STATE OF MINNESOTA

                                      IN SUPREME COURT

                                          A22-1163

Court of Appeals                                                        Moore, III, J.
                                                     Took no part, Hennesy, Gaïtas, JJ.

In the Matter of Keystone Township, et al.,

                        Appellants,

vs.                                                              Filed: May 14, 2025
                                                            Office of Appellate Courts
Red Lake Watershed District,

                        Respondent,

Paul Novacek, et al.,

                        Respondents.

                                ________________________


Mark A. Grainger, Matt A. Paulson, Camrud, Maddock, Olson & Larson, Ltd., Grand
Forks, North Dakota, for appellants.

Delray L. Sparby, Ihle Sparby & Haase PA, Thief River Falls, Minnesota, for respondent
Red Lake Watershed District.

Gerald W. Von Korff, John C. Kolb, Rinke Noonan, Ltd., Saint Cloud, Minnesota, for
respondents Paul Novacek, et al.

Louis N. Smith, Charles B. Holtman, Smith Partners PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for
amici curiae Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts and Red River Watershed
Management Board.

                                ________________________




                                           1

SYLLABUS

       1.     The Red Lake Watershed District was authorized to conduct drainage

improvement proceedings for Polk County Ditch 39—a ditch under the drainage authority

of the Polk County Board of Commissioners—because, under Minn. Stat. § 103D.625

(2024) and our decision in Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, 

 (Minn.

1967), a watershed district need not first take over the ditch from the county before the

watershed district conducts improvement proceedings for the ditch.

       2.     The Red Lake Watershed District was authorized to conduct the proceedings

without the involvement of county officials, insofar as the involvement of county officials

would be inconsistent with the Watershed Law, Minn. Stat. ch. 103D (2022), and none of

appellants’ other alleged procedural defects affected the Red Lake Watershed District’s

authority to establish the improvement project over Ditch 39.

       Affirmed.

OPINION

MOORE, III, Justice.

       We are presented here with a dispute over the application of the statutes that govern

improvement projects for drainage ditches. Particularly, we are tasked with determining

whether the Red Lake Watershed District had the authority to conduct proceedings to

improve a drainage ditch located geographically within the District but under the drainage

authority of the Polk County Board of Commissioners. Additionally, we must consider

whether the improvement proceedings conformed to statutory requirements.




                                         2
       After Keystone Township and several landowners challenged the order of the Red

Lake Watershed District establishing the improvement project, the district court granted

summary judgment in favor of the challengers, ruling that the District did not have the

authority to order the improvement because the District was not the drainage authority.

The court of appeals reversed, and we accepted review.

       We conclude that the Red Lake Watershed District was authorized to conduct the

improvement proceedings and did not fail to conform to statutory requirements in a way

that invalidated jurisdiction over the proceedings. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of

the court of appeals.

                                        FACTS

       Respondent 1 Red Lake Watershed District (the District), spans 5,990 square miles

across 10 counties of northwest Minnesota, including a large portion of Polk County.

Since the District was established in 1970, it has assumed control over several drainage

systems that were transferred from the oversight of county or joint county authorities. 2



1
      This case involves several appellants and respondents. The appellants are Keystone
Township, Owen Peterson, Lamont Peterson, Curt Vanek, Mark Holy, Charlene Holy,
John Giese, James Pulkrabek, Peter Giese, J-P, Inc., David Straus, Dan Driscoll, Tim
Kozel, Peter Cieklinski, Tom Kozel, Curtis Amundson, Suzie Larson, Tami Neilson,
Donna Driscoll, Stanley Hotvedt, Norma Lacano Hotvedt, Charles Hotvedt, Marvin Zak,
Dorothy Jerik, and Brad Owens.
      The respondents are Red Lake Watershed District, Kyle Novacek, Rebecca
Novacek, Paul Novacek, Ronald Novacek, Patricia Novacek, Douglas A. Peterson, Glenn
H. Hanson, and Folson Farm Corporation.
2
       Minnesota law assigns water drainage management powers to entities known as
drainage authorities, which may be a county board of commissioners, a joint county board,


                                        3
Polk County Ditch 39 (Ditch 39) lies entirely within the portion of Polk County that falls

inside the geographical boundaries of the District, but Polk County has never transferred

authority for the ditch to the District. Instead, at the time of the proceedings relevant to

this case, Ditch 39 remained under the drainage authority of the Polk County Board of

Commissioners. See generally Minn. Stat. § 103E.011 (2024).

       In 2017, owners of land in the drainage area of Ditch 39 (some of whom, along with

the District, constitute the respondents in this case) filed a petition with the Red Lake

Watershed District Board of Managers to improve the ditch. At the time, the Polk County

Board of Commissioners was the drainage authority for Ditch 39. The petition requested

that, upon completion of the improvement, the operation and maintenance of the ditch be

“turned over” to the District.

