Primacy of the Watershed Law: Watershed Districts May Improve County Ditches Without Formal Transfer, and Need Only “Conform” to Chapter 103E

Primacy of the Watershed Law: Watershed Districts May Improve County Ditches Without Formal Transfer, and Need Only “Conform” to Chapter 103E

Introduction

In a significant clarification of Minnesota’s water-management framework, the Supreme Court of Minnesota held that a watershed district may initiate and conduct improvement proceedings for a county-operated drainage ditch located within the district without first “taking over” the ditch from the county. The court also clarified that, when watershed districts proceed under the Watershed Law, their obligation to follow the Drainage Code is one of “conformity”—alignment, not literal, strict compliance—and that requirements of the Drainage Code that are inconsistent with the Watershed Law need not be followed.

The case arises from a challenge by Keystone Township and several landowners to an improvement ordered by the Red Lake Watershed District (RLWD) for Polk County Ditch 39 (Ditch 39). Although Polk County was the drainage authority for Ditch 39, landowners filed the improvement petition with RLWD. The district court voided the RLWD order for lack of authority; the court of appeals reversed; and the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals.

The decision reaffirms and updates Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District (1967) in the current statutory scheme, and it harmonizes two chapters of Minnesota’s Water Law—Chapter 103D (the Watershed Law) and Chapter 103E (the Drainage Code)—by declaring the primacy of the Watershed Law where the two conflict. The opinion has practical consequences for watershed districts, counties, petitioning landowners, and litigants challenging drainage improvements.

Summary of the Opinion

The Minnesota Supreme Court (Moore, III, J.; Hennesy and Gaïtas, JJ., took no part) held:

  • Under Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 4, and consistent with Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, a watershed district may conduct improvement proceedings for an existing drainage system within its geographic boundaries even if the county remains the “drainage authority” and the watershed district has not formally “taken over” the ditch under § 103D.625, subd. 1.
  • In such watershed-district-led proceedings, the Drainage Code applies only insofar as it is consistent with the Watershed Law. “Conformity” to Chapter 103E means alignment, not strict, literal compliance; thus, duplicative county-auditor filings and county-board presentations required by the Drainage Code are not required if inconsistent with the Watershed Law’s procedures.
  • The RLWD’s alleged procedural defects did not divest it of authority or invalidate its order. The court rejected arguments concerning (a) failure to involve county officials; (b) property owners’ report to Ditch 66 landowners; (c) the timing of the property owners’ report; and (d) adequacy and timeliness of published and mailed notices.

Result: The decision of the court of appeals reversing the district court’s summary judgment against RLWD is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

RLWD encompasses portions of ten counties, including Polk County. Ditch 39 lies entirely within RLWD but remained under Polk County’s drainage authority. In 2017, landowners within the Ditch 39 watershed petitioned RLWD to improve Ditch 39. The petition proposed expanding capacity and lengthening Ditch 39, including to capture overflow from Polk County Ditch 66 (also under Polk County authority), thereby improving drainage efficiency for lands served by both ditches.

RLWD accepted the petition, required a bond, commissioned engineering and viewing, and set a final hearing for July 24, 2020. It published notice and mailed notice. RLWD approved the project and assessed benefits, including an outlet benefit to Ditch 66.

Keystone Township and several landowners appealed to district court, arguing RLWD lacked authority because Polk County had not transferred jurisdiction, and asserting multiple procedural defects. The district court agreed, voiding RLWD’s order. The court of appeals reversed, holding RLWD had authority to conduct the proceedings and substantially conformed to statutory requirements. The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.

Analysis

Statutory Framework

Minnesota’s Water Law is codified at Chapters 103A–103G. Two chapters are central:

  • Chapter 103D (Watershed Law) governs purposes, establishment, and procedures of watershed districts. It authorizes watershed districts to “construct, clean, repair, alter, abandon, consolidate, reclaim, or change the course or terminus of any public ditch, drain, sewer, river, [or] watercourse” within the district (Minn. Stat. § 103D.335, subd. 8).
  • Chapter 103E (Drainage Code) governs procedures for drainage authorities (typically counties or joint county boards), including petitions, viewing, notices, hearings, and assessments for projects and improvements.

