A. Drainage Code Appeals
A. Drainage Code Appeals

A. Drainage Code Appeals

The drainage code provides for two appeals statutes— Minn. Stat. §§ 103E.095 and 103E.091—which give jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the drainage authority and to review all available, credible evidence to reach the court’s own conclusions in a drainage proceeding.⁸³¹ Issues covered under the scope of Minn. Stat. §§ 103E.095 and 103E.091 are not subject to the limited review by the court of appeals; rather, as this section will discuss, these issues are tried de novo, meaning, appellants are permitted to introduce new evidence challenging the findings adopted by the drainage authority.⁸³²

Minn. Stat. § 103E.095 permits the county district court to review a drainage authority’s decision whether to establish a drainage system or its decision to dismiss pending proceedings to establish a drainage system.⁸³³

Minn. Stat. § 103E.091 permits a jury in a county district court trial to review the drainage authority’s determination of benefits and damages.⁸³⁴

Sometimes, an appellant may wish to challenge both the validity of the order establishing a drainage project and, if unsuccessful in overturning the validity of the establishment order, may also desire to appeal the benefits awarded and damages ordered. If an appeal of a drainage authority order is filed under both Minn. Stat. § 103E.095 (the establishment appeal) and Minn. Stat. § 103E.091 (the benefits and damages appeal), the trial of the establishment decision proceeds first and the trial on the benefits and damages is stayed until the first appeal is resolved.⁸³⁵ This is the necessary order because if appellants convince the court to alter the configuration of the drainage system during the establishment appeal, the benefits and damages are likely to change as well.

When an order of the drainage authority is appealed, the drainage authority may defend its order and in situations where the order appealed establishes a drainage project requested by petition, the petitioners may notice an appearance in the case and join the drainage authority in defense of its order.⁸³⁶

1. Establishment Appeal (Minn. Stat. § 103E.095)

Under Minn. Stat. § 103E.095, a party may appeal an order made by the drainage authority that:

Dismisses drainage proceedings;⁸³⁷
Establishes a drainage project;⁸³⁸
Refuses to establish a drainage project;⁸³⁹ or
Determines whether the environmental, land use, and multipurpose water management requirements and criteria of Minn. Stat. § 103E.015, subd. 1 are met.⁸⁴⁰

Final orders issued in the following drainage proceedings may be appealed under Minn. Stat. § 103E.095:

A new drainage system;
An improvement of a drainage system;
An improvement of an outlet; or
A lateral.⁸⁴¹

Note: The authors of this Section are aware of at least one instance in which the Minnesota Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal of a drainage authority’s order which denied a petition for partial abandonment of a drainage system. In its order, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Minn. Stat. § 103E.095’s reference to “dismiss drainage proceedings” should not be read so narrowly as to only apply when the drainage authority’s “dismissal” is of drainage “proceedings” that result in the construction of a project or structure.842 It is the author’s position that the distinction between a proceeding to establish a drainage system or structure and a proceeding within the drainage code that does not result in the establishment or refusal to establish a drainage system or structure is important to the analysis of the drainage authority’s role as a quasi-judicial versus legislative body. Drainage proceedings that result in an order to establish or a refusal to establish a drainage system or structure are entitled to de novo review at trial. Drainage proceedings in which the drainage authority acts in its role as the custodian of the vested property rights of all within the drainage system should be reviewed on the record before the drainage authority board, not de novo. However, because there is recent precedence in the Court of Appeals utilizing appeals to the district courts of orders that do not establish drainage projects or structures, it is recommended that appellants file appeals in both district court and the court of appeals. Until further clarity is provided, this is the best method of preserving a party’s appeal rights. While the purpose of this section will be to discuss the types of judicial proceedings available to review certain grievances, the standards of review applicable, and to a limited extent, the procedures involved, it is recommended that one consult with an attorney experienced in public drainage proceedings when considering filing an appeal or seeking judicial review of a public drainage authority’s actions.