       The proposed improvement would increase the capacity and length of Ditch 39 to

capture overflow from a larger ditch, Polk County Ditch 66 (Ditch 66), which was also

under the drainage authority of the Polk County Board of Commissioners. The following

image shows the relative locations of both ditches:




or a board of managers of a watershed district. See Minn. Stat. § 103E.005, subds. 4, 9
(2024).


                                         4
The goal of the project was to make drainage more efficient for both Ditch 39 and Ditch

66. These efficiencies would benefit the property surrounding both ditches, and owners of

these properties would be assessed benefits to cover the cost of the improvements. See

Minn. Stat. § 103E.315 (2024).

       The District accepted the petition, along with a bond from the petitioners, and

initiated proceedings to consider the improvement project. It directed reports to be made

on the proposed project. Before the final hearing on July 24, 2020, the District took steps

to notify property owners as required by Minn. Stat. § 103D.741. These steps included

publishing notice on July 8, July 15, and July 22, 2020, and mailing notice on July 10,

2020. Ditch 66 was assessed 8.1 percent of the cost of improvement by the District, which



                                         5
amounted to $170,184. Although the owners of property benefited directly by Ditch 39

had been involved with the project early on, the District mailed notice to property owners

benefited by Ditch 66 only 14 days before the final hearing. At the final hearing, the

District found that the proposed project met all the statutory requirements for approval and

ordered that the improvement be established.

       Shortly after the District promulgated its order, appellant Keystone Township, along

with several appellant property owners who would be assessed benefits for Ditch 39

(collectively, Keystone), filed a notice of appeal with the Polk County District Court, under

Minn. Stat. § 103E.095 (2024):

       A party may appeal an order made by the board . . . to the district court . . . .
       If the court finds that the order appealed is lawful and reasonable, it shall be
       affirmed. If the court finds that the order appealed is arbitrary, unlawful, or
       not supported by the evidence, it shall make an order, justified by the court
       record, to take the place of the appealed order, or remand the order to the
       board for further proceedings.

Polk County received notice of the district court appeal but did not participate in the appeal

and is not a party here.

       Keystone claimed that jurisdiction of Ditch 39 was never transferred to the District

from Polk County and that procedural defects in the proceedings also invalidated the

District’s order. The parties agreed to a set of stipulated facts, which included the fact that

“[p]rior to the filing of the petition (and bond) to improve [Ditch 39] with the Red Lake

Watershed District Board of Managers, [Ditch 39] was under the jurisdiction of Polk

County and the Polk County Board of Commissioners was the Drainage Authority.”

Keystone moved for summary judgment.



                                           6
       The district court granted Keystone’s motion, concluding that the District did not

have jurisdiction because Polk County was the drainage authority and had not transferred

authority over Ditch 39 to the District before the petition was filed. The district court ruled

that the statutory procedures required that the petition be filed with the county auditor and

then presented by the auditor to the county board. See Minn. Stat. § 103E.215, subds. 4(b),

5 (2022). Accordingly, the district court declared that the District’s final order was “void

for lack of authority to establish the improvement.” Because the district court concluded

that the District lacked authority to establish the improvement, the district court did not

consider the alleged defects in the improvement proceedings.

       Respondents appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the district court’s

decision. Keystone Twp. v. Red Lake Watershed Dist., 

 (Minn. App. 2023).

The court of appeals concluded that: (1) the Watershed District had authority over the

ditch-improvement petition; and (2) the improvement proceedings “substantially

conformed” to the statutory requirements and that “minor, nonprejudicial deviations from

prescribed procedure” did not invalidate the District’s decision. 

. Keystone

sought review from this court, which we granted.

                                        ANALYSIS

       This case comes to us on appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment

in favor of Keystone. The relevant facts are not disputed. “We review summary judgment

decisions de novo to determine if the district court erred in its application of the law.” City

of Circle Pines v. County of Anoka, 

, 822 (Minn. 2022). Matters of

statutory interpretation present questions of law, which we similarly review de novo. 

                                           7
       We begin with a discussion of the statutory framework to provide the context for

the parties’ dispute. The Minnesota Legislature has enacted a comprehensive statutory

scheme to manage all aspects of water management throughout the state. This scheme is

collectively known as the Water Law, and is codified at chapters 103A–G of the Minnesota

Statutes. Minn. Stat. § 103A.001 (2024). Two chapters of the Water Law are particularly

relevant here: chapter 103D (2022), the Watershed Law, and chapter 103E (2022), the

Drainage Code.

       First, we consider the Watershed Law. The Watershed Law sets forth the general

purposes of watershed districts, how watershed districts are established and managed, and

how proceedings for projects of the watershed district must be conducted. See Minn. Stat.