Crucially, the Watershed Law incorporates the Drainage Code only “if consistent” with Chapter 103D (Minn. Stat. § 103D.505). Section 103D.625 is the linchpin for watershed districts’ involvement with county drainage systems. Subdivision 1 sets a process for transfer (“take over”) of county systems to watershed districts. Subdivision 4 separately authorizes watershed districts to initiate “construction of new drainage systems or improvements of existing drainage systems in the watershed district” by petition filed with the district’s managers; proceedings “must conform to chapter 103E,” except for specific metropolitan-area repairs (not at issue).

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, 153 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 1967): The court’s cornerstone. Lenz held a watershed district may conduct improvement proceedings for county ditches without first taking over the ditch. The court reiterated Lenz’s reasoning, noting legislative amendments since 1967 did not undermine its logic. Applying stare decisis, the court presumed the Legislature adopted Lenz’s construction (Minn. Stat. § 645.17(4); see Kingbird v. State, 973 N.W.2d 633, 640 (Minn. 2022); Else v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 980 N.W.2d 319, 329 (Minn. 2022); Schuette v. City of Hutchinson, 843 N.W.2d 233, 238 (Minn. 2014)).
  • Hagen v. County of Martin, 91 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1958): Stated that drainage proceedings are purely statutory and require strict compliance. The court distinguished Hagen by identifying the “controlling statute” here as § 103D.625, subd. 4, which requires “conformity” to Chapter 103E—meaning alignment, not literal identity—thereby setting the procedural standard in watershed-district-led improvements.
  • In re McRae, 100 N.W. 384 (Minn. 1904): One of the earliest drainage cases treating certain timing provisions as directory, not jurisdictional. The court analogized to confirm that non-prejudicial timing deviations do not invalidate proceedings.
  • Keystone Twp. v. Red Lake Watershed Dist., 989 N.W.2d 897 (Minn. App. 2023): The court of appeals’ decision, affirmed here, concluding RLWD had authority and the proceedings substantially conformed to statutory requirements.
  • City of Circle Pines v. County of Anoka, 977 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 2022): Cited for the standard of review—de novo on questions of law and statutory interpretation.
  • State v. Khalil, 956 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. 2021): Quoted to signal the Legislature’s prerogative to clarify inconsistent statutory schemes in this area.

Legal Reasoning

1) Authority to Conduct Improvements Without Formal Transfer

The court held that § 103D.625, subd. 4, authorizes watershed districts to initiate and conduct improvements for any existing drainage system “in the watershed district” by filing a petition with the district’s managers. This authority does not depend on a prior “takeover” under subd. 1. Lenz squarely answered this question: transfer hearings are required only for takeovers, not for improvements. The current statutory text still mirrors the operative language Lenz interpreted, and the Legislature’s inaction after Lenz indicates acquiescence to that interpretation.

The court acknowledged that “jurisdiction” is not the statute’s word but used it as a helpful analogy for the scope of delegated state authority. Counties remain “drainage authorities,” but watershed districts possess independent authority to improve systems within their geographic borders under Chapter 103D.

2) The Procedural Standard: “Conformity” to Chapter 103E, Not Strict Compliance

Although Hagen speaks of strict compliance for drainage proceedings, the Supreme Court identified § 103D.625, subd. 4 (Watershed Law) as the controlling statute here. That provision requires that watershed-district improvement proceedings “conform to” Chapter 103E. The court adopted the court of appeals’ reading of “conformity” as “alignment, not literal compliance.” And because § 103D.505 incorporates Drainage Code provisions only if consistent with the Watershed Law, where the Drainage Code’s county-centric procedures would duplicate or conflict with watershed procedures, the Watershed Law must control.