Parties with Right to Appeal

Minn. Stat. § 103E.095, subd. 1 states, “A party may appeal an order made by the board that dismisses drainage proceedings or establishes or refuses to establish a drainage project to the district court of the county where the drainage proceedings are pending.” The right of appeal in drainage proceedings is purely statutory—the legislature may give or withhold that right at its discretion.⁸⁴³

Unless a party is assessed benefits or damages, they are not parties to the proceedings and may not bring an appeal under §§ 103E.095 and 103E.091. For example, a landowner downstream of an improvement to a drainage system or downstream of a new lateral or new drainage system that will outlet into an existing drainage system, is not a party with the right to appeal and order establishing the improvement or new drainage system.⁸⁴⁴ That does not mean that the downstream landowner is without a remedy at law if he or she contends that the existing drainage system downstream of the improvement or new drainage system will be inadequate to handle the increased flow of water. The downstream landowner may bring an injunction against the drainage authority for proceeding with an improvement that interferes with an existing drainage system.⁸⁴⁵ The downstream landowner may also bring a petition for improvement of the existing drainage system.⁸⁴⁶

When an order establishing a drainage project or repair is appealed, the drainage authority and the petitioners are parties interested in defending the drainage authority’s order. As stated previously, the petitioners, who are often owners of property assessed benefits, are a party to the drainage proceedings. However, there is no requirement that the petitioners hire an attorney to represent them in the proceedings before the drainage authority. The Minnesota Legislature revised the appeals statute in 1985 to clarify that the drainage authority, too, is a party to the drainage proceedings with the right to participate in defending its order on appeal.⁸⁴⁷

Serving and Filing the Establishment Appeal

To appeal under Minn. Stat. § 103E.095, the appellant must serve notice of the appeal to the county auditor within 30 days after the drainage authority’s order is filed.⁸⁴⁸

The Establishment Trial

An appeal under Minn. Stat. § 103E.095 is tried by the court without a jury.⁸⁴⁹ The court conducts a trial de novo, meaning, appellants are permitted to introduce new evidence challenging the findings of the drainage authority in its order, even if that evidence was not first presented and reviewed by the drainage authority in the drainage proceedings.⁸⁵⁰

However, the findings of the drainage authority enjoy the legal presumption that they are valid evidence of the matters stated in the findings.⁸⁵¹ It is the appellant’s burden to establish that the order appealed is arbitrary, unlawful, or not supported by the evidence.⁸⁵²

During the trial, appellants may demonstrate that the engineer’s cost estimates are arbitrary and unreasonable, but appellants may not attempt to invalidate the final order during the establishment trial by demonstrating that the total benefits have been overestimated and therefore the project costs will exceed the project benefits.⁸⁵³ Those arguments must be reserved for the trial on benefits and damages under Minn. Stat. § 103E.091.

On appeal, the court may determine that the drainage authority did not establish jurisdiction, review the engineer’s determination that the project is feasible, inquire into the adequacy of the outlet, affirm the order of the board as lawful and reasonable, or remand the matter to the drainage authority for further proceedings.⁸⁵⁴

i. Appeal of Dismissal of Drainage Proceedings

Dismissal by the Drainage Authority

After conducting the preliminary hearing, the drainage authority must dismiss the petition if it makes any of the following findings:

That the proposed drainage project is not feasible;
That the adverse environmental impact is greater than the public benefit and utility after considering the environmental, land use, and multipurpose water management criteria in in Minn. Stat. § 103E.015, subd. 1, and the engineer has not reported a plan to make the proposed drainage project feasible and acceptable;
The proposed drainage project is not of public benefit or utility; or
The outlet is not adequate.⁸⁵⁵

If the public drainage authority dismisses a petition during the preliminary hearing, the order dismissing the petition is appealable to the district court of the county where the drainage proceedings are pending under Minn. Stat. § 103E.095⁸⁵⁶. In contrast, if the public drainage authority orders a detailed survey after conducting the preliminary hearing, its decision to proceed with the detailed survey is not appealable.⁸⁵⁷

After conducting the final hearing, the drainage authority must dismiss the petition if it makes any of the following findings:

That the benefits of the proposed drainage project are less than the total cost, including damages awarded;
That the proposed project will not be of public benefit and utility; or
The proposed drainage project is not practicable after considering the environmental, land use, and multipurpose water management criteria in Minn. Stat. § 103E.015, subd. 1.⁸⁵⁸

An order dismissing at the final hearing is appealable to the district court of the county in which the drainage proceedings are pending under Minn. Stat. § 103E.095.⁸⁵⁹

Voluntary Dismissal

A petition may also be dismissed by voluntary action of the petitioners.⁸⁶⁰ Voluntary dismissal by petitioners, while seeming to be simple on its face, can be problematic. It is discussed here because a voluntary dismissal is judicially reviewable.