§§ 103D.201, .205, .311, .601–.745. Originally enacted by the Legislature in 1955, 3 the

Watershed Law provides for the creation of watershed districts to “conserve the natural

resources of the state by land use planning, flood control, and other conservation projects

by using sound scientific principles for the protection of the public health and welfare and

the provident use of the natural resources.” Minn. Stat. § 103D.201, subd. 1. The

Watershed Law “shall be construed and administered so as to make effective [these]

purposes.” Minn. Stat. § 103D.501.

       Second, we consider the Drainage Code. The Drainage Code specifically addresses

the powers of drainage authorities and provides the rules for drainage proceedings,



3
     Act of April 23, 1955, ch. 799, 

, 1232–58 (codified as
amended at 

 et. seq).


                                         8
including improvement proceedings. The Drainage Code defines terms used throughout

that chapter, Minn. Stat. § 103E.005, and contains procedures for drainage projects that

closely parallel the procedures set forth for watershed districts. Compare Minn. Stat.

§§ 103E.202–.345, with Minn. Stat. §§ 103D.601–.745 (providing similar procedures for

filing a petition, generating an engineer’s report, and conducting a final hearing). The

Drainage Code predates the Watershed Law (although it has been amended to

accommodate it) and mostly deals with the authority of counties and municipalities to

manage drainage projects. See Al Kean, Minn. Bd. of Water & Soil Res. Minnesota

Drainage Law, A Chronological Summary of Key Statute Titles, Numbers and Associated

Headings 1–2 (2018). In examining the Watershed Law and the Drainage Code together,

the Legislature has directed that, wherever the Watershed Law refers to the Drainage Code,

the provisions of the Drainage Code should, “if consistent,” be read into the Watershed

Law. Minn. Stat. § 103D.505.

       Before the Watershed Law was enacted in 1955, many drainage systems were

controlled directly by local government entities. See John Helland, Minn. House of

Representatives Rsch. Dept., Drainage Issues 1–2 (2002). Accordingly, the Drainage

Code provides a procedure that “must be used to improve an established and constructed

drainage system.” Minn. Stat. § 103E.215, subd. 1. Under this procedure, an improvement

petition involving an existing drainage system must be filed with the county auditor, who

in turn must present it to the county board or the joint county drainage authority for

consideration. Id., subds. 4(b), 5.

       But under the Watershed Law, once a watershed district is established under Minn.


                                        9
Stat. §§ 103D.205–231, it has the power to “construct, clean, repair, alter, abandon,

consolidate, reclaim, or change the course or terminus of any public ditch, drain, sewer,

river, watercourse, natural or artificial, within the watershed district.”         Minn. Stat.

§ 103D.335, subd. 8. Additionally, a watershed district may “take over when directed by

a drainage authority all . . . county drainage systems within the watershed district, together

with the right to repair, maintain, and improve them.” Id., subd. 15.

       The statute that lies at the heart of this dispute, Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, governs the

processes for a watershed district to assume responsibilities for existing drainage systems

within the district, for the repair and improvement of assumed systems, and for the

construction of new systems or improvement of existing systems within the district. Under

subdivision 1 of that statute, to “take over” a drainage system from a county, watershed

districts must abide by certain procedures. Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 1. 4 Under


4
       Minnesota Statutes section 103D.625, subdivision 1, provides in full:

              (a) The managers [of a watershed district] shall take over a joint
       county or county drainage system within the watershed district and the right
       to repair and maintain the drainage system if directed by a joint county
       drainage authority or a county board. The transfer may be initiated by:
              (1) the joint county drainage authority or county board;
              (2) a petition from a person interested in the drainage system; or
              (3) the managers.
              (b) The transfer may not be made until the joint county drainage
       authority or county board has held a hearing on the transfer. Notice of the
       proposed transfer with the time and place of hearing must be given by two
       weeks’ published notice in a legal newspaper of general circulation in the
       area where the transfer is to occur. All interested persons may appear and be
       heard.



                                          10
subdivision 2, once a watershed district takes over in whole or in part a joint county or

county drainage system, it becomes “part of the works of the watershed district to the extent

taken over.” Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 2. And under subdivision 3, “[a]fter the

transfer is ordered, all proceedings for repair and maintenance must conform to chapter

103E, except for repairs and maintenance done pursuant to section 103D.621, subdivision

4,” which governs drainage systems in metropolitan areas. Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd.

3; see also Minn. Stat. § 103D.621.

       Because there is no dispute that when the respondent property owners filed a petition

with the District, the District had not “take[n] over” the county drainage system under the

procedures set forth in subdivision 1, the focus of this case is primarily on subdivision 4 of

section 103D.625. That subdivision provides that “[c]onstruction of new drainage systems

or improvements of existing drainage systems in the watershed district must be initiated

by filing a petition with the managers [of the watershed district].” (Emphasis added.)