Practically, that means watershed districts may substitute their own officials (managers and staff) for county auditors and county boards in improvement proceedings initiated under § 103D.625, subd. 4. The court acknowledged this can effectively omit county officials from improvement processes on county-operated ditches but emphasized required notice to affected political subdivisions and counties. It also noted that this substitution is consistent with longstanding practice and invited the Legislature to clarify the statutory scheme if it wishes to alter the balance.

3) Application to the Alleged Procedural Defects

  • Filing the Petition and Bond With RLWD Managers, Not the County Auditor: The Drainage Code directs county-auditor filing and county-board presentation for improvements. The Watershed Law directs filing with the watershed district’s managers. Requiring both would be duplicative and inconsistent with the Watershed Law’s framework and purpose. Because Chapter 103E is incorporated “if consistent,” RLWD properly proceeded without county-auditor filing or county-board presentation and accepted the petitioner’s bond at the district level.
  • Property Owners’ Report to Ditch 66 Landowners: The Drainage Code requires the property owners’ report to be drawn from the viewers’ report and sent to “each property owner benefited or damaged” (Minn. Stat. § 103E.323, subd. 1). Here, the viewers assessed a single outlet benefit to Ditch 66 (the existing system) under § 103E.315, subd. 6, rather than parcel-by-parcel benefits for Ditch 66 lands. Because the viewers’ report did not list individual Ditch 66 owners as benefited or damaged, no property owners’ report to them was required under the statute’s text. The lien on the Ditch 66 assessment is later prorated across properties benefited by Ditch 66 in proportion to its existing benefits (§ 103E.315, subd. 6(b)).
  • Timing of the Property Owners’ Report: The report was prepared more than 30 days after the viewers’ report, contrary to § 103E.323, subd. 1. However, challengers must show they are “directly affected” by an error to take advantage of it (Minn. Stat. § 103E.051(a)). Keystone did not identify prejudice stemming from the timing. The court treated the timing as directory and found no basis to invalidate RLWD’s order.
  • Final Hearing Notice—Publication and Mailing: RLWD proved publication (three weekly notices) and mailed notices within one week after the first publication, satisfying the Watershed Law (§ 103D.741, subds. 1–2) and the Drainage Code (§ 103E.325, subd. 3) as incorporated. The argument that mailed notice had to be sent at least 25 days before the hearing failed; the “25 to 50 days” scheduling directive in § 103E.325, subd. 1 is not keyed specifically to the mailing date, and no statute requires mailed notice at least 25 days before the hearing.

Impact and Implications

For Watershed Districts

  • Clear authority to initiate and complete improvements of county-operated ditches within district boundaries without a prior “takeover” hearing.
  • Procedural flexibility: obligation is to “conform” to Chapter 103E, not to strictly replicate all county-centric steps. District officials may stand in for county officials where procedures conflict.
  • Lower risk of projects being invalidated on technicalities that are inconsistent with the Watershed Law, particularly where challengers cannot show they were directly affected by any deviation.

For Counties

  • Counties may see improvements proceed on county-operated systems without their formal involvement, though they must receive notice as “political subdivisions likely to be affected” and as “auditors of affected counties.”
  • Counties should monitor notices and participate proactively if they wish to shape outcomes, including on assessments (e.g., outlet benefits to existing systems).

For Property Owners and Petitioners

  • Petitioners should file improvement petitions and bonds with watershed district managers when the drainage system lies within a watershed district, even if the county remains the drainage authority.
  • Where a project benefits an existing drainage system by providing an outlet, viewers may assess a single outlet benefit to that system rather than parcel-level benefits; individual owners within that system will not receive a separate property owners’ report unless listed by viewers as directly benefited or damaged.
  • Challengers must show that any error directly affected them to invalidate proceedings (Minn. Stat. § 103E.051(a)); minor, non-prejudicial deviations ordinarily will not void watershed district decisions.

