Clay County commissioners decline to advance $250,000 federal planning grant for river access study

At the Oct. 26 meeting of the Clay County Board of Commissioners, a motion to request that Federal Highways obligate $250,000 in Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) funds for a planning study of access to the Missouri National Recreational River failed.

The grant application would have funded a planning project limited by the county to four possible subprojects: (1) evaluating a section-line extension to a riverside launch site, (2) studying a safer nonmotorized route from Vermillion to Clay County Park, (3) exploring improvements at Myron Grove, and (4) studying changes at Clay County Park intended to separate motorized and nonmotorized launches. County staff said the grant would pay for planning and public engagement rather than construction.

The county’s staff presentation said the program is federal and that those funds flow from Federal Highways to the State of South Dakota; earlier in the process Federal Highways briefly froze obligations but later resumed them. The commission had previously applied, received the award with a reduced scope and issued a request for proposals; staff said five consultant proposals were received.

Public comment was extensive and sharply divided. Supporters told the commission the planning grant was a rare, competitive opportunity to document public preference and feasibility. “This grant opportunity is amazing because it gives us the opportunity to do the research we need to get the future funding,” said Christina Lee, a University of South Dakota teacher. Several speakers, including Suzanne Skirm and Kelly Ashby of the Clay County Park Board Association, urged commissioners to accept the funds so the county could use the planning document to seek construction funding from state or federal sources.

Opponents cautioned that a planning study often precedes a large construction project and that private property and landowner concerns needed stronger protection. “A $250,000 study, well, generally means a big project,” said Carson Merkwan, who identified himself as an engineer and opposed moving forward. Other residents asked for clearer, direct outreach to landowners and questioned whether the study would simply lead to efforts to use easements or eminent domain.

Jeffrey, the commissioner who presented the item, summarized the county’s aims and the grant’s limitations and said he wanted Federal Highways to obligate the funds so the county could ask proposers to revise schedules and timelines and then choose a consultant. “That’s my ask for this meeting,” he said.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to request that Federal Highways obligate the funds and to reopen selection of consultants once the state confirmed receipt; the motion failed on a voice vote. The board did not adopt any alternative direction at the meeting.

The FLAP grant and associated planning work remain a possible future action item; commissioners who supported the request said they wanted a robust public-engagement process if the county proceeds, and opponents said they wanted stronger assurances that no private land would be taken or that planning would move forward without clear landowner consent.

Votes at a glance: a motion to request Federal Highways obligate the FLAP funds and to allow proposers to revise timelines failed (motion text and outcome recorded in county minutes; mover and second not specified in the transcript).

Next steps: Because the motion failed, the county did not ask Federal Highways to obligate the award at that meeting. Commissioners and staff indicated they could revisit the question after further outreach or if the state confirms receipt of federal funds.