Proceedings for construction or improvements of drainage systems “in the watershed

district must conform to chapter 103E, except for repairs and maintenance done pursuant

to section 103D.621, subdivision 4.” Id.

       To resolve this dispute over control of Ditch 39, we must consider two issues: first,

whether, under the laws governing improvement proceedings, the District was authorized


              (c) After the hearing, the joint county drainage authority or county
       board shall order the watershed district to take over the joint county or county
       drainage system, unless it appears that the takeover would not serve the
       purpose of this chapter and would not be for the public welfare or be in the
       public interest.


                                          11
to improve Ditch 39 without having “taken over” that ditch from the county; and second,

whether the District’s improvement proceedings involving Ditch 39 conformed to statutory

procedural requirements. We address each issue in turn.

                                               I.

       We first consider whether, under Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 4, a watershed

district has the authority to conduct improvement proceedings for a ditch that lies within

the geographical boundaries of the watershed district but falls under the drainage authority

of a county board of commissioners. There is no dispute that Polk County was the drainage

authority for Ditch 39 at the time the improvement petition was filed. At issue is whether

the District had jurisdiction 5 over the petition to improve Ditch 39.

       To improve the ditch, respondent property owners filed a petition with the District,

but not with Polk County. Although Polk County is not a party here and has not challenged

the District’s authority to conduct the improvement proceedings, appellants nevertheless

argue that the District lacked jurisdiction because it had not “taken over” Ditch 39. The

District counters that it had jurisdiction over the improvement petition despite Polk



5
       The word “jurisdiction” does not appear in section 103D.625. But it is frequently
used throughout the Drainage Code and is central to the definition of a “drainage
authority.” See Minn. Stat. § 103E.005, subd. 9 (“ ‘Drainage authority’ means the board
or joint county drainage authority having jurisdiction over a drainage system or project.”).
As the court of appeals noted, jurisdiction is a “useful analogy” to discern the limits of
statutorily-delegated powers. Keystone, 989 N.W.2d at 902 n.3. Similarly, we use
“jurisdiction” here to refer to the scope of delegated state authority to manage water
resources, as derived from “a government’s general power to exercise authority over all
persons and things within its territory.” Jurisdiction, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed.
2024).


                                          12
County’s status as the drainage authority when the improvement petition was filed. The

District relies on Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 4, which provides that “improvements of

existing drainage systems in the watershed district must be initiated by filing a petition

with the managers” of the watershed district. The question here is whether Minn. Stat.

§ 103D.625, subd. 4, applies when the watershed district has not yet “take[n] over” the

county drainage system under the transfer procedure specified in Minn. Stat. § 103D.625,

subd. 1.

       We answered this question in our decision in Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed

District, 

 (Minn. 1967). In Lenz, we considered an improvement petition

filed with a watershed district, which had not first “take[n] over” a drainage system that

was under the authority of a county. 

 at 220–21. There, the county itself had filed the

improvement petition with the watershed district, and the petition was subsequently

challenged by property owners who opposed the improvement. 

. We addressed

whether the county must first conduct a transfer hearing (under what is now Minn. Stat.

§ 103D.625, subd. 1) before the watershed district could conduct the improvement

proceedings. Id. at 220. Concluding that a transfer hearing was not required, we stated:

               The statute requires such a hearing only if the petition asks for the
       Managers to “take over” a county drainage system, but not if the petition asks
       the Managers to improve any existing drainage system, including a county
       one. The petition in question clearly did not contemplate nor request the
       Managers to take over the county drainage system, but to improve it
       extensively, and the Managers and the Board properly so found and regarded
       it as a comprehensive watershed project in conformity with the overall plan
       previously adopted.

Id. at 220–21. We specifically determined that “it was not necessary for the Managers to



                                         13
take over the county drainage system before [the watershed district] would have the power

to improve it.” Id. at 221.

       To support this determination, we cited the statutory language that authorizes

watershed districts to alter public ditches within the watershed district. See 

, subd. 1(3) (1967) (repealed 1990), cited in Lenz, 

 n.32. That

language was recodified at Minn. Stat. § 103D.335, subd. 8, which provides that “[t]he

managers may construct, clean, repair, alter, abandon, consolidate, reclaim, or change the

course or terminus of any public ditch, drain, sewer, river, watercourse, natural or artificial,

within the watershed district.”

       We consider our prior interpretations of a statute “in reviewing subsequent disputes

over the meaning of the statute.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., 

 (Minn. 2012). “The doctrine of stare decisis has special force in the area of

statutory interpretation because the Legislature is free to alter what we have done.”

Schuette v. City of Hutchinson, 

 (Minn. 2014). Accordingly, “[w]e

have long held that ‘[w]hen a judicial interpretation of a statute has remained undisturbed,

it becomes part of the terms of the statute itself.’ ” Else v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 

, 329 (Minn. 2022) (quoting Wynkoop v. Carpenter, 

(Minn. 1998)).

