Residents seek clarity as Woodruff Creek watershed plan moves forward; commissioners ask for MOU and another public hearing

Representatives for a proposed Woodruff Creek watershed plan told Rich County commissioners that NRCS requires sponsors remain listed on the watershed agreement, and the county must clarify what being a sponsor would mean before signing any financially binding documents.

O.C. Frazier of Woodruff Aviation Company and Wallace Sholto, the company's secretary-treasurer, reviewed recent communications from NRCS and JUB Engineering. An NRCS contact noted that the watershed agreement must identify the eligible sponsor and that the county is a typical sponsor on these agreements. Frazier said the watershed map showing the broader drainage produced public confusion about who would be assessed for costs; he and company representatives said a nonbinding MOU could delineate responsibilities and protect the county from unintended financial obligations.

Commissioners agreed to ask county staff and JUB Engineering to draft a proposed MOU clarifying that Rich County would act as sponsor in name but would not accept direct financial liability without separate, explicit agreements. Several commissioners requested a short, dedicated public hearing before the next commission meeting so residents could ask questions directly of NRCS and the project engineers.

What was said: Commissioner concerns centered on protecting public funds. "We really gotta make sure that this can't fall back onto the taxpayers," one commissioner said. Company representatives replied they expected the irrigation company to assume core construction duties and costs and that the county historically served as a pass-through for payment rather than a direct funder.

Next steps: County staff will contact JUB and NRCS to pursue a draft MOU and aim to schedule a public hearing within roughly three weeks; if outstanding issues remain the commission said it would delay signing any binding agreements until the MOU and public feedback are resolved.

Ending: The county indicated willingness to sponsor the agreement in principle so long as the MOU and public questions resolve concerns about county financial exposure.