Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harney County schedules field hearing for disputed East Steens Road realignment near Andrews
Summary
After decades of discussion over a proposed realignment around the Andrews townsite, the Harney County Court agreed to schedule a field hearing in June to gather testimony and inspect the site before deciding whether to vacate or implement a 2007 legalization order that would change the county road inventory.
Long‑standing disagreement over a proposed East Steens Road realignment that would bypass the small Andrews townsite resurfaced at the Harney County Court meeting May 6. The court reviewed a 2007 legalization order that created a new county right‑of‑way (road number 201) and heard from landowners who said the alignment would take irrigated ranch land and harm stock water infrastructure.
Belinda Davis read a letter on behalf of Davis Ranch and the Cooney Ranch that outlined concerns about grazing, stock water and the impacts of taking ranch land for the realignment. "These projects are very important to our future," she told the court, and asked that the court "take into consideration using the least amount of Davis Ranch's and Farm's land if possible." The Davis letter also noted that Andrews has few permanent residents and urged the court to consider signage and enforcement as a lower‑cost alternative to a $1,000,000‑plus realignment estimated by a commissioner.
Court staff and the road supervisor reviewed the record and maps, explained that a portion of the road had been legalized and that rights‑of‑way surveys exist. Commissioners discussed cost, impacts to private land (including possible takings), timing with a federal paving grant that will pave through the area in 2028 and alternatives such as additional signage, temporary traffic enforcement and selective mitigation. A road supervisor noted county standards for taking a road into inventory (24‑foot width, bridges, gravel) and said the county has not added roads to its inventory in decades.
Decision and next steps: The court agreed to hold a field visit and a public hearing in June (the court discussed aiming for June 11 or a nearby date) so that commissioners and the public can see the alignment and hear testimony before deciding whether to vacate the legalized right‑of‑way or move forward with realignment. The court directed staff to compile records and maps, make copies for interested parties and advertise the hearing.
Why it matters: The decision would affect private land, grazing and water infrastructure in an arid landscape currently in drought. Commissioners emphasized that if the court abandons the legalized new right‑of‑way, it should do so formally; if it keeps the order, it must consider financing and the potential effect on a pending federal paving grant.
Attribution: Road supervisor summarized legal and technical constraints; landowner Belinda Davis presented the written objection; commissioners and the judge discussed scheduling a field hearing and procedural steps.