       The Legislature has amended section 103D.625 and other provisions of the Water

Law several times since our decision in Lenz, but the language material to that decision has




                                          14
not changed in any way that conflicts with our holding in that case. 6 Under these

circumstances, we presume that the Legislature intended for our interpretation in Lenz to

be placed upon the current statutory language. See Kingbird v. State, 

, 640

(Minn. 2022) (“In ascertaining legislative intent, there is a presumption that if we have

already construed language of a Minnesota statute, then later laws using that same language

within the same subject matter are bound to that construction of the language.”); see also

(4) (2024) (stating the presumption that “when a court of last resort

has construed the language of a law, the legislature in subsequent laws on the same subject

matter intends the same construction to be placed upon such language”). In Lenz, we

concluded that a transfer hearing was not a prerequisite to a watershed district establishing

an improvement project. 153 N.W.2d at 220–21 (holding that “it was not necessary for the

Managers to take over the county drainage system before it [sic] would have the power to

improve it”). Here, we follow our precedent in Lenz and conclude that Minn. Stat.


6
        Compare 

, subds. 1–2 (1967) (repealed 1990) (“The managers
of a district shall take over when directed by the district court or county board any judicial
or county drainage system within the district, together with the right to repair and maintain
the same. . . . Construction of all new drainage systems or improvements of existing
drainage systems within the district shall be initiated by filing a petition with the managers
of the district.”), with Minn. Stat. § 103D.625 (2022) (“The managers shall take over a joint
county or county drainage system within the watershed district and the right to repair and
maintain the drainage system if directed by a joint county drainage authority or a county
board. . . . A joint county or county drainage system that is taken over in whole or in part
is part of the works of the watershed district to the extent taken over. . . . After the transfer
is ordered, all proceedings for repair and maintenance must conform to chapter 103E . . . .
Construction of new drainage systems or improvements of existing drainage systems in the
watershed district must be initiated by filing a petition with the managers. The proceedings
for the construction or improvement of drainage systems in the watershed district must
conform to chapter 103E . . . .”).


                                           15
§ 103D.625, subd. 4, allows a watershed district to conduct improvement proceedings over

a ditch without first taking over control from the county. See Minn. Stat. § 103D.625,

subd. 1.

                                                II.

       Because we conclude that the District had jurisdiction to conduct the improvement

proceedings involving Ditch 39, we must next address Keystone’s alternative argument:

that the District’s order should be nullified because the District failed to strictly comply

with the provisions of the Drainage Code.

       “[D]rainage proceedings in this state are purely statutory and their validity depends

upon a strict compliance with the provisions of the statute by which they are regulated and

controlled.” Hagen v. County of Martin, 

 (Minn. 1958). Under Minn.

Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 4—the statute that gave the District jurisdiction to conduct the

improvement proceedings—“proceedings for the construction or improvement of drainage

systems in the watershed district must conform to chapter 103E.”

       Hagen requires “strict compliance” with the provisions of a controlling statute; here,

the sole controlling statute is Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 4, which itself directs the

District to “conform” its proceedings “to chapter 103E” in general. The Drainage Code

itself is not the controlling statute (and is, in fact, a compilation of statutes) upon which the

validity of the District’s proceedings depends.          Strict compliance with the actual

controlling statute (Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 4), then, requires only that the District

“conform” its proceedings to the Drainage Code. We agree with the court of appeals that

conformity “connotes alignment, not literal compliance.” Keystone, 989 N.W.2d at 907.


                                           16
Conformity—not strict compliance—is therefore the standard of adherence to which the

District must cleave in observing the individual procedural requirements of the Drainage

Code. This is further confirmed by section 103D.505 of the Watershed Law, which

provides that “[i]f this chapter refers to particular sections of the drainage laws of this state,

the sections and provisions shall, if consistent with this chapter, be treated and construed

as having the same effect, so far as the provisions of this chapter are concerned, as though

set forth in this chapter.” Minn. Stat. § 103D.505 (emphasis added). Strict compliance

with the Drainage Code by the District is not required, and the Drainage Code’s

requirements must give way when they are inconsistent with the Watershed Law.

                                                A.

       We first address Keystone’s claim that the District failed to adequately involve the

County in its improvement proceedings. Specifically, Keystone contends that under the

Drainage Code the improvement petition should have been filed with the Polk County

Auditor, that the improvement petition should have been presented to the Polk County

Board of Commissioners, and that a bond should have been filed with the Polk County

Auditor. 7

       Under the Drainage Code, an improvement petition must be filed with the county

auditor, who presents it to the county’s board of commissioners. Minn. Stat. § 103E.215,


7
       Keystone also alleges that the Polk County Auditor needed to certify the petition,
but this requirement applies only to petitions to establish a watershed district, so it is
inapplicable here. Minn. Stat. § 103D.211 (“An auditor that receives a copy of an
establishment petition . . . must certify the number of petitioners that are resident owners
and file the certification with the board.”).


