooding of the developed residential lots. This flooding has caused substantial hazard and cost to the residents of the area.”

Rode went on to explain that the main tile of Lateral 30 is approximately 100 years old and is significantly deteriorated.

“It is greatly undersized for agricultural drainage and much more so for municipal storm water control,” Rode added.

He noted that the tile system of Lateral 30 and Lateral A of Lateral 30 is not adequate in any of the areas of the study.

“Improvements to the storm water system are definitely warranted,” Rode said. “Some major additions to the current tile system will need to be accomplished to provide for adequate protection from future flooding.”

Rode cited a number of options and the associated costs to resolve the issues: Option 1 involves surface drainage directly to agricultural land (Costs $122,257); Option 2 – Alternate A involves surface drainage to a detention basin (Costs $345,317); Option 2 – Alternate B involves surface drainage and storm sewer drainage to a detention basin (Costs $439,531); Option 2 – Alternate C involves surface drainage to a detention basin with basin and agricultural pipe outlet (Costs $469,012); Option 3 involves drainage from the storm sewer to ditch (Costs $494,307); and Option 4 involves drainage from the storm sewer to the Industrial Park detention basin (Costs $228,965).

“Each option has its advantages and disadvantages,” explained Rode. “The options we believe would have a major effect on the flooding issues of this area must provide relief for a 100-year storm event. Option 1 and the alternatives of Option 2 address the issues caused by the 100-year storms.”

Rode recommended Option 2 – Alternative C (surface drainage to a detention basin with basin and agricultural pipe outlet) as the preferred option.

“This option benefits the residential, industrial, and agricultural land areas while being the cheapest, per acre, cost option,” Rode noted.

Palo Alto County Engineer Joel Fantz asked about the cost of future development.

“I think it’s hard,” said Supervisor Keith Wirtz. “It needs reclassification. The owners need to know what it’s going to cost, but without reclassification, it’s hard.”

“It looks like we need to do an amendment to the report,” concluded Don Etler, engineer with Kuehl & Payer. “We can give some approximations and give you a ballpark figure.”

“This meeting needs to be continued,” Wirtz added. “People need to have all these options and need to know the assessment schedules.”