Since there has not been any "Official Action", the Ditch District inquired of the County on Dec 15th as to the status of this, and the response we received was this:

"Dear Ditch District Commissioner Jackmond,
        The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners, at this time, will not be taking any further action on this matter. Thank you and Happy Holidays.
Ramiro A. Chavez, P.E., PgMP
County Manager Thurston County "

In Washington State, there are Revised Codes of Washington (RCWs) or State Laws that govern "Drainage Ditch Districts"; those are known as "Title 85" laws .

The "Hopkins Drainage Ditch District #2 in Thurston County" (our legal name) was established in 1904 under RCW 85.06.  Drainage Ditch Law was written back in the 1880s or 1890s when people actually cooperated with each other.  There are several other portions of RCW Title 85 that also pertain to the operation of our Ditch District District.  Specifically, 85.07, 85.28, 85.32, 85.36, and portions of RCW 85.38 (the ones that do not pertain to "Improvement Districts" as our District did not re-organize into an "Improvement District" as is allowed by 85.20 or 85.22).

According to the RCW and the Superior Court Action in 1904 that created us, presently we only assess the Land that, according to the 1904 Survey Map, "would be swamp without the Ditch".  The assessment is $5 per "Assess-able Acre" and shown on the Property Tax Bill from Thurston County as "Hopkins Ditch" - this presently is the ONLY revenue source for the Ditch District and amounts to $2471.20 per year in total Revenue from this assessment.

RCW 85.32 is clear in the intent that the Legislature had when it was made into Law in 1961.
85.32 - Drainage district revenue act of 1961.
85.32.010 Declaration of necessity and purpose.
"The maintenance of drainage districts is essential to the economy of the state. The influx of population and changes in land use since many such districts were formed, has made obsolete and unjust the method used under existing law to provide funds for the operation of such districts and for the maintenance and expansion of its drainage systems. Also, in many instances, properties lying outside of the territorial limits of such districts, have been and are being developed in such a manner that waters therefrom, through artificial rather than natural processes, are accumulated and discharged for outlet upon lands within such districts, and the facilities of such district are used without charge to furnish service and benefit to such lands. To furnish remedy for such situations where they are found to exist the state declares that it has an interest therein and this chapter is passed"

In January of 2022 the Ditch District experienced the worst flooding in recent history (1979 to current).  This flooding was only experienced upstream of Tilley Road (WA State Highway 121) and exhibited by a 6" overflow of Tilley Road for in excess of 4 days and receded very slowly.  Resolutions 2022 - 0003 through 0005 detail the Declaration of a Disaster or Emergency by the District and what the District determined caused the flood.

The development is within the City of Tumwater, therefore all "development requirements and fees" are required by and paid to the City of Tumwater, so the Ditch District has no authority over the Developers.  Likewise, the Ditch District, being a "minor Special District", has no authority over the City of Tumwater, and there are no RCWs that give the Ditch District any such authority or any rights to "sue" the City of Tumwater (take them to court) to make the City do anything.  Furthermore, the City has much deeper pockets than the Ditch District and also has Staff and Attorneys on their payroll. 

RCW 35.21.210 (CITIES AND TOWNS - Miscellaneous provisions - Sewerage, drainage, and water supply) indicates that "any city or town may, as part of maintaining a system of sewers and drains ...  participate in and expend revenue on cooperative watershed management actions"  "within or without the corporate limits of such city".  In fact, the "Finding—Intent—2003 c 327: See note following RCW 39.34.190" is clear that the Legislature expects cooperation: "By participating in cooperative watershed management actions, local governments, special districts, and utilities are acting in the public interest and in a manner that is intended to sustain maximum beneficial use and high quality of water over time and to maintain the services that these entities provide. Therefore, it is the intent of this act to remove statutory barriers that may prevent local governments from working together in the creation and implementation of cooperative, coordinated watershed plans. In addition, it is the further intent of this act to provide additional authorities to assist in such implementation".
The problem here is that the Ditch District has approached the City of Tumwater several times and the CIty has refused any assistance with this problem.  The real point of interest here is that, in Tumwater City Fund 411 (Storm Drain Utility Fund, paid for mostly by "Storm Drainage Fees" on the City Utility Bill) there is an excess of $4.8M at the end of 2022 (identified as the "Ending Fund balance").

The Commissioners are leaning on provisions of RCW 85.06.220 which in summary say,
"All costs for the enlarging or improving of said lower system that may be required shall be assessed to the landowners in the upper district according to the benefits to be derived from the construction of said entire system, and no additional cost shall be thrown upon the lower district".  The water coming from the Preserve developments constitutes an "upper district", and the Hopkins Ditch District is the "lower district".

The "Upstream South-Fork east of Hart Road" is indeed not directly downstream from the "85.32 Annexation properties", therefore the work to be done on that portion of the Ditch will not "charged to the account of work required by the Disaster or Emergency".  Only the improvements of the channel of the Ditch between Tilley Road and 93rd Ave (including the south fork up to Hart Road) will be charged to "the 85.32 Action".