                                           17
subds. 4(b), 5. The petitioner must also file a bond with the county auditor. Minn. Stat.

§ 103E.202, subd. 4. By contrast, the Watershed Law requires that an improvement

petition be filed with the watershed district’s board of managers, Minn. Stat.

§ 103D.701(1), and that a deposit or bond be filed with the managers. Minn. Stat.

§ 103D.705, subd. 3.

       The parallel nature of the procedures for improvement petitions puts the

requirements to notify county officials under the Drainage Code at odds with the provisions

of the Watershed Law. For example, if the requirements of both chapters need to be

followed, property owners petitioning for an improvement would need to file an

improvement petition twice: once with the county auditor and again with the watershed

district. These property owners would also have to file bonds with the county and with the

watershed district, increasing the effective cost of bringing an improvement petition for

any drainage system located in both a county and a watershed district. If these provisions

are not technically in direct conflict, they are inconsistent insofar as the duplicative

involvement of county officials hampers the directive to make effective a watershed

district’s purpose. See Minn. Stat. § 103D.501 (“This chapter shall be construed and

administered so as to make effective the purposes [of watershed districts].”).

       Considering these provisions together, we conclude that the District was permitted

to conduct the proceedings with only District officials—and without the involvement of

county officials—insofar as the involvement of county officials would not be “consistent

with” the Watershed Law. Minn. Stat. § 103D.505. Here, “strict compliance” is required

as to the Watershed Law; to “conform” with the Drainage Code as Minn. Stat. § 103D.625,


                                         18
subd. 4 commands does not require adhering to Drainage Code requirements that are

inconsistent with the Watershed Law, see Minn. Stat. § 103D.505. Our conclusion that the

District can still conform to the Drainage Code by effectively substituting its own officials

in place of county officers dispenses with several of Keystone’s other procedural

challenges. The alleged instances of noncompliance with the statutory procedures related

to County involvement—the failures to file the improvement petition with the Polk County

Auditor, to present the improvement petition to the Polk County Board, and to file a bond

with the Polk County Auditor—are all excused by our conclusions that the District was

authorized to conduct the improvement proceedings and that the Legislature did not intend

to require parallel, duplicative proceedings in both the County and the District.

       We note that the lack of harmony between the text of the Drainage Code and the

text of the Watershed Law—and the primacy we give here to the Watershed Law—seems

to treat the Drainage Code’s explicit directives to involve county officials in improvement

proceedings for ditches under the drainage authority of the county as merely permissive.

But as we observed in Lenz, “whatever interpretation is given” to the Watershed Law, “it

will necessarily be inconsistent with some provision of the Drainage Code.” 

 (stating further that we should not assume “the nonexistence of inconsistent

procedures”). Our analysis here is guided by and only underscores this observation—made

over 50 years ago—regarding the somewhat contradictory statutory scheme the Legislature

has enacted to govern drainage matters throughout the state. Under the circumstances here,

when faced with the somewhat contradictory scheme, the “strict compliance” required as

to the Watershed Law is what necessarily controls. Conformity with the Drainage Code


                                         19
requires alignment, but Minn. Stat. § 103D.505 is clear that the Drainage Code must cede

when inconsistencies with the Watershed Law arise.

       We recognize, though, that under our holding, county officials may be effectively

omitted from the improvement process, creating a scenario where an improvement is made

to a county-operated ditch without the county’s involvement or assent. To allay this fear,

the District points out that it must—and did—provide notice to the County before both the

preliminary and final hearings.       See Minn. Stat. §§ 103E.261, subd. 1 (requiring

preliminary hearing notice to “political subdivisions likely to be affected by the proposed

drainage project”), 103E.325, subd. 3 (requiring final hearing notice to “auditors of

affected counties”). And here, at least, the County expressed no concerns about the actions

of the District. Additionally, the practice of substituting county officials for equivalent

district officials appears to be the status quo for improvement proceedings within

watershed districts.

       Still, we acknowledge Keystone’s argument that under our interpretation, parties

petitioning for the improvement of a ditch that falls under the drainage authority of a county

would be required to: (1) “read the code”; (2) “disregard the requirement that it be filed

with the County Auditor”; and (3) “somehow determine the legislative intent was to

actually file the petition—not with the County Auditor as expressly stated in the code—

but with an official appointed within the staff of the Watershed District.” As we have often

remarked, should the Legislature wish to exercise its “prerogative to reexamine” the

interaction between the statutes considered here, it may do so. State v. Khalil, 

, 642 (Minn. 2021) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). As this case


                                          20
demonstrates, county drainage authorities, watershed districts, and Minnesotans relying on

functioning drainage systems may be well-served by the Legislature doing just that.