Dismissal by petition may occur at any time prior to the establishment of the project by an action of a majority of the petitioners who own at least 60 percent of the area owned by all of the petitioners as described in the petition.⁸⁶¹ Two requirements must be met: (1) a majority of the petitioners signing the establishment petition must sign the voluntary dismissal petition; and (2) the property owned by the petitioners for dismissal must equate at least 60 percent of the total area owned by all of the petitioners on the establishment petition.⁸⁶²

Neither the drainage authority nor an existing public drainage system should pay the costs incurred in processing a petition for a project that is later petitioned for dismissal. Therefore, the public drainage code provides that the petition for dismissal may only be granted after the drainage authority is paid for the cost of the proceedings.⁸⁶³

ii. Appeal of Order Establishing a Drainage Project

The order establishing a drainage project, which comes out of the final hearing, is appealable to district court in the county where the proceedings are pending under Minn. Stat. § 103E.095.⁸⁶⁴ It is the only affirmative order in the entire process that is appealable.

2. Benefits and Damages Appeal (Minn. Stat. § 103E.091)

Under Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, a party may appeal to the district court from a recorded order of a drainage authority made in a drainage proceeding that determines:

The amount of benefits;
The amount of damages; or
Fees or expenses allowed.

Serving and Filing the Benefits and Damages Appeal

The notice of appeal must state the particular benefits or damages appealed and the basis for the appeal.⁸⁶⁵

Notice of the appeal must be served to the county auditor within 30 days after the order to be appealed is filed.⁸⁶⁶ While the drainage code only speaks to service of the appeal on the county auditor, if the drainage authority is a watershed district, the county auditor should forward a copy of the notice of appeal to the watershed district secretary.

A party may appeal the amount of benefits or damages affecting property not owned by them; however, notice of the appeal must be served to the owner or occupant of property included in the appeal or to the attorney representing the property owner in the proceedings.⁸⁶⁷

Within 30 days after the notice is filed with the county auditor, the auditor must file the original notice with the court administrator of the district court.⁸⁶⁸

The Benefits and Damages Trial

In the case of an appeal from an order determining benefits, damages, fees, or expenses, the parties are entitled to a jury trial unless a jury is waived.⁸⁶⁹

The trial may, at the request of the person appealing, be held in the district court in the county where the affected land is located, even though the order appealed from is filed in the office of the auditor of another county or with the secretary of a watershed district.⁸⁷⁰ The court administrator of the district court where the appeal is first filed shall transfer the papers and documents on file in that court administrator’s office to the court administrator where the trial is to be held.⁸⁷¹ After a determination on appeal, the court administrator of the district court that tried the case certifies the order or verdict to the court administrator of the district court in the county where the drainage proceedings were filed.⁸⁷²

The court administrator of the district court where the appeal is filed must file a certified copy of the final determination of the appeal with the auditor of the affected counties or with the secretary of the watershed district.⁸⁷³ Such judicial determination stands in the place thereafter of the original determination made by the drainage authority.⁸⁷⁴

The public drainage code states that an appeal involving benefits, damages, and expenses is to be given precedence over all other civil court matters except an appeal from an order establishing.⁸⁷⁵ If the person appealing loses the appeal, the court may order the person appealing to pay all costs of the trial.⁸⁷⁶ Costs do not include attorney’s fees.

i. Appeals of Benefits and Damages

If the appellant proves that the benefits assessed to others should be lowered or the damages payable to others should be increased to the extent that the benefits of the project no longer exceed the estimated costs and damages, the trial court must dismiss the petition.⁸⁷⁷ However, the court does have discretion to remand proceedings to the drainage authority in order to cure defects.⁸⁷⁸

The trial on benefits and damages is also de novo; therefore, defects in the viewers’ methodologies and processes cannot invalidate an establishment order because even major defects may be cured by the drainage authority on appeal at trial.⁸⁷⁹ The case is not reviewed on the record made in the drainage proceedings. There is no record other than the findings.

