If you read the article in the Kearney newspaper (linked somewhere in this thread) it says that maintenance of the bridge is the responsiblity of the farmer on who's land it sits.....so under that theory the bridge would have to have damage coverage of some sort because there would be no liability to attach to the  farm liability policy.    It also says that "whenever possible" the bridges have been removed by the irrigation district. 

My guess would be that it will not be replaced.