Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1922-07-05
BIG DITCH PROJECT
Is DISMISSED BY
ORDER OF COURT
Million Dollar Drainage Proposition
Quashed by Order Issued by
District Judge
Consolidated judicial Ditch Number
One Knocked Out and B0ndsmen
Held for Preliminary Expenses

BY an order issued Monday Hon.
Andrew Grindeland, judge Of the 14th
judicial District, the proceedings in
the matter. OF the proposed CONSOLE
dated Judicial Ditch No. 1, Marshall
and Beltrami counties, million dol
lar proposition, have been dismissed
and the petitioners and bondsmen will
Eave to pay the preliminary expenses
OF surveying, etc., amOunting-tO about
$35,O00.
The order completely eliminates all
the territory lying south Of the Sec
ton line between sections 5 and in
Whiteford township from the proceed
ings and if those north of this line
wish to take further action on the
matter those. interested must furnish
a sufficient bond to protect the coun-
ty in making survey and report with
in sixty days or the entire proceed
ings will be dismissed.
The hearing set for Thief River
Falls on July Is will not be held and
the meeting at Warren July Goth will
only be formal one to carry out the
order of the court which is as follows
''In the above entitled ditch matter
the adjourned hearing was set for
July 18th, 1922, at Thief River Falls,
and for July 25th, 1922, at Warren,
but at this time the court is of the
opinion that no hearing should be had
thereon at Thief River Falls on July
18th and that the hearing at Warren
on July 25th should be merely formal
in character and to carry out the
plan hereinafter set forth, and for no
other purpose, and for that reason
makes the following statement at this
time so that the attorneys in said
ditch matter may confer with their
clients and save them a useless trip
to either place. ...s ~ r +.
After the flood of 1919 land owners
whose lands were affected by the flood
held meetings in the devasted district
and started an agitation for more
drainage.
1919 a result of these meetings the
petition for Judicial Ditch No 102r was
r I'D with the court on October 7th,
1fJ19 and the same was signed by 100
, farmers and land owners in the ter
~ tory covered thereby. Another pc
tition for judicial Ditch No. 103 was
filed on January 10Th, 1920, and was
signed by some 25 farmers and land
owners in the territory covered there
by. Upon the filing Of these petitions
the law required that the court desig,
nate an engineer to make prelimin,
airy survey without hearing, and in
accordance with the law the court ap
pointed J. H. Baugh as such engineer
Shortly thereafter a petition for the
consolidation of Judicial bitches 10:
and 1O3 was filed and the same was
signed by the county board Of Mar
shall County and others. A hearing
was thereafter had on this Consolida
ton Petition and the court consider
ed the question of consolidating
bitches 1O2, 103 and 80. Mr.. Theo
Quale, the County Attorney of Pen
nington County at that time objected
to plumber 80 being consolidated ant
gate as the principal reason therefore
that the county board of Pennington
County was anxious that No. 81
should be constructed .a$ soon as pos
sible, and that if it was consolidated
with 1O2 and 1O3 considerable della!
would be caused to No: 30. For thi
reason and others the court elimin
ated No. 80 from the Consolidated pro
ceedings. At this hearing the petit
TONERS for both 102 and 103 testified
that the country needed drainage bad
~, so did Mr.. Willard the State Drain
N - -, ~,Nt