Landowner requests sub‑irrigation structure on Sour and Cox tile; county staff to get updated estimates

John Bridal, a Pulaski County landowner, asked the Drainage Board to reinstall a water‑control structure on the Sour and Cox tile to allow subirrigation and hold summer groundwater on his property.

Bridal told the board the tile and outlet have caused intermittent flooding and low wells over 27 years and that jetting and a relay installed two years ago improved flow but left him unable to hold water on his land. “For 27 years, we fought with a broken down drain that is actually my outlet into the Sauer And Cox tile,” Bridal said. He said the relay work two years ago left a structure near his property line but did not restore his prior ability to hold back water for gardens and shallow wells.

Board staff and Bridal discussed prior vendor quotes for a purpose‑built structure described in testimony as designed for subirrigation. Bridal and a vendor he spoke with reported earlier price estimates in the range of about $1,000 to $1,300 for the structure and roughly $1,000 for installation; Bridal said one vendor estimate he later received was about twice the earlier figure. Jenny, a county drainage staff member, said the county is not obligated to pay for a device that primarily benefits a single landowner and recommended confirming whether other landowners in the watershed would receive a measurable benefit.

Bridal said he believes three or more nearby wells were affected this summer and named neighbors who could benefit, including Jeff and Becky Stahlbaum and Richard Brick. Jenny told the board she would recheck pricing, confirm how much is available in the Sour and Cox maintenance fund and contact the other landowners Bridal identified to confirm whether they would share in costs.

The board did not take a formal vote on installing the structure. Instead members directed staff to get an updated vendor price, verify fund balances and confirm which landowners would benefit and would agree to contribute; staff will return with numbers at the next meeting.

If the device is still in the roughly $2,300 range discussed in testimony (structure plus installation), board members said they would consider paying for labor from county maintenance funds while asking benefiting landowners to reimburse the county for the structure itself, subject to fund availability and confirmation of shared benefit.