Banderet v. Sargent Cnty. Water Res. Dist., 20180253
| Decision Date | 26 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 20180253,20180253 |
| Parties | Robert & Laurie BANDERET, Carol Beck, Gerald Bosse, Matthew Bosse, Duane & Valera Hayen, Beverley Kelley, Leon Mallberg, Paul Mathews, Nancy Mathews, Katheryn Nelson, R & I Memorial Trust, Kathaleen R. Rehborg as Trustee, Gerald & Judith Ringdahl, and John & Beth Wentworth, Plaintiffs and Appellants and William E. Kurschet, and Jan Vold & Melanie Jones as Trustees of the Evergreen Trust, Plaintiffs v. SARGENT COUNTY WATER RESOURCE DISTRICT, and Ransom County Water Resource District, Defendants and Appellees |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Derrick L. Braaten (argued), JJ W. England (appeared), and Kyra A. Hill (on brief), Bismarck, ND, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Daniel L. Gaustad (argued) and Joseph E. Quinn (on brief), Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellee Sargent County Water Resource District.
Jane L. Dynes (argued) and Kasey D. McNary (on brief), Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellee Ransom County Water Resource District.
[¶1] Robert and Laurie Banderet and other plaintiffs ("Landowners") appealed a judgment dismissing their complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Sargent County Water Resource District and Ransom County Water Resource District relating to a drainage project. We affirm, concluding the Landowners are not entitled to equitable relief, and the district court properly dismissed the Landowners' complaint.
[¶2] Drain 11 is a legal assessment drain in Sargent County that drains into the Upper Wild Rice River. In February 2015, the Sargent County Water Resource District discussed a preliminary engineering report indicating water did not move efficiently through Drain 11 due to sediment buildup, a flat drainage area, and undersized culverts. In April 2016, the District authorized an engineer’s report "for a project that would fit within a 5-6 year maintenance bond." At its June 2016 meeting, the District was presented with a $3,900,000 cost estimate for Drain 11 channel improvements. "The breakdown of possible cost share participation included: $1,417,967 from [the North Dakota State Water Commission]; $200,547 from county road department for crossings and $2,281,486 from [the] local maintenance fund." "Further discussion followed on conducting a public meeting to inform the landowners of this project once it is determined if cost share will be provided."
[¶3] At the District’s October 20, 2016 meeting, it adopted a resolution of necessity for the Drain 11 improvement project. The resolution stated "the Drain 11 Project will not require the addition of any new properties to the existing Drain 11 assessment district." In the resolution, the District found and declared "the Drain 11 Project will provide more effective and efficient drainage through Drain 11; increased drainage depth and capacity through Drain 11; enhanced control over the Drain 11 watershed area; enhanced breakout protection for adjacent properties; improved drainage for the benefit of the Drain 11 assessment district; and more effective and efficient operation and maintenance of Drain 11." The resolution also stated "construction of the Drain 11 Project does not require an excess levy vote, an additional assessment district vote, or any other additional legal proceedings under North Dakota law." The meeting minutes indicate "[a] landowner meeting was scheduled to discuss [the project] on ... November 15, 2016." None of the Landowners attended the October 20, 2016 meeting.
[¶4] The District held an informational meeting on November 16, 2016, to discuss the project with some of the Landowners. The meeting minutes indicate the District explained funding for the project and stated "no [landowner] vote is necessary but the maintenance levy will be the maximum of $4/acre/year by ND law." At the District’s regular meeting on November 17, 2016, the Landowners within the Drain 11 assessment district opposed to the project presented their concerns and requested the project be put to a landowner vote. The meeting minutes state the District informed the Landowners their vote on the project was not required:
[U]nder North Dakota law, a vote of the assessment district is not required as long as the project will not exceed the maximum maintenance levy the Board may assess per acre against the properties within the Drain 11 assessment district in any six-year period. In other words, a vote of the assessment district is only required if the cost will exceed the maximum $4 per acre annual maintenance levy levied over a six-year period.
