Menu

Editor's Note: Buckeye Farm News’s Feb. 13 front-page story on the politics of drainage needs a follow up. In the original story, the Sandusky County commissioners were blamed for preventing drainage improvements to a creek that crosses three counties. The commissioners, who had not been interviewed, strongly felt the article did not give them an opportunity to discuss their motivations and actions. They are right, and a portion of this article aims to correct that error. In broader terms, this story delivers a lesson in the complexity of drainage law, a lesson our future reports will reflect.

Concerns about private property rights and public notification took precedence over drainage issues when Sandusky County turned down a project to improve Wolf Creek, according to one county commissioner.

Sandusky County Commissioner Brad Smith said he was most concerned about the process used to obtain drainage easements, noting it had not stood up in court.

"We were told point blank that if this one went through, it was going to go through court," he said.

Smith said he also felt that public notice was not adequate and he did not want to spend taxpayer money defending a project that would have few benefits for his county.

The proposal would have removed logjams and sandbars from the creek, which drains land in Hancock, Seneca and Sandusky counties, and required approval from each set of county commissioners.

Sandusky County commissioners said they are pro-drainage, pointing to the fact their county has more than 200 miles of ditches on maintenance programs.

"We do it with a very small staff and we do it very efficiently," said Sandusky County Commissioner Don Liskai, who is also a farmer.

Smith said the Wolf Creek project is only the second project the county has rejected.

"Everybody really did their job; there were honest differences of opinion," he said.

Sandusky County Commissioner Terry Thatcher said Seneca and Hancock counties could have passed a project that didn't require the approval of Sandusky County.

"I don't think a system failed this project because there's options on this project that nobody wants to listen to or nobody wants to take," he said.

Smith agreed, saying he recommended numerous times that a project be implemented without Sandusky County.

"If (their project) causes an issue in Sandusky County, we'll deal with it," he said.

Larry Gearhardt, OFBF director of local affairs, said roadblocks arise when counties use different methods to implement drainage projects. In this case, Seneca County works through its Soil and Water Conservation District while Sandusky County works through the county engineer.

"To me this is a great example of two counties doing things differently to try to accomplish the same goal," he said

Gearhardt said counties have the option to form a joint board to implement multi-county drainage projects "but when you have two counties that don't handle issues in the same way, it becomes impossible to do a joint board."

Gearhardt recommended that landowners accept the advice of local experts when it comes to drainage projects, adding that multi-county drainage conflicts will likely need to be resolved on a case-by-case basis.

"The question becomes should there be several different ways to do the project," he said. "In most instances, I would say that would be a benefit, because you have options, but in this case it was an obstacle."

Caption: OFBF is part of a Soil and Water Conservation District Rural Drainage Advisory Committee that will meet this year to review, clarify and update Ohio's drainage law.