Benefits and damages are determined as of the establishment order and not using land values at the time of trial.⁸⁸⁰

The landowner has the burden of showing that the viewers’ report and assessment are incorrect.⁸⁸¹ Absent evidence to the contrary, the viewers’ report and assessment will be presumed correct.⁸⁸²

ii. Appeals of Fees or Expenses Allowed

Drainage authorities pay fees and expenses of the engineer, the viewers, its attorney, and other administrative fees as they are incurred or at the conclusion of the final hearing. A party challenging the propriety of the drainage authority’s payment of fees and costs must file an appeal within thirty days of the drainage authority’s order approving the advance payment.⁸⁸³

iii. Redetermination of Benefits

An order redetermining the benefits and damages on a public drainage system is regarded, for purposes of appeal, as a final order, that is appealable to the district court of the county where the proceedings are pending under Minn. Stat. § 103E.091.

iv. Post-Establishment Modification

If the lowest bid for a contract came in at more than 30 percent above the engineer’s estimated costs or if the lowest bid plus damages exceeds the benefits, the drainage authority may, on petition of an interested landowner, reopen the establishment order to have the engineer’s detailed report and the viewers’ report reconsidered.⁸⁸⁴ After holding a hearing on the petition, the drainage authority may either reject the petition and refuse to reopen the matter, or the drainage authority may grant the petition and reopen the matter for the purpose of ordering the viewers’ report and the engineer’s final report to be reconsidered.⁸⁸⁵

Reconsideration of the engineer’s final report may call for modification of plans and specifications to reduce the cost of the project.⁸⁸⁶ After the engineer and viewers have resubmitted their amended reports, the drainage authority may adopt amended findings and order if one or more bids does not exceed the revised engineer’s estimate by more than 30 percent.⁸⁸⁷

The public drainage code grants a party the right to appeal the amended establishment order under Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 1.⁸⁸⁸ That statute is limited to appealing the amount of benefits, the amount of damages, fees or expenses allowed, or, whether the environmental, land use, and multipurpose water management requirements and criteria of Minn. Stat. § 103E.015, subd. 1, are met.⁸⁸⁹

The statute for post-establishment modification does not grant a right to appeal the amended establishment order to district court under Minn. Stat. § 103E.095.

v. Repair Assessment Order

In proceeding to repair a drainage system, if an engineer determines or is made aware that land drains into the system which has not been assessed, the engineer must report this to the drainage authority.⁸⁹⁰ The drainage authority then notifies the property owners whose lands are alleged to be draining into the system without having been assessed.⁸⁹¹ A hearing is held to allow the landowners to confirm or deny that their property drains into the system in question.⁸⁹² If the drainage authority is not convinced that the newly identified landowners do not receive benefits, viewers are appointed.⁸⁹³

The viewers then submit a viewers’ report to the drainage authority and another hearing is held.⁸⁹⁴ Following that hearing, the drainage authority makes an order identifying the property and determining the amount of benefits allocable to that land from the original construction of the system.⁸⁹⁵ It is from that order that a landowner may appeal.⁸⁹⁶ It is an appeal from an order determining benefits and damages under Minn. Stat. § 103E.091. The statue does not permit an appeal under Minn. Stat. § 103E.095; challenging the validity of the order itself, therefore, must be appealed to the court of appeals via writ of certiorari.

