Sherman County commissioners agree to 50/50 cost share to relocate private gas line tied to Road 32 bridge work

Sherman County commissioners voted to share the cost of relocating a private gas line that sits within a planned easement for the Road 32 bridge project, approving a motion to split the quoted easement cost roughly 50/50.

The decision matters because the county will widen and reconstruct the Road 32 bridge using state and federal funds. The landowners said a private gas line lies in the current ditch and pasture and that construction or subsequent fence-posting could damage it and interrupt irrigation wells that serve adjacent crop land.

Brent Cook, who identified himself as the property owner/trust representative for affected parcels, described how parts of the line currently run through the ditch and pasture and said engineers and county staff who visited the site expected fence posts and construction work to intersect the line. He presented a contractor quote showing the full reroute would be about 1,700 feet and said the easement segment under discussion would cost $3,975; splitting that estimate 50/50 would make the county share $1,987.50. Cook also asked that the county agree to advance the work before bridge construction to avoid later interruptions to irrigation.

Commissioners and staff discussed technical details: the initial contractor quote specified 1¼-inch pipe for the easement portion, but several participants recommended confirming whether a 2-inch line would be more appropriate for the long run to preserve pressure and capacity. County staff and the owner said the trenching cost would not change with a larger pipe but the pipe material cost would.

Commissioner remarks and the engineer’s site visit were cited in support of splitting the easement segment cost. A commissioner moved to approve the cost-share request with the expectation that the owner would confirm whether a 2-inch line should be installed and adjust the final bill accordingly. The motion passed on voice vote.

The discussion also noted uncertainty about the bridge schedule: the county had been told construction could begin as early as next spring or as late as September of the following year, and that bidders had not yet been selected. Cook and others said doing the reroute in advance reduced the risk of lost irrigation days and crop damage if the line were struck during construction.

The county did not set a firm reimbursement schedule in the meeting record; commissioners directed staff to coordinate with the owner and contractor to confirm pipe diameter and final costs before completing the work.

Votes at the meeting recorded the motion as approved by the commission.

The county will follow up with the landowner and contractor to settle the pipe-size question and finalize contracts and billing.