Senate committee hears testimony on bill to fund rural bridge repairs

Senator Paul Thomas, sponsor of Senate Bill 2151, told the Senate Appropriations Government Operations Division that the bill would dedicate $100 million per biennium from Legacy Fund earnings to a long-term rural-bridge program aimed at county and township needs.

“The bill I bring to you today deals with the infrastructure deficiencies that we have across the entire state of North Dakota,” Senator Thomas said during opening remarks. He described bridges rated below legal loads and closed crossings as “critical needs,” and urged steady, predictable funding so counties and contractors can plan and respond.

Thomas and multiple county and township representatives cited data from the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute and the North Dakota Department of Transportation showing a large and growing backlog of deficient bridges. Thomas said the institute identified about $1.08 billion in improvements and preventative maintenance needed for bridges 20 feet or longer on county and township roads over the next five bienniums; other witnesses referenced the institute’s related figures for shorter structures and a near-term backlog of several hundred million dollars.

Testimony painted a patchwork of local impacts. Todd Weber, vice president of the North Dakota Township Officers Association, told the committee that “in Cass County alone, there are 582 bridges,” including 354 township crossings and 228 county bridges; he said about 94 township bridges there need replacement or repair. Lance Johnson, representing McHenry County, said his county had five closed bridges and roughly 50 bridges posted for weight limits. Witnesses from Walsh, Pembina, Renville, Bottineau and other counties echoed concerns about posted load limits that block agricultural and energy-hauling traffic, lengthen detours and accelerate wear on remaining routes.

On program design, Senator Thomas proposed allocating 80 percent of the funds to counties by formula based on need and reserving 20 percent as a competitive pot administered by the Department of Transportation for counties with smaller inventories. He also suggested the state could help counties meet cost-share requirements by offering lower-interest bonding through the Bank of North Dakota. Thomas noted that prior one-time appropriations and ARPA money had helped, but said the inconsistent timing of those funds discouraged contractor investment and made local long-term planning difficult.

Witnesses from producer and industry groups — including the North Dakota Farm Bureau, North Dakota Soybean Growers Association, North Dakota Corn Growers Association, North Dakota Farmers Union, North Dakota Grain Growers and the Associated General Contractors of North Dakota — uniformly supported the bill’s goal of predictable funding. Pete Hanover of the Farm Bureau said many rural bridges “were built under different weight limits than what we deal with now.” Carrie Burke of the contractors’ association said predictable, multibiennium funding would encourage firms to invest in the equipment and workforce needed to bid rural bridge projects.

Several testifiers emphasized public-safety and service-delivery consequences: longer emergency response times, bus-route extensions when school-route bridges are downgraded, and difficulty delivering inputs and grain to market. Witnesses linked the problem to more rigorous inspection regimes, increased engineering standards, and the loss of previous flexible inspection practices; many described an acceleration in the number of bridges newly classified as deficient after state DOT and private engineering inspections in recent years.

Committee members pressed technical and fiscal questions. Senators asked how the amounts would be allocated among counties, whether the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute breakdown could be used to set county shares, and how the proposal would interact with the governor’s budget priorities, including proposed property-tax relief and other Legacy Fund allocations. Senator Dwyer and others discussed tradeoffs between dedicating Legacy Fund earnings to bridges versus the governor’s property-tax relief and highway funding proposals.

No committee vote on Senate Bill 2151 took place at the hearing. The committee closed the testimony portion, announced a brief recess and moved on to other budget work. Committee staff and agency representatives said they would provide additional detail to members on budget scoring, the cost-to-continue calculations and how prior one-time appropriations and proposed ongoing appropriations interact with the Senate’s budget options.

The hearing record included dozens of local counts and cost estimates: examples offered by multiple witnesses included bridge replacement costs that have risen from a few hundred thousand dollars per structure in earlier decades to typical modern replacements commonly exceeding $1 million and in some cases several million dollars; hydrology studies estimated at $10,000–$20,000 per site; and county-level inventories showing dozens of bridges rated below legal loads in multiple counties. Witnesses urged a multi-biennial funding stream so counties, townships and contractors can plan and avoid the stop‑and‑start cycle created by one-time appropriations.

The committee indicated staff will follow up with written material from the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute and with details on how the Senate might score and fund a program if it chooses to act. With testimony concluded, the committee chair closed the hearing on Senate Bill 2151 and recessed the meeting.