FOOTNOTES

⁸³¹ See Minn. Stat. §§ 103E.091 & 103E.095 (2015).
⁸³² See, e.g., Schultz v. Chippewa Cnty., 57 N.W.2d 158, 164 (Minn. 1953) (holding that on appeal to district court from a drainage authority’s order dismissing petition for establishment of a public drainage system, trial is de novo for all intents and purposes); In re Cnty. Ditch No. 1-A of Yellow Medicine Cnty. 47 N.W.2d 592, 594–95 (Minn. 1951) (holding that the district court, on appeal of an order of a public drainage authority to establish a ditch, is authorized to hear the matter de novo and to receive new evidence if the court desires and to then determine from the entire record whether the order can be sustained), overruled on other grounds, 98 N.W.2d 241, 242.
⁸³³ See Minn. Stat. § 103E.095 (2015).
⁸³⁴ See Minn. Stat. § 103E.091 (2015).
⁸³⁵ Minn. Stat. § 103E.095, subd. 3 (2015); Titrud v. Achterkirch, 213 N.W.2d 408, 411 (Minn. 1973).
⁸³⁶ See Minn. Stat. § 103E.095, subd. 1 (2015) (“After notice of the appeal is served, the appeal may be brought to trial by the appellant or the drainage authority after notifying the other party at least ten days before the trial date.”). Prior to 1985, the appeals statute stated that only a party “aggrieved” by an order of the drainage authority may appeal. See Minn. Stat. §§ 106.631, subd. 4 (1984) (“Any party aggrieved thereby may appeal to the district court of the county where the proceedings are pending from any order made by the county board dismissing the petition for any drainage system or establishing or refusing to establish any drainage system.” (emphasis added)) & 106.631, subd. 5 (1984) (“Any party aggrieved by a final order or judgment rendered on appeal to the district court, or by the order made in any judicial ditch proceeding dismissing the petition or establishing or refusing to establish any judicial ditch, may appeal as in other civil cases.” (emphasis added)). Under the pre-1985 appeals statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the county drainage authority is not an aggrieved party—“The county was not an appellant to the district court, nor was it a party to that proceeding, and has no interest in the litigation. Its sole role in the proceeding has been that of the tribunal before which the initial determination was made.” In re Petition of Abel, 92 N.W.2d 800, 802 (Minn. 1958). In 1985, Minn. Stat. Chapter 106 was recodified as Minn. Stat. Chapter 106A. See 1985 Minn. Laws ch. 172. In the recodification, the text of the appeals statute was changed to eliminate reference to an “aggrieved” party and to include reference to “the drainage authority” as a party to the appeal. See 1985 Minn. Laws ch. 172, § 19 (codified as Minn. Stat. §106A.095, subd. 1 (1985)) (“A party may appeal an order made by the board . . . . After notice of the appeal is served, the appeal may be brought to trial by the appellant or by the drainage authority after notifying the other party at least ten days before the trial date.” (emphasis added)).
⁸³⁷ A “drainage proceeding” is limited to “a procedure under [the drainage code] for or related to drainage that begins with filing a petition and ends by dismissal or establishment of a drainage project.” Minn. Stat. § 103E.005, subd. 22 (2015).
⁸³⁸ A “drainage project” means a “new drainage system, an improvement of a drainage system, an improvement of an outlet, or a lateral.” Minn. Stat. § 103E.005, subd. 11 (2015).
⁸³⁹ Minn. Stat. § 103E.095, subd. 1 (2015).
