Agwrx Explores Vacating Road Right-of-Way Near Watertown; Codington County Reviews Jurisdiction

Northeast Radio SD News – Watertown, SD - Representatives from Agwrx Cooperative and Codington County officials met Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2026, to examine the legal process for vacating an unbuilt 66-foot road right-of-way near Lake Pelican southwest of Watertown.

Agwrx Cooperative CEO Kent Borstad approached the Codington County Board of Commissioners after a recent land survey identified the dedicated right-of-way bordering the cooperative’s property just southwest of Watertown and northeast of Lake Pelican. According to plats in the county commission’s agenda packet, the 66-foot road right-of-way runs adjacent to the Pelican View Addition and the Watertown Crop Nutrients, LLC Addition in Section 12, Township 116 North, Range 53 West, within the Municipality of Watertown.

"We just recently did a survey at our property just southwest of Watertown, just northeast of Pelican," Borstad told the commission. "And typically when you have a survey, you find out where your property ends. This one is why I'm here today. Discovered some opportunities where there is a 66-foot road right-of-way. It has never been a road, never in my knowledge would ever be a road."

Borstad said the cooperative is planning for future growth on the site and wanted to know how the county wanted to handle the strip of land.

"And as we continue to look at making significant investments to continue the growth of that property, we're looking at a possibility of what the county would like to do with that said property," Borstad said. "And if there was interest in a purchase, we would definitely be interested. Not sure the procedure for that, Mr. Chairman."

Codington County Chairman Troy VanDusen invited Codington County Zoning Officer Luke Muller to explain the legal framework governing dedicated rights-of-way. Muller explained that because the 66-foot strip was formally dedicated as a right-of-way on historical plats, the county cannot simply sell the land directly to an adjacent landowner. Instead, it must go through a formal public vacation process.

"So the process on it, because it's a dedicated right-of-way, would be a public vacation of right-of-way is what it would wind up being, because it was dedicated as right-of-way at some point," Muller said. "That was actually, there was a request on that several years ago that was ultimately denied, but it was only a portion of it. Honestly, it was the opposite portion of what you're talking about. So from that standpoint, it's there, but the process is to petition a vacation."

Muller noted that when a platted right-of-way is vacated, ownership typically splits down the center between the bordering property owners rather than transferring entirely to one side.

"I will say this, typically in those cases, as far as I'm aware, right-of-way reverts back in a case like this, it would wind up because it was platted right-of-way, it would wind up reverting back half and half," Muller said. "So it'd go half to the owner on the east side, half to the owner on the west side. That is a question better left to an attorney than me. But in my experience, that's been the case ... because the county can't really just sell a right-of-way that was dedicated. And so you'd wind up having to go through a vacation process."

Adjacent Game, Fish and Parks Land

VanDusen asked Muller how nearby state land controlled by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (GFP) affects the right-of-way.

Muller confirmed that state Game, Fish and Parks land borders the west side of the right-of-way, while the platted right-of-way continues south and wraps along the southern edge of the GFP property. Under South Dakota law, a vacation cannot eliminate public access to state Game, Fish and Parks land, though Muller said he believes the state property would still retain access.

"So on the west side of that right-of-way is Game, Fish and Parks," Muller said. "And that, I think you had that plat too that shows that the right-of-way goes all the way down and then back along what then would be the south edge of Game and Fish property. So from a standpoint of providing access, you know, making sure that they still have it, there's a law that you can't take away Game and Fish's state access. I think they'd still have it. So I don't think that would be the limiting factor. But again, those are things that you pry on as you do it. But in order to do so, we'd have to turn it into private property, we'd have to go through the public vacation process."

City Annexation and Jurisdiction Questions

Codington County Commissioner Lee Gabel asked what the next step would be if Borstad wants to pursue vacating the right-of-way.

Muller said a landowner typically works with an attorney or surveyor to draft a formal petition to vacate the right-of-way, which then goes before the planning commission and governing board for public hearings. However, Muller urged Borstad to hold off on hiring someone to draft a petition until county staff can verify whether the City of Watertown annexed part of the right-of-way when the adjacent Watertown Crop Nutrients, LLC Addition was platted in August 2013.

"In the meantime, a couple of things that we're going to have to look up are information with regards to at the time of annexation," Muller said. "I'm a little bit curious as to whether or not—oftentimes when we would write annexation documents, it says the center line of any adjacent right-of-way. If this was a right-of-way at the time, which it was, if it was just a blanket statement like that, half of that right-of-way might be in the city, which complicates this further. If it's not, then it's specifically a county question, which muddies the question as to whether or not where the standing sits on the vacation of that, if this is in the county or not. And so in the end, it may wind up being something through the city."

When asked whether the Joint Jurisdiction Board of Adjustment could handle the issue, Muller explained that vacating a right-of-way is a legislative subdivision matter rather than a board of adjustment variance, meaning the city and county planning and governing boards would have to act independently if the boundary splits the right-of-way.

"I am naturally crying wolf a little bit here saying it could be very complicated or it could be very simple," Muller said. "But at this point, I want to prepare you for the fact that the question was asked in the past and it got substantially slowed down at the back end because homework was done kind of on the back end, and it stopped dead in its tracks at the back end."

VanDusen noted that Muller and Borstad will work together to research the annexation records and jurisdictional boundaries first to determine how to proceed.

"Initial first step, and I appreciate your consideration and input, Luke," Borstad said.

The Board of Commissioners took no formal action during Tuesday’s discussion.