2 weeks Ago By By Scott Hagerman Messenger-Inquirer
Daviess Fiscal Court members are in unanimous agreement that action needs to be taken to help mitigate the flooding issues in Daviess County. But during the court's 2025-26 budget work session this week, it became clear there is real disagreement among the court about how to approach the issue, and more specifically, how much to commit to funding abatement projects and what the legality is for such projects. Commissioner Janie Marksberry is adamant money be included in the budget to address flooding, and Commissioner Larry Conder voiced his willingness to support adding a line item to the budget.
However, Judge-Executive Charlie Castlen and Commissioner Chris Castlen believe taking such action is not only unnecessary, but could be misleading to the public. Marksberry proposed that $2 million from the county's general reserve fund be allocated in the upcoming budget — with another $2 million to be committed in the 2026-27 budget — to begin cleaning creeks and ditches that contribute to the flooding. "I've heard all the arguments that we as county officials really can't do anything about this flooding issue; well, I do not accept that," Marksberry said.
"Flooding and drainage in Daviess County (are) the No. 1 problem we face, and sitting by and doing nothing is not serving the taxpayers or the future residents of our county." Chris Castlen, who has been the court's point person in discussions with the state about abatement possibilities, said his primary argument against Marksberry's funding proposal is that it's an unnecessary action.
"We will always be at the point we can do something depending on what we need to do," Chris Castlen said. "The only thing we didn't want that Janie wanted to do is they wanted to go ahead and specify an amount of money to put into the budget for the flooding concerns. But what the judge has brought up is, whatever we find as a solution, we can start making adjustments to our current budget to fix this.
To just say we're starting off putting $2 million dollars in is not giving a realistic perspective, because we don't know what costs there are. "We'll still have that money. Janie is talking about taking it from surplus, so that will still be there.
But to give it its own line item without knowing what we need is not an accurate method for moving that money. To me, it looks like they're trying to show that we are concerned and making an attempt, but from my perspective, we need to at least have an idea of what we're doing before we say we're throwing this money in, because we don't know. That money will still be there.
Why give a specific amount, because then it makes it look like we haven't done anything towards the amount we're saying we're going to put into it. To me, I'm open to whatever it is that needs to get us started, instead of giving just a specific amount." While the court would retain the flexibility to move funds as projects arose, Conder said he supported adding a line item of $500,000 as "a middle ground" to the funding issue.
"I don't think it's too early; it's been an issue for a long time," said Conder of committing to some funding. "Would $500K really have an impact on flooding? In my estimation, it might move the needle half an inch of water level. Maybe.
And I'm probably being very generous at that. "What we've talked about for so long has been what we can't do. What we should be doing is what .
.. is legal.
What we should be able to do is look at any action items that can make a difference when it rains 3 inches in six hours. What is that? Are there things we can do to address that? I believe there are, but remember, they all must also be legal, meaning that the state and federal government agencies that overlook watersheds and creeks and everything else must approve, and they can not be on personal property. It's against the law to do that.
" The legality of what the county can do has been a contentious point between Marksberry and Charlie Castlen, with Marksberry believing the county's hands aren't as tied legally as Castlen and other commissioners have indicated. "(The judge) keeps saying that we cannot do anything, but the people I spoke with are the people at the state departments in Louisville, and they have all stated that we can clean the creeks out as long as we have the owner's consent to go on their property," she said. "And in some instances we don't even need a permit to do it.
"He said (former county attorney) Claude Porter had advised him that we cannot legally do this, and he will not listen to anyone else to even see if there is another way to get some improvements along the creek." Charlie Castlen remains steadfast that Marksberry is misinterpreting the legality of what the county can do. "I have had conversations with her and explained to her that the law doesn't allow us to do things to people's property any more than the law allows us to blacktop your driveway," he said.
"I think she's sorely misinformed with her approach and making a couple of phone calls to the state. To quote her, 'It's easy peasy to fix it.' I absolutely disagree with that.
"The reality is, there is a path forward, and that's what Chris Castlen is working on. It doesn't require us to put $2 million in there." Charlie Castlen also noted that some of the flooding issues are due to levees and pump stations that have changed the natural flow of the floodwaters.
"Pretty much everybody saw the levee breach along 231," he said, "and the point I would make is every one of these farmers that are putting levees around their farms, when we talk of spending millions of dollars to maybe build retention basins or whatever, the reality is those fields are natural retention basins, and then these farmers put levees around their farms and they put pumps in there to pump the water out faster than it would normally flow. "I've talked to a number of people who live in the Pettit area, and they say, 'Charlie, it's worse than it's ever been,' and I don't disagree with them. I think the reason it's worse than it's ever been — and the best example I can give is the levee breach — is a drainage basin probably exists already naturally, but they've removed it because they've put levees around their fields and they've put pumps to pump the water out.
They clearly have back-flow protectors where water can flow out but can't flow back in. It certainly has contributed to it." Conder points out that if state and/or federal officials are brought in to assess what improvements can be done, they're also going to notice things that shouldn't have been done, which will complicate matters.
"There needs to be a change just a little bit here to where you bring agencies from the state level and the federal level and you address things that you can do, but remember that those individuals look at everything, not just what you want them to, but what is going on currently, what has been going on, and is anything out of bounds," Conder said. "Have you jammed up this or that, have you built levees, have you built pump stations. And if that's the case, those individuals that you thought were going to come in and help you are going to go, 'Wait a minute.
You can't do that and you already did it and that's against the law. "It draws attention. 'Why is that levee there? What's the purpose?' My bottom line is be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it.
" The county still has a drainage commission, which Marksberry has strongly advocated to bring back, but no one is currently appointed to it. Charlie Castlen said he hasn't seen a need for the commission. But Chris Castlen said he spoke with county staff this week about the creation of a drainage committee.
"With what Janie brought up in the meeting, I had brought up to the staff a couple of days before, which I thought helped to show that what we're doing has put us all on the same page with addressing it, and that is to formulate a committee," he said. "What we've discussed is having two commissioners on it, members of staff and members of the public — a monthly meeting working on progress, figuring out what needs to be done, what's next, how can we finance and all of those things. "We absolutely need to make this our fiscal court partnership with the members of the public, that we can select to put on this committee, to make this a reality of going at things to address the issue.
" Chris Castlen said he's also working with the state to set up a presentation for the public to better understand the dynamics of the flooding issue. While more information is certain to be embraced, Charlie Castlen anticipates many hurdles. "The truth of the matter is, the last time there was a massive project done was the late-1960s, and that was prior to the Environmental Protection Agency's creation and it was also prior to the Clean Water Act being passed, and both of those put pretty much handcuffs on what we can do," he said.
"Even if we laid it out and said we want to do this, this and this, and we think this would be beneficial, the truth of the matter is most of it we can't do, and if we wanted to do it, we may be able to do it going through a permitting process, but the permitting process is part of what drives the cost tremendously high." Conder acknowledges it's an incredibly complex issue, but one he believes the court must do all in its power to improve. "There are so many contributing factors, probably 20 different things, that stack on top of each other, that cause this to occur," he said.
"Taking action that has a positive impact, that's the key. These other individuals have taken action, but has it been positive? It's a big issue. "But at the end of the day, maybe we should try, so the public knows we actually care.
".
