Ill-defined wetland regulations delay park progress

Confusion over what determines a “wetlands designation” continues to frustrate Littlefork councilors. 

Government agencies charged with enforcing the Wetland Conservation act have been unclear in how Littlefork should proceed in determining whether property marked for industrial development is a wetland, according to City Administrator Mike Fairchild.

Fairchild expressed disappointment after seeing a contributed Daily Journal photo of  members of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources observing a local site because Littlefork was neither notified or included in the review.

“I met with the Koochiching Economic Development Authority and they are supportive,” Fairchild said. “But they want us to adopt WCA and that would add another level of bureaucracy when it comes to usage.”

Fairchild said he also met with the technical advisory committee Thursday with requests that they fund the delineation determinations. TAC includes local, state and federal agencies responsible for enforcing wetland laws and reviews applications for development projects that affect wetlands.

Mayor Jerry Anderson said he was dissatisfied with the establishment of “a bunch of rules with no commitment to delineations.”

“Maybe we should be looking at this from the other side and sell it as a wetlands bank,” he said.

Councilor Quen Kennedy said Fairchild should continue pursuing an “incidental wetlands” designation.

“I don’t believe the property is really wetlands,” Anderson said. “It’s a draining issue.”

Fairchild told the board that it was their responsibility to prove it, with documentation.

“We’re behind the eight-ball on the learning curve here,” Fairchild said. “These are good folks with a difficult job to do.”

The council also agreed to persist with a $20,000 funding request from the county for the Industrial Park Development Project.

The issue of what portion of the cost of a 2008 storm sewer replacement on Fourth Avenue/Aspen Street should be Littlefork’s responsibility, under a road that belongs to the county, also concerns the city’s councilors. Fairchild reported that the county requested an estimate of how much city water runs through the sewer.

Councilors responded that water from a state highway also runs through it but doubted that the state would be responsible for a portion of the cost. The council approved placement of the storm sewer in the road as advised by their project engineer John Mattonen,  versus digging into curbs and gutters along property owners’ yards. This was done in spite of the fact that Doug Grindall, county highway engineer asked for a signed waiver in the event that the placement proved to be a problem.

“That’s why we hired an engineer,” Anderson said. “The county should accept his word.”