                                               B.

       Keystone alleges three additional defects that, in its view, caused the District to lose

jurisdiction over the improvement proceedings. According to Keystone, the District failed

to: (1) provide a property owners’ report to the Ditch 66 property owners who would be

affected by the planned improvement to Ditch 39; (2) timely prepare the property owners’

report; and (3) timely provide final hearing notice to all parties affected by the proposed

improvement. We address each of these challenges in turn, and we conclude that each

lacks merit.

       First, the District did not need to provide a property owners’ report to the Ditch 66

property owners, because the District assessed the benefits of the improvement project to

Ditch 66 itself, not the individual Ditch 66 property owners. Keystone rests its argument

entirely upon Minn. Stat. § 103E.323, subd. 1, which provides that “[w]ithin 30 days after

the viewers’ report is filed, the auditor must make a property owners’ report from the

information in the viewers’ report showing for each property owner benefited or damaged

by the proposed drainage project,” certain specified information. Keystone argues that the

Ditch 66 property owners are “benefited or damaged by the proposed drainage project,”

and therefore under the language of subdivision 1, a property owners’ report needed to be

made to the Ditch 66 property owners’ with their information. But Keystone ignores that

same statutory provision requires that the property owners’ report be made “from the




                                          21
information in the viewers’ report.” 8 Minn. Stat. § 103E.323, subd. 1. And the viewers’

report generally describes each lot or tract that will be benefited by the improvement project

and the amount that each lot or tract will be benefited. Minn. Stat. § 103E.321, subd. 1.

But when an improvement project “furnishes an outlet to an existing drainage system” (as

the improvement to Ditch 39 did to Ditch 66), the viewers need not assess the benefits on

a property-by-property basis for the property owners receiving the outlet benefit. Minn.

Stat. § 103E.315, subd. 6(a). Rather, the viewers can assess “a single amount as an outlet

benefit to the existing drainage system.”       Id., subd. 6(a)(2).   When the cost of the

improvement must ultimately be paid, the lien for the assessment to the existing drainage

system must be “prorated on all property benefited by the existing drainage system in

proportion to the benefits determined for the existing drainage system.” Id., subd. 6(b).

       Here, the District’s viewers opted to assess a single amount of $200,000 to Ditch 66

to account for the outlet benefit that Ditch 66 would enjoy because of the improvements to

Ditch 39. As a result, the viewers’ report did not list or identify the individual Ditch 66

property owners that would benefit from the improvement to Ditch 39. This meant that—

because the property owners’ report is made “from the information in the viewers’

report”—when it came time to generate and mail the property owners’ report, the

individual Ditch 66 property owners were not listed as “property owner[s] benefited or

damaged by the proposed drainage project.” Minn. Stat. § 103E.323, subd. 1. Keystone’s



8
       The “viewers” are “three disinterested residents of the state qualified to assess
benefits and damages” that are appointed by the drainage authority. Minn. Stat.
§ 103E.305, subd. 1.

                                          22
argument that Minn. Stat. § 103E.323, subd. 1 required mailing a property owners’ report

to the Ditch 66 property owners thus fails.

       Second, we conclude that although the property owners’ report was not prepared

within the timeframe provided by statute, appellants have not shown that they were

“directly affected” by the untimeliness of the report, as required by Minn. Stat.

§ 103E.051(a). Property owners’ reports must be made within 30 days of the filing of the

viewers’ report, Minn. Stat. § 103E.323, subd. 1, but the property owners’ reports here

were dated March 24, 2020, which is more than 60 days after the viewers’ report was filed

on January 23, 2020. Keystone is correct that the District did not conform to the timing

requirement of section 103E.323. But Keystone does not specify how any of the appealing

parties were “directly affected” by the timing of the property owners’ report. And Minn.

Stat. § 103E.051(a) requires that “[a] party may not take advantage of an error in a drainage

proceeding or an informality, error, or defect appearing in the record of the proceeding or

construction, unless the party complaining is directly affected.” We conclude that this

procedural failure is insufficient to invalidate the District’s establishment of the

improvement project. See In re McRae, 

 (Minn. 1904) (concluding that

a statute directing a county board of commissioners to appoint viewers within a specified

time “must be deemed directory,” and the failure to strictly comply with the statute did not

invalidate the proceedings involving the establishment of a drainage ditch).

       Finally, we address Keystone’s argument that the notice of final hearing was

“defective.” The requirements for final hearing notices for watershed districts are set forth

in Minn. Stat. § 103D.741 (requiring final hearing notice to be published and mailed).


                                         23
Keystone does not argue that the final hearing notice omits any information required by

the Watershed Law. 9 Rather, Keystone argues that the notice was defective because the

District did not publish the notice and because the mailed notice was untimely. 10 The

parties have stipulated that the notice of final hearing was postmarked on July 10, 2020,

and the final hearing date was July 24, 2020.

