A spirited conversation over how to address what one commissioner called the number one problem in Daviess County unfolded during Tuesday’s Fiscal Court budget work session, as leaders weighed a proposal to dedicate millions in funding toward drainage improvements amid ongoing flooding issues.
Commissioner Janie Marksberry proposed that the court immediately allocate $2 million from the county’s general fund reserves in the upcoming budget and commit another $2 million the following year to begin clearing neglected ditches and creeks contributing to road closures after heavy rains.
“I’ve heard all the arguments that we as county officials really can’t do anything about this flooding issue. I do not accept that. Flooding and drainage in Daviess County is the number one problem that we face, and sitting by doing nothing is not serving the taxpayers or future residents of our county,” Marksberry said. “We can’t sit by and wait for the state or federal government to save us from this problem. The old excuses of ‘we’re in a flood-prone area’ or ‘we live in a bowl’ are not cutting it anymore.”
She added that “We can’t use past mindsets as a convenient excuse for inaction.”
Marksberry proposed reinstating a drainage commission, forming a committee with two county commissioners, and working with legal counsel to ensure all improvements are made lawfully and transparently. She said the Fiscal Court would then vote on each line-item project, which would be funded using the $2 million she proposed be set aside in the budget. Marksberry emphasized that her proposal would not require new taxes, but would instead use surplus funds.
“We’re spending millions on jails and firehouses and other things to protect the citizens of our county. Two million (dollars), in the larger picture, is not that much money to help alleviate the number one problem in our county, and that is flooding,” she said.
Marksberry added that “everyone I have spoken to has been a quick, easy ‘yes, you can do something about it,’ and these are people I have contacted from the state.”
Judge-Executive Charlie Castlen responded by reiterating that the county is already pursuing a long-term process developed in partnership with the state to create a sustainable revenue stream for drainage projects. That path, he said, follows current legal guidelines and avoids potential violations related to work on private property.
“This is the budget that I put together with the staff, and I’m not prepared to put $2 million into the budget. In my opinion, it would be for show and give false hope,” Castlen said of Marksberry’s proposal.
He continued his response to her, saying, “I’ve had my conversations over the last 14 years as an elected county official. I don’t know how long you’ve been doing your research, but I know you’ve had a couple of meetings with people. … But I’m not prepared to put $2 million into the budget when everything that I’ve been told is that we are currently following the rules and the laws the Commonwealth has laid out. And I’m not prepared to break the law to go or to go and do things to privately owned ditches.”
Castlen acknowledged Marksberry’s commitment to research but questioned the legal footing of the actions she suggested.
“You said yesterday that we had drainage easements over these farms,” he said. “I’ve asked you, and I’ll say it publicly. You’re a realtor. You have access to plats and such. Prove your point with paper, with legal papers, rather than just get up here and just make a speech.”
Commissioner Chris Castlen noted that progress is being made through a collaboration with the state’s Division of Water, which has committed to sending a representative to Daviess County to assess the situation and help develop a plan.
“One of the main things from his experience is improving the flow of the headwater. I’m not sure what the cost will be at this point,” he said. “I can see why you’re wanting to put the money in the budget … but we don’t know what that will be yet. As we go along, we’ll know more about it and make the changes then. ”
Commissioner Larry Conder echoed the need for action, acknowledging that while fully resolving the flooding may not be possible, incremental improvements are essential.
“Will we be able to solve the flooding we have recently? No, that’s probably at least a 50-year event, if not more. But there are things I think we could do that will help,” Conder said.
Conder proposed a potential compromise, suggesting a lower starting figure such as $500,000 to show commitment while remaining cautious about overextending funds without a defined plan.
“That number itself is a start,” he said. “It at least gives us a beginning to send to the people that we do care. … We’ve talked about this for so long. It’s time that we try what is legal for us to do. … I do agree that we need to see what we can do. Words so many times are cheap, but action is what makes the difference.”
Judge-Executive Castlen pushed back against adding any funding to the current budget cycle, saying it would be premature and pointing out that similar efforts in other counties have taken years to implement.
“McLean County has been working on this for probably two and a half years. They’re that far ahead of us,” he said. “So it is not something that we’re going to see in this fiscal year. If we were around the corner to where I thought it was crucial for us to go ahead and do what you said, or what Commissioner Marksberry proposed, I certainly would be on board. I think it’s way too early to do that.
Marksberry closed the discussion by reaffirming her commitment to continue her own research.
“This is just the person that I am. I will continue my research on my own,” she said. “I just made a phone call this morning to the Energy and Environment Cabinet and I spoke with David Cole, who said … ‘It’s no problem. You can do it. You can go in and clear these creeks.’ So, there’s a disconnect here, and I’m not sure what it is.”
Following the meeting, Marksberry clarified to Owensboro Times that she is not advocating for anything illegal. She said she has spoken with state officials, who all told her that the county can clean creeks out as long as they have the owners’ consent to go on their property. She said she was told that in some instances, the court wouldn’t even need a permit to do it.
She also said she never asserted the county had public easements along creeks, and instead only asked if it did so that action could be taken.
“I am certainly not requesting to do anything illegally,” she said. “And that is quite insulting that that would be insinuated. This was not a speech, it was a plea for our court to take action.”