For the Legislature

The court candidly acknowledged persistent tensions between the Watershed Law and the Drainage Code and invited legislative clarification. If the Legislature desires more county involvement—or to create unified, non-duplicative procedures—it may amend the statutes to reconcile inconsistencies and clarify the intended division of responsibilities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Watershed District vs. County Drainage Authority: Counties or joint county boards are traditional “drainage authorities” under Chapter 103E. Watershed districts under Chapter 103D are regional water-management entities whose boundaries follow hydrological lines. A watershed district can improve existing drainage systems within its geographic area even if the county remains the drainage authority.
  • “Take Over” vs. “Improve”: “Take over” (Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 1) is a formal transfer of a county drainage system to a watershed district. “Improve” (Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 4) authorizes a watershed district to carry out projects (e.g., enlarging or altering a ditch) without first transferring control.
  • “Conformity” vs. “Strict Compliance”: “Strict compliance” means literal adherence to statutory steps. Here, the court held the Watershed Law requires only that watershed-district-led improvements “conform” to Chapter 103E—i.e., align in substance—especially because Chapter 103E is incorporated only if consistent with Chapter 103D (§ 103D.505). Where there is conflict, the Watershed Law controls.
  • Viewers’ Report and Property Owners’ Report: Viewers are appointed to assess benefits and damages. Their report identifies benefited/damaged tracts and amounts. The property owners’ report, compiled from the viewers’ report, is then mailed to each listed property owner. If viewers assign a single “outlet benefit” to an existing drainage system, individual owners within that system may not be separately listed.
  • Outlet Benefit: When an improvement gives an existing system a better outlet, the viewers may assess a single amount to that existing system (Minn. Stat. § 103E.315, subd. 6(a)(2)); the resulting lien is later prorated across properties in the existing system by their existing-benefit proportions (§ 103E.315, subd. 6(b)).
  • Notice Mechanics: Publication under the Watershed Law requires weekly publication for two successive weeks (Minn. Stat. § 103D.011, subd. 22). Mailed notice must be sent within one week after the first publication (Minn. Stat. § 103D.741, subd. 2; § 103E.325, subd. 3). The statute requiring final hearings to occur “25 to 50 days after the date of the final hearing notice” does not mandate that mailed notice itself be sent at least 25 days before the hearing.

Practice Pointers

  • For Petitioners: If the drainage system lies within a watershed district, file improvement petitions and deposits/bonds with the watershed district managers. Ensure the district publishes and mails notices in the prescribed sequence and keeps affidavits of publication and mailing.
  • For Watershed Districts: Build a robust record showing (1) conformity to Chapter 103E; (2) notice to affected political subdivisions and county auditors; (3) viewers’ methodology (including outlet benefits when applicable); and (4) that any timing deviations did not prejudice participants.
  • For Counties: Designate a point of contact to monitor watershed-district notices; consider MOUs with watershed districts to coordinate on improvements, cost allocation, and information sharing.
  • For Challengers: Be prepared to show how any procedural error directly affected your rights or the outcome (Minn. Stat. § 103E.051(a)); mere technical defects, especially where Watershed Law and Drainage Code conflict, will generally not suffice.

Conclusion

Keystone Township v. Red Lake Watershed District robustly reaffirms and updates Lenz for the modern Water Law: watershed districts may conduct improvements on county-operated ditches within their boundaries without first “taking over” the ditch, and their duty is to “conform” to Chapter 103E, not to strictly duplicate county-specific processes that conflict with the Watershed Law. The decision elevates the Watershed Law’s primacy when inconsistencies arise, embraces “alignment” as the procedural standard, and narrows the path for invalidating watershed-district-led improvements based on technical missteps that cause no prejudice.

The ruling will streamline watershed-district improvements, reduce duplicative county involvement, and clarify litigation risks. At the same time, it underscores the need for legislative fine-tuning to reconcile overlapping frameworks and ensure transparent, efficient governance of Minnesota’s drainage infrastructure.

Case Details

Comments