       We first address the publication requirement. Section 103D.741, subdivision 1,

requires a watershed district to “give notice by publication of the final hearing.” Keystone

contends that “[t]here is no indication the Notice of Final Hearing was published.” As the

district court noted, however, the District “provided documentation of the publication of




9
       Under the Watershed Law, the mailed final hearing notice must contain:

       (1) a brief description of the proposed project;
       (2) a statement that the engineer’s report and appraisers’ report are on file
       with the managers and available for public inspection;
       (3) the time and place of hearing; and
       (4) a statement that the addressee’s name appears as an affected party.

Minn. Stat. § 103D.741, subd. 2. Keystone claims that “the notices sent to the Ditch 66
landowners made absolutely no reference at all that an outlet fee would be assessed against
Ditch 66.” But notice of the outlet fee is not required by the Watershed Law to be in the
final hearing notice, and Keystone makes no argument to the contrary.
10
       A watershed district is required to give notice of the final hearing “to each person,
corporation, and public body that owns property benefited or damaged by the proposed
project as shown by the engineer’s and appraisers’ report.” Minn. Stat. § 103D.741,
subd. 2. The notice that the District sent included the Ditch 66 property owners, and the
District makes no argument here that the Ditch 66 property owners were not entitled to
notice. As a result, we proceed under the uncontested assumption that the Ditch 66
property owners were among the property owners entitled to notice of the final hearing.


                                         24
the notice of final hearing.” The record contains an affidavit of publication, 11 which

establishes that the notice of final hearing was published three times: on July 8, July 15,

and July 22, 2020. See Minn. Stat. § 103D.011, subd. 22 (defining “publication” as

“publication once a week for two successive weeks”). 12 We therefore reject Keystone’s

argument that the District failed to publish the notice of final hearing.

       We next address the mailing requirement.           Section 103D.741, subdivision 2,

requires a watershed district to “give the final hearing notice by mail” to persons owning

property benefited or damaged by the proposed project “within one week after the

beginning of publication.” The mailed notice of final hearing was timely because it was

postmarked on July 10, which was within one week after the beginning of publication on

July 8. We also conclude that the mailed notice conformed to the Drainage Code. 13 We



11
       The parties did not mention this affidavit in their briefing to the court of appeals.
Thus, understandably, the court of appeals stated that “there is no indication in the record
that the notice was published.” 989 N.W.2d at 909. That said, the record does include
evidence of publication.
12
       The publication of the notice of final hearing also complied with the timing
requirement of the Drainage Code, Minn. Stat. § 103E.005, subd. 24, which defines
“publication” as “a notice published at least once a week for three successive weeks.”
13
       Keystone points out that improvement proceedings under the Watershed Law “must
conform to” the Drainage Code, Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 4, and argues that the
mailed notice of final hearing was untimely under the Drainage Code. But the Drainage
Code contains the same timing requirement for the mailed notice as the Watershed Law.
The Drainage Code requires “notice by mail of the time and location of the final hearing”
to be given “[w]ithin one week after the first publication of the notice.” Minn. Stat.
§ 103E.325, subd. 3. As we conclude above, the District complied with this timing
requirement because the notice was mailed on July 10, within one week of July 8 when the
notice was first published.


                                          25
therefore reject Keystone’s argument that the District failed to give timely notice by mail.

                                      *        *    *

       Under our holding in Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, 

(Minn. 1967), the District was authorized to receive the improvement petition for Ditch 39

and conduct improvement proceedings, even though Polk County was the drainage

authority for the ditch at the time the petition was filed. And the District was statutorily

permitted to conduct the proceedings without the involvement of county officials, insofar

as the involvement of county officials would be inconsistent with the Watershed Law.

None of Keystone’s other alleged procedural defects affect the District’s authority to

establish the improvement project over Ditch 39. Consequently, we affirm the decision of

the court of appeals, which held that summary judgment against the District was improper.

See Keystone, 989 N.W.2d at 909.




        Keystone also argues that the mailed notice was untimely under section 103E.325,
subdivision 1—which requires the final hearing to “be set 25 to 50 days after the date of
the final hearing notice”—because the mailed notice “provided fewer than 25 days’ notice”
of the final hearing. But this argument fails because subdivision 1 does not tie the hearing
date specifically to the date the final hearing notice is mailed. It is subdivision 3 that
addresses mailing. And Keystone has cited no provision of the Drainage Code or the
Watershed Law that requires notice by mail to be given at least 25 days before the date of
the final hearing.

                                          26
                                    CONCLUSION

      For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

      Affirmed.


      HENNESY and GAÏTAS, JJ., not having been members of this court at the time of

submission, took no part in the consideration




                                        27