Griggs County weighs alternatives to ‘load pass’ as pipeline work could bring heavy equipment

Griggs County commissioners devoted the central portion of their Jan. 5 meeting to whether and how to control heavy-equipment traffic tied to upcoming pipeline work, after contractors and local road managers warned that the state’s and third‑party load‑pass permitting models could saddle small local firms with large fees.

Commissioners and guests discussed examples of current permit costs and how they are assessed. An unidentified contractor presented a load-pass example that would charge $5,232 to move a large excavator about 13 miles on county roads, and contrasted that with a state single‑trip permit the presenter said can cost roughly $68 for long-distance moves. Commissioners and contractors also cited a separate case where moving a 4 90 excavator three local miles under a county/pass arrangement cost roughly $600 while the state permit for the remainder of the trip was about $68.

The discussion focused on two core concerns: (1) who bears the fee burden—local contractors said high per‑mile charges will be passed on to customers and could disproportionately affect small, local firms; and (2) where most road damage will occur—commissioners noted that high-frequency gravel loads (estimated at thousands of loads per mile for the pipeline work) are likely to create the majority of wear, not the relatively infrequent movements of large, indivisible equipment that require load‑pass permits.

Why it matters: the county must balance preserving local roads and capturing reasonable cost recovery without imposing fees or administrative burdens that prompt contractors to bypass permitting. Commissioners noted the potential for noncompliance if costs are excessive: speakers warned that unreasonable fees would encourage some operators to move equipment without permits.

What was proposed: commissioners and staff discussed alternatives to the third‑party load‑pass model, including drafting county road‑use agreements or a county-issued blanket permit for recurring local haulers, exempting certain local operators from repeated per‑trip fees, and using weather‑ or condition‑based road closures to limit damage during soft road seasons. Staff said they would draft revised haul-permit language and explore a county agreement with local contractors to avoid the highest third‑party fees.

Next steps: the commission asked staff to continue work and to invite a Foster County commissioner to a future meeting for a detailed briefing on that county’s permitting approach. Commissioners expressed interest in seeing a written road‑use agreement or annual permit that balances administrative practicality with the county’s need to limit damage from sustained heavy haul traffic.

Quote from the meeting: Linda (county staff) summarized the practical stakes for the county’s roads and the need for workable local rules: “We just wanted to show you where it was at,” and commissioners agreed to keep working on a locally tailored solution.

The commission did not take a formal vote on a new heavy‑haul policy at the Jan. 5 meeting; discussion will continue at a later date with invited input from Foster County officials.