Hrc 3019?



Walleye_Chaser

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Posts
2,137
Likes
159
Points
293
Location
Fargo
So the ACOE are the owners of this land and now they want to sell it back to the families that previously owned the land?
 

BAW

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2016
Posts
20
Likes
0
Points
61
Isn't that special that the original landowners family might be able to buy their land back, but the Tribes were given their land back. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that racist.:D
 


Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,371
Likes
2,204
Points
758
Location
Mobridge,Sd
better flood some emails make some calls and have some one do some talking up there today. Look what happened to HR 621 when the people spoke
 

johnr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
20,148
Likes
3,993
Points
813
Location
Dickinson
"A concurrent resolution requesting the Army Corps of Engineers exercise nondiscrimination in public land management and develop, in cooperation with the North Dakota Board of University and School Lands, a process consistent with this resolution to allow prior owners, their heirs, and their successors to repurchase eligible land within the Pick‑Sloan Missouri Basin project."

This is absolute Bullshit. The land is no longer owed to anyone in particular. If it needs to be sold off, just like anything else, it needs to go to the highest bidder.

No effn way the family that once owned it gets precedence over anyone else. The land was bought with public money, and should be returned to the public for an open bid. I would say this same thing if my grandpa was the former owner too.
Pisses me straight off, that this would even be considered.

My father once owned a home along the river in south Fargo, the government now has that land as its a flood zone, but if they fix the flood zone with the western ND oil money, and the land can be used again, I guess dad will be the one that gets first option, being that's how this shit is going to work now.. (retarded)
 

Duckslayer100

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Posts
4,611
Likes
189
Points
293
Location
ND's Flatter Half
You can't tell me some wealthy landowners with bugs in Bismarck's ear aren't trying to get this through so they can get their land back in the family rotation for pennies on the dollar. F'n BS.
 

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
So lands that were taken by the govt (yes compensation was paid but how many families would have sold these lands if the govt had not said they had to) for the benefit of the public, have now been determined by that govt that there are "excess" lands that are not needed should not be allowed to be purchased by the families or heirs at "fair market value" prior to being put up for sale to the public?

This bill calls for "nondiscrimination" in that the acres that are being given to the tribe should be handled in the same manner the other acres are.

Remember that had these families not "agreed" to sell to the govt, these lands would have been taken and compensation may have varied greatly.

Back in the day these lands were "taken" for this project there was a very different process and those owning lands were not given the protections and considerations that the courts have provided today. If the govt said they wanted your lands, you sold or paid the price.

If these families are actually paying fair market value if these lands are sold, the public is getting a pretty good return on their monies
 

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,371
Likes
2,204
Points
758
Location
Mobridge,Sd
Problem i see with that is the Indians had all this land taken even before that so should they not have the option to buy back or should they get back the land because it was their heirs to start with? I find this different than states taking back public land as that can still be public ( just an example)but this is a for sure private land so access will be cut off. I will never advocate for anything that is a for sure cut to public having access. There is no reason for this bill other than politicians having "someone" chirping in there ear
 


NodakBuckeye

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
2,816
Likes
42
Points
261
Location
Watford City
My family lost a few 1000 acres to the ACOE for a flood control dam and state park. State turned their cabin into a place to stay. Got to spend a couple nights in a place where my mom and uncle spent their childhood summers with family. Only wish I have would be that their history would be told in the state's version of the story that guest's read when they stay. Selling/giving back opens a whole can of worms; it became public and it should stay public, in my humble opinion.
 

Blitzkrieg

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Posts
44
Likes
0
Points
76
I contacted representatives Porter and Toman in my district thanking them for their No vote and asked Senator Cook to do the same. I noticed that representatives Martinson and Karls from District 35 in Bismarck voted against it as well, hopefully Senator Oban follows suit. Representatives Becker and Dockter voted for it who are from District 7 also in Bismarck. What is up with these two clowns? If you are from that district I would send them emails hammering on them for their vote and hopefully Senator Poolman from that District does not make the same mistake. If one of my representatives votes for this they will know they will never get my support during election time again.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is the list of the people in the house that voted for it.

YEAS:
Becker, Rich S.; Becker, Rick C.; Boehning; Brabandt; Brandenburg; Damschen;
Dobervich; Dockter; Ertelt; Grueneich; Hanson; Hatlestad; Headland; Johnson, C.;
Johnson, D.; Johnston; Jones; Kading; Kasper; Kempenich; Kiefert; Koppelman, B.;
Koppelman, K.; Laning; Louser; Magrum; Maragos; Marschall; McWilliams; Monson;
O'Brien; Oliver; Olson; Pollert; Ruby, D.; Satrom; Schatz; Schmidt; Schneider;
Seibel; Simons; Skroch; Steiner; Streyle; Trottier; Weisz; Westlind; Zubke; Speaker
Bellew
 

bowhuntnd

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Posts
16
Likes
0
Points
61
What's the update on this? Is it back in the house? Email your reps!
 

ItemB

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Posts
1,296
Likes
9
Points
191
[QUOTE

- - - Updated - - -

Here is the list of the people in the house that voted for it.

YEAS:
Becker, Rich S.; Becker, Rick C.; Boehning; Brabandt; Brandenburg; Damschen;
Dobervich; Dockter; Ertelt; Grueneich; Hanson; Hatlestad; Headland; Johnson, C.;
Johnson, D.; Johnston; Jones; Kading; Kasper; Kempenich; Kiefert; Koppelman, B.;
Koppelman, K.; Laning; Louser; Magrum; Maragos; Marschall; McWilliams; Monson;
O'Brien; Oliver; Olson; Pollert; Ruby, D.; Satrom; Schatz; Schmidt; Schneider;
Seibel; Simons; Skroch; Steiner; