Okabena-Ocheda Watershed managers discuss land ownership north of Lake Bella

Dec. 8—WORTHINGTON — The future ownership of lands surrounding the northernmost portion of Lake Bella dominated discussion at Tuesday's meeting of the Okabena-Ocheda Watershed District.

The district owns approximately 170 acres in Section 27 of Bigelow Township, eight acres in Section 28 and just over 39 acres in Section 26. Much of the property is visible from 330th Street and Paul Avenue, south of Worthington.

While a majority of the land is lake bed and buffer along the Ocheyedan River, the property includes 34 acres of abandoned crop land, though it looks much the same as the buffers on a warm December day as dry grass sways in a gentle breeze.

The land has been in watershed ownership since the late 1960s, according to John Ahlers, who lives across the road from the property. Ahlers now serves on the watershed's advisory committee — the same committee that created a list of ideas for the watershed district to consider, and which were presented by the committee's spokesperson, Scott Rall, at the district's November meeting.

During Tuesday's meeting, however, it was revealed that neither Ahlers nor fellow committee member Tom Ahlberg were aware the district would be asked to consider selling or donating the parcels to Nobles County Pheasants Forever.

It was Rall who presented the idea, stating on Tuesday several pros to the transfer of property, including future management by either the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an annual payment in lieu of taxes to Nobles County (the watershed district is not taxed for the land it owns), and that if the district chose to sell the land, it would free up dollars for them to invest elsewhere in the wellhead protection area.

"Why does the watershed continue to own that?" Rall asked. "We (Nobles County Pheasants Forever) would ultimately acquire that property from you and turn it over to a combination of U.S. Fish and Wildlife or DNR. Depending on what way that goes, Pheasants Forever would be able to receive a RIM (Reinvest in Minnesota) payment."

Rall estimated Pheasants Forever would receive about two-thirds of the appraised price for the land back as a RIM payment, and noted the watershed district is ineligible to enroll in RIM.

"We could split the proceeds with the watershed, but at the end of the day, it would free up a measurable amount of money that could be used to continue the investments there," Rall said.

Watershed board chairman Rolf Mahlberg said a decision on the watershed-owned property wasn't one that needed to be made at Tuesday's meeting.

Meanwhile, OOWD Administrator Dan Livdahl reminded the board that he would be retiring in the next two years, and perhaps some of the managers on the board would also be retiring.

"What I think we need to do over the next two years is do some legacy planning," Livdahl said, adding that he'd like the managers to consider the proposal.

Manager Jay Milbrandt said he'd like to see a comprehensive list of all watershed-owned property before making a decision.

"I think we should inventory all of our properties and think about that holistically," Milbrandt said.

Fellow manager Jeff Rogers said he wasn't opposed to the idea, but said the board needs to think into the future.

"We're saying the watershed will never have to access that property in the future or do anything with it in the future?" Rogers questioned. "My concern is any existing producer with an outlet into that property — how much accessibility will they have going forward if it's turned over to some other owner?"

Rogers noted beaver dams and vegetation stopping the flow of water as potential concerns in the future.

"I think Dan takes great care of our property," Rogers said. "I'm not so sure the DNR takes better care of their property than the watershed."

Rogers also said he does want the land to remain in conservation forever.

Manager Steve Bousema said if the land is sold, the watershed has lost its say in its management.

"We don't need Pheasants Forever or the DNR to own any more ground," Bousema said, ultimately making a motion to drop the idea of selling watershed land entirely. The motion died for lack of a second.

Future management of the property is a concern, shared Ahlers. As a farmer with conservation lands that have to be burned at specific times of the year, he said the DNR may not be willing to let him burn when he needs to.

Mahlberg said the watershed board shouldn't fear ownership of the land.

"I'm not afraid of us owning it. It doesn't mean I'm opposed to this (idea of selling)," Mahlberg said. "The agricultural side needs to be listened to. This takes some fermented thought; this shouldn't be a reaction to something that's come up."

In other business, the board:

* Approved the 2024 budget as presented. Total revenues are estimated at $847,366 for the year, while total expenditures are estimated at $1,481,088.37. The total expenditures could change if the district isn't able to move forward with construction of water storage ponds on the District 518 property in 2024 as planned.

* Approved a 5% salary increase for Livdahl for 2024, bringing his administrator salary to $71,067.15. In addition, the watershed will contribute $5,159.48 to Livdahl's public employee retirement account, $5,436.64 to social security and $6,625.11 toward health insurance. The board also approved Livdahl's request to reduce his scheduled office hours from five days to four days per week starting in January.

* Received an update on potential wetland and stream mitigation requirements related to the watershed district's plans to improve water quality with a pond project on District 518 property near the intermediate school.

Livdahl said the Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources met on site in November to look at the project. At that time, he was told the Corps has new nationwide rules, effective last April, that require stream mitigation. In addition, the district may need a permit for creation of a wetland — a permit he said could take a year to get.

"We're waiting for the Corps to make the final decision," he said. "They may decide to waive (the permit) because we're in compliance with state wetland rules."

Livdahl said he hoped for an answer soon, as the district planned to put the project out for bids this winter.