Drainage board debates 75‑foot solar setback from ditches and who must enforce it

The County Drainage Board spent a large portion of its July 21 meeting debating whether a 75‑foot setback for solar panels and related equipment must apply to any ditch inside a solar project — even ditches that are not county‑maintained — and which county office enforces that requirement.

The discussion centered on language in the county’s Unified Development Ordinance and related solar provisions. Board members and staff said the ordinance’s use of the word “internal” was intended to require a 75‑foot setback for any ditch on a solar parcel, not only ditches that form property lines. “That was my intent,” Jenny said, describing the drafting purpose: even a ditch that is not a property line should get the 75‑foot clearance to allow access and any filter strip planting.

Staff and board members disagreed about enforcement. One staff member told the board that surveyor’s office drainage staff do not have authority to enforce setbacks on non‑county maintained ditches and said the responsibility likely falls to the building inspector. “If it is not a county maintained ditch… the surveyor's office drainage board do not have authority on it,” Jenny said. Another staff member added that enforcement of zoning setbacks would likely fall to the building department.

Drainage board attorney Tim cautioned that state law allows the drainage board to grant specific permission for certain permanent structures in ditches, but such permission must be explicit and accompanied by a plan showing how work will be done and how the ditch will be restored. “The statute does allow but it has to be specific permission given by the drainage board for the people with a permanent structure,” Tim said.

Several board members and staff argued that the simplest and most protective approach for the county is to treat all ditches within a solar project as subject to the 75‑foot setback. A county official urged that if the county approves inconsistent hold‑harmless agreements or leaves enforcement to ad hoc private arrangements, the county would lose consistency and long‑term enforceability.

Staff agreed to work with the county attorney and building inspector to clarify roles, notify the developer and request revised engineering drawings if necessary. Jenny said she would email the developer contact (Jacob) to reiterate the 75‑foot requirement and that developers were expected to address it in revised plans. The board did not vote to rescind prior approvals; instead, staff said they will seek a resolution path and bring revised plans or recommended language back to the board.

The debate included references to other ordinance chapters, including chapter 2 and chapter 5 of the UDO, and a mention of a 150‑foot property‑line setback that remains distinct from the 75‑foot internal‑ditch clearance. The board asked for a clear procedure to handle fences, tiles and private attempts to close or tile ditches where multiple properties share drainage infrastructure.

No formal amendment to the ordinance was adopted at the meeting; the board directed staff to coordinate with the building department and county attorney to determine enforcement responsibilities and to request that the developer submit revised plans reflecting required clearances.