⁸⁴⁰ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 1(4) (2015). This provision was included in the benefits and damages portion of the appeal statute (Minn. Stat. § 103E.091) as a result of an error made by the statutory codifiers when the public drainage code was reorganized. The original appeals statute assigned all appeals other than those related to challenging the benefits and damages ordered by the drainage authority to the establishment appeal. Compare Minn. Stat. § 106.631, subd. 4 (1984), with Minn. Stat. § 106.631, subd. 2 (1984). The legislature repealed Minn. Stat., Chapter 106 and reenacted it as Chapter 106A in 1985; again, the legislature repealed Minn. Stat., Chapter 106A and reenacted it as Chapter 103E in 1990. See 1985 Minn. Laws Ch. 172, § 133; 1985 Minn. Laws Ch. 172 §§ 1–92; 1990 Minn. Laws Ch. 391, art. 10, § 4; 1990 Minn. Laws Ch. 391, art. 5. In both 1985 and 1990 the legislature expressly stated that the repeals and reenactments were passed for clarification and reorganization purposes only and that there was no intent to alter the drainage code’s meaning. See 1985 Minn. Laws Ch. 172, § 132; 1990 Minn. Laws Ch. 391, art. 10, § 1. Therefore, it is generally accepted among drainage lawyers that the courts should consider environmental and land use findings along with other feasibility and engineering issues during the establishment appeal and not during the benefits and damages appeal. See Legislative history of appeal provisions § 8:8 Minnesota Practice Series, Eileen M. Roberts et al., (2015 ed.).
⁸⁴¹ See Minn. Stat. § 103E.095, subd. 1 (2015) (limiting the scope of appeal to orders that dismiss drainage “proceedings” or establish or refuse to establish a “drainage project.”); Minn. Stat. § 103E.005, subds. 22 & 12 (2015) (defining a “proceeding” and a “drainage project”).
⁸⁴² In re Denial of a Petition for Partial Abandonment of a Portion of Cnty. Ditch #24, Order dated June 9, 2015 (Court File No. A15-0638).
⁸⁴³ Rekedall v. Redwood Cnty., 102 N.W.2d 682, 688 (Minn. 1960).
⁸⁴⁴ Rekedall v. Redwood Cnty., 102 N.W.2d 682, 689 (Minn. 1960).
⁸⁴⁵ Rekedall v. Redwood Cnty., 102 N.W.2d 682, 689 (Minn. 1960).
⁸⁴⁶ See Minn. Stat. §§ 103E.215 (improvement of drainage system) & 103E.221 (improvement of outlets); Rekedall v. Redwood Cnty., 102 N.W.2d 682, 689 (Minn. 1960).
⁸⁴⁷ Compare Minn. Stat. § 106.631, subd. 4 (1985) (“Any party aggrieved thereby may appeal to the district court of the county where the proceedings are pending from any order made by the county board dismissing the petition for any drainage system or establishing or refusing to establish any drainage system.” (emphasis added) & Petition of Abel, 92 N.W.2d 800, 802 (Minn. 1958) (“In no sense can it be said that [the drainage authority] is an aggrieved party in this case.”), with 1985 Minn. Laws ch. 172, Sec. 19 (codified as Minn. Stat. § 106A.095, subd. 1 (1985)) (“A party may appeal an order made by the board that dismisses drainage proceedings or establishes or refuses to establish a drainage system to the district court of the county where the drainage proceedings are pending. The appellant must serve notice of the appeal to the auditor within 30 days after the order is filed. After notice of the appeal is served, the appeal may be brought to trial by the appellant or by the drainage authority after notifying the other party at least ten days before the trial date.”).
⁸⁴⁸ Minn. Stat. § 103E.095, subd. 1 (2015).
⁸⁴⁹ Minn. Stat. § 103E.095, subd. 2 (2015).
⁸⁵⁰ See, e.g., Schultz v. Chippewa Cnty., 57 N.W.2d 158, 164 (Minn. 1953) (holding that on appeal to district court from a drainage authority’s order dismissing petition for establishment of a public drainage system, trial is de novo for all intents and purposes); In re Cnty. Ditch No. 1-A of Yellow Medicine Cnty. 47 N.W.2d 592, 594–95 (Minn. 1951) (holding that the district court, on appeal of an order of a public drainage authority to establish a ditch, is authorized to hear the matter de novo and to receive new evidence if the court desires and to then determine from the entire record whether the order can be sustained), overruled on other grounds, 98 N.W.2d 241, 242.
⁸⁵¹ Minn. Stat. § 103E.095, subd. 2 (2015).
⁸⁵² Minn. Stat. § 103E.095, subd. 2 (2015).