From the record, it appears at least four of the Landowners became aware of the resolution of necessity at the District’s November 16, 2016 informational meeting or the District’s November 17, 2016 regular meeting.
[¶5] In May 2017, the Landowners within the Drain 11 assessment district opposed to the project sued the Sargent County and Ransom County Water Resource Districts seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Landowners sought a judgment declaring: (1) the Drain 11 project cannot be funded as maintenance within six years at $4 per acre being assessed to the Landowners; (2) the Landowners are entitled to a hearing and vote on the project; and (3) benefited properties in Ransom County must be included in the Drain 11 assessment district. The Landowners requested a permanent injunction restraining the Sargent County Water Resource District from proceeding with the Drain 11 project.
[¶6] The Sargent County and Ransom County Water Resource Districts moved to dismiss the Landowners' complaint, arguing they failed to appeal the Sargent County Water Resource District’s October 20, 2016 adoption of the resolution of necessity for the project within thirty days. After a hearing, the district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded the Landowners were aggrieved by the District’s adoption of the resolution of necessity, and their failure to timely appeal the resolution of necessity left the court without appellate subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter.
[¶7] The Landowners argue the total cost of the Drain 11 improvement project exceeds the amount generated through the District’s annual maintenance levy of $4 per acre over six years and the District should have held a public hearing and landowner vote relating to the Drain 11 improvement project. The Landowners also argue the District failed to provide adequate notice of its adoption of the October 20, 2016 resolution of necessity.
[¶8] Water resource districts are governed by N.D.C.C. ch. 61-16.1. A water resource district may finance the maintenance of an assessment drain under N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-45(1) : "If it is desired to provide for maintenance of an assessment drain in whole or in part by means of special assessments, the levy in any year for the maintenance may not exceed four dollars per acre [.40 hectare] on any agricultural lands benefited by the drain." If the cost of the maintenance of any drain "exceeds the total amount that may be levied by the board in any six-year period, the board shall obtain the approval of the majority of the landowners as determined by chapter 61-16.1 before obligating the district for the costs." N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-45(3). The process for obtaining the approval of the affected landowners is governed by N.D.C.C. §§ 61-16.1-18 and 61-16.1-19. Here, in adopting the resolution of necessity, the District elected to finance a portion of the Drain 11 improvement project with the maximum $4 per acre annual maintenance levy over a six-year period under N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-45.
[¶9] The district court dismissed the Landowners' complaint because they failed to timely appeal the District’s resolution of necessity under N.D.C.C. §§ 28-34-01 and 61-16.1-54. Under N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-54, an appeal may be taken "from any order or decision of the water resource board by any person aggrieved." "The appeal must be taken to the district court of the county in which the land claimed to be affected adversely by the order or decision appealed from is located and is governed by the procedure provided in section 28-34-01." Id. Section 28-34-01, N.D.C.C., provides in part:
[¶10] Rather than appealing from the District’s resolution of necessity, the Landowners' complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court noted this Court’s precedent holding equitable relief against a local governing body’s decision is generally not available when a statutory appeal provides an adequate remedy. The court stated it would "treat Plaintiffs' complaint as a notice of appeal under N.D.C.C. §§ 28-34-01 and 61-16.1-54." In doing so, the court concluded it lacked appellate subject matter jurisdiction over the action because the Landowners did not appeal within 30 days after the District’s adoption of the resolution of necessity.
[¶11] The Landowners nevertheless argue they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. They assert that after adopting the resolution of necessity, the District had a statutory duty under N.D.C.C. §§ 61-16.1-18 and 61-16.1-19 to hold a public hearing and vote on the project. They argue the District did not have jurisdiction to state in the resolution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sargent Cnty. Water Res. Dist. v. Beck
...asserts Landowners' arguments were already raised and rejected in Banderet v. Sargent County Water Resource District, 2019 ND 57, 923 N.W.2d 809. [¶8] In Banderet, landowners-including Paul Mathews and Nancy Mathews-brought a declaratory and injunctive relief action to prevent the District ......