Emmons County commissioners weigh costly road drainage fixes after repeated flooding and silt buildup

Emmons County commissioners spent part of a meeting discussing a long-running drainage and road deterioration problem caused by silt, manure and vegetation building berms that block outlet flows and swamp the roadbed.

The discussion centered on whether to pursue a major contracted reconstruction that would likely include a larger box culvert, dredging of the slough and easement acquisition — work that commissioners said would be expensive and could trigger costly wetland mitigation requirements. Commissioners and staff also discussed smaller, incremental steps already funded: a two‑mile cement stabilization project funded by a grant and applying for State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding as a way to qualify for future paving assistance.

Why it matters: commissioners said the road has been a known problem for decades and that earlier attempts to solve it ran into the same constraints — high contract costs, unknown easement expenses and potential environmental mitigation. Those limits mean any large project will need multiple funding sources and preexisting project commitments to fund necessary engineering work.

Commissioners described how silt and organic debris carried from nearby feedlots and upstream drainage collects behind a grass “filter” that gradually forms a berm and prevents the road from drying out. One commissioner said the berming can be relieved by dredging the slough and restoring flow, but cautioned that doing so requires permission from the landowner and could require coordination with state water boards and federal wetland rules.

Several participants noted that it is hard to obtain funding for stand‑alone engineering plans unless an applicant is committed to an actual construction project. ‘‘It’s very difficult to get funding for an engineering plan unless you’re gonna commit to a project,’’ a commissioner said during the meeting, adding that most grant sources expect a project plan rather than just preliminary engineering. Another commissioner urged taking incremental steps — for example completing the two‑mile cement stabilization now — to build credibility and improve chances of attracting larger funding later.

Commissioners also discussed seeking technical assistance from neighboring counties’ engineering departments to estimate costs and identify potential easement and environmental obstacles. They noted typical hidden costs for major road projects can include wetland mitigation and easement procurement, which sometimes far exceed initial construction estimates.

What’s next: commissioners signaled support for proceeding with the two‑mile cement stabilization funded by an existing grant and recommended continuing to research engineering options and partnerships (including discussing soils and project history with Morton County). They did not commit to a major reconstruction at the meeting and emphasized the need to identify funding and to confirm easement and mitigation costs before pursuing larger contracts.

The meeting record shows the topic was discussed in detail as part of the county’s miscellaneous and road‑project conversation; no formal motion to start a major reconstruction was made.

Ending: Commissioners said they will pursue the incremental stabilization project while continuing to evaluate engineering estimates, potential cooperation with neighboring counties and the likelihood of paying for wetland mitigation and easements before advancing a major culvert or paving project.