⁸⁵³ See, e.g., Titrud v. Achterkirch, 213 N.W.2d 408, 412 (Minn. 1973) (holding that appellant’s argument that the costs on a drainage project exceeded the benefits was “prematurely raised on this appeal.”); Oelke v. Faribault Cnty., 110 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Minn. 1961) (“If the method adopted by the viewers resulted in an arbitrary and unequal assessment as to particular property, the owner has the right to appeal and have the jury pass upon the merits of his claim under Minnesota Statutes, section 103E.091.”); State ex rel. Great N. Ry. Co. v. Dist. Ct. of Sixteenth Judicial Dist., 36 N.W.2d 336, 339 (Minn. 1949) (holding that errors made in the viewers’ report do not go toward the validity or lawfulness of the order establishing a drainage project or making an assessment).
⁸⁵⁴ See Petition of Jacobson, 48 N.W.2d 441, 444 (Minn. 1951).
⁸⁵⁵ Minn. Stat. § 103E.261, subd. 4(a) (2015).
⁸⁵⁶ Minn. Stat. § 103E.095, subd. 1 (2015).
⁸⁵⁷ See Minn. Stat. § 103E.261, subd. 7(b) (2015) (“The findings and order of the drainage authority at the preliminary hearing are conclusive only for the signatures and legal requirements of the petition, the nature and extent of the proposed plan, and the need for a detailed survey, and only for the persons or parties shown by the preliminary survey report as likely to be affected by the proposed drainage project.”).
⁸⁵⁸ Minn. Stat. § 103E.341, subd. 1 (2015).
⁸⁵⁹ Minn. Stat. § 103E.095, subd. 1 (2015).
⁸⁶⁰ Minn. Stat. § 103E.231, subd. 1 (2015).
⁸⁶¹ Minn. Stat. § 103E.231, subd. 1 (2015).
⁸⁶² See Minn. Stat. § 103E.231, subd. 1 (2015).
⁸⁶³ Minn. Stat. § 103E.231, subd. 1(b) (2015).
⁸⁶⁴ See Minn. Stat. §§ 103E.095 & 103E.091 (2015).
⁸⁶⁵ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 2(b) (2015).
⁸⁶⁶ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 2 (2015).
⁸⁶⁷ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 2(a) (2015).
⁸⁶⁸ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 2(b) (2015).
⁸⁶⁹ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 4(a) (2015).
⁸⁷⁰ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 4(b) (2015).
⁸⁷¹ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 4(b) (2015).
⁸⁷² Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 4(b) (2015).
⁸⁷³ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 4(d) (2015).
⁸⁷⁴ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 5 (2015).
⁸⁷⁵ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 4(c) (2015).
⁸⁷⁶ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 4(c) (2015).
⁸⁷⁷ Hagen v. Martin Cnty., 91 N.W. 2d 657, 660 (Minn. 1958).
⁸⁷⁸ See Pestka v. Cnty. of Blue Earth, 654 N.W.2d 153, 158 (Minn. Ct. App 2002) (affirming increase in benefits after remand from benefits trial).
⁸⁷⁹ Black v. Nw. Nat’l Bank of Minneapolis, 167 N.W.2d 147, 150 (Minn. 1969).
⁸⁸⁰ See In the Matter of Branch A-38 of Joint Ditch No. 204 of Martin & Faribault Cntys., 406 N.W.2d 524, 525 (Minn. 1987).
⁸⁸¹ State v. Nelson, 133 N.W. 1010, 1012 (Minn. 1912).
⁸⁸² State v. Nelson, 133 N.W. 1010, 1012 (Minn. 1912).
⁸⁸³ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 3 (2015); Cnty. of Rice v. La Croix, 220 N.W. 157, 159 (Minn. 1928) (holding that orders to advance expenses and costs are binding unless appealed within the statutory period).
⁸⁸⁴ Minn. Stat. § 103E.511, subd. 1 (2015).
⁸⁸⁵ Minn. Stat. § 103E.511, subd. 5 (2015).
⁸⁸⁶ See Minn. Stat. § 103E.511, subd. 5(b)(2)–(3) (2015).
⁸⁸⁷ Minn. Stat. § 103E.511, subd. 5(f) (2015).
⁸⁸⁸ Minn. Stat. § 103E.511, subd. 5(f) (2015).
⁸⁸⁹ Minn. Stat. § 103E.091, subd. 1 (2015).
⁸⁹⁰ Minn. Stat. § 103E.741, subd. 1 (2015).
⁸⁹¹ Minn. Stat. § 103E.741, subd. 1 (2015).
⁸⁹² Minn. Stat. § 103E.741, subds. 1–2 (2015).
⁸⁹³ Minn. Stat. § 103E.741, subd. 2 (2015).
⁸⁹⁴ Minn. Stat. § 103E.741, subds. 2–3 (2015).
⁸⁹⁵ Minn. Stat. § 103E.741, subd. 3 (2015).
⁸⁹⁶ Minn. Stat. § 103E.741, subd. 4 (2015).

A. Drainage Code Appeals A. Drainage Code Appeals

Contents