Watonwan County

Watonwan County, Minnesota

710 7th Ave S
Saint James, MN 56081
Phone: (507) 375-1236
Fax: (507) 375-5010

In south-central MN, southwest of Mankato; established Feb 25, 1860 from Brown County. Name Origin: For the Watonwan River, whose head steams flow through the county; probably from a Dakota word meaning 'where fish bait can be found' or 'where fish abound.'

Area (sq mi):: 439.92 (land 434.51; water 5.40) Population per square mile: 25.90
Population 2005: 11,234 State rank: 66 Population change: 2000-20005 -5.40%; 1990-2000 1.70% Population 2000: 11,876 (White 82.90%; Black or African American 0.40%; Hispanic or Latino 15.20%; Asian 0.90%; Other 10.20%). Foreign born: 8.00%. Median age: 38.60
Income 2000: per capita $16,413; median household $35,441; Population below poverty level: 9.80% Personal per capita income (2000-2003): $22,854-$26,406
Unemployment (2004): 4.60% Unemployment change (from 2000): 1.00% Median travel time to work: 17.70 minutes Working outside county of residence: 25.30%
Cities with population over 10,000: None
See other counties in .
Counties USA: A Directory of United States Counties, 3rd Edition. © 2006 by Omnigraphics, Inc.
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
James, Minnesota or Watonwan County, Minnesota, and then to shareholders of record of Wells on April 30, 2015.
Watonwan County Sheriff James Glispin faced off with Charlie Pitts, five yards apart in a stand of willows.
Watonwan County, Minnesota; past, present, and future.
McKnight (Scandinavian studies and Swedish, Gustavus Adolphus College) offers a social history of Watonwan County, Minnesota, that emphasizes the story of its people and what they have accomplished since its first settlements in the 1860s.
A18-0452 In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Struhs (Watonwan County)
Wooten (Watonwan County) https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2018/OPa171356-040218.pdf     Relationship Evidence Prejudice In this appeal from his convictions of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, domestic assault, violation of an order for protection, and terroristic threats, appellant argued that the District Court abused its discretion by permitting the state to introduce relationship evidence and Spreigl evidence.