In RE: The APPEAL FROM the FINAL ORDER OF the BOARD OF MANAGERS OF the BOIS DE SIOUX WATERSHED DISTRICT REDETERMINING BENEFITS AND DAMAGES FOR J.D. NO. 14 DATED 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014 and in Re: The Appeal From the Final Order of the Board of Managers of the Bois De Sioux Watershed District Assessing Costs and Expenses of Redetermination Associated With the Redetermination of Benefits of J.D. No. 14 Dated the 27th Day of March, 2014 and in Re the Appeal From the Final Order of the Board of Managers of the Bois De Sioux Watershed District Assessing Costs and Expenses of Redetermination Associated With the Redetermination of Benefits of J.D. No. 14 Dated the 18th Day of December, 2014, 889 N.W.2d 575

Judicial Ditch No. 14 (JD 14) was created in 1950 and originally assessed benefits totaling $489,099.67 for ~29,480 acres; Bois de Sioux Watershed District assumed authority in 1991.
The district initiated a redetermination (viewers appointed) after concluding original benefits no longer reflected present values; an initial 2010 redetermination was vacated for failure to comply with statutory requirements.
In December 2012 the district authorized a second redetermination but instructed viewers to limit their inquiry to the originally assessed area; viewers then reported benefits exceeding $33 million for that area.
The district adopted the viewers’ report (Feb. 20, 2014) and later issued orders assessing redetermination costs and expenses against JD 14 (March 27 and Dec. 18, 2014), totaling $910,299.27.
Landowners within the original assessment area appealed, arguing the district lacked authority to limit the redetermination scope and that redetermination costs could not be charged solely to JD 14.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / laches	Appeals timely filed from final orders; laches inapplicable	District argued appeals were time‑barred or barred by laches	Appeals timely; laches inapplicable because statutory limitations govern and landowners acted promptly
Scope of redetermination authority	District cannot limit viewers to original assessed area; statute requires redetermination of both benefits and benefited/damaged areas	District contends it may restrict scope (reading “and” as “or”) and avoid cost/liability exposure	District lacked authority to limit scope; redetermination must address benefits and benefited/damaged areas watershed‑wide; the restricted redetermination is void
Assessment of redetermination costs	Costs should not be borne solely by JD 14; perhaps payable from district general fund	Costs can be charged to JD 14 account under statutory accounting scheme	Costs and expenses of the redetermination may be assessed against JD 14’s drainage system account under Minn. Stat. §103E.651, subd. 2
Effect of void redetermination on costs	If redetermination void, costs exceed original benefits so cost order must be vacated	Even a void redetermination incurred costs benefitting JD 14 and may be charged to its account	Voidness of redetermination does not prevent charging incurred redetermination costs to JD 14; statutory caps cited by plaintiffs did not apply to redetermination costs

Bois de Sioux Watershed Dist. v. Board of Managers, 818 N.W.2d 583 (Minn. App. 2012) (prior redetermination vacated for failure to comply with §103E.351)
Quam v. State, 391 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. 1986) (agency action is void if beyond statutory power)
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, 776 N.W.2d 431 (Minn. 2009) (courts may not rewrite statutory text)
Hagen v. Martin County, 91 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1958) (drainage proceedings are purely statutory and require strict compliance)
Swenson v. Nickaboine, 793 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. 2011) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Dev. Grp., LLC, 790 N.W.2d 167 (Minn. 2010) (summary-judgment review standards)
Maytag Co. v. Comm’r of Taxation, 17 N.W.2d 37 (Minn. 1944) ("and" may be construed disjunctively only where statute’s sense requires it)
In re Improvement of Murray County Ditch No. 34, 615 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. 2000) (drainage laws aim to fairly allocate costs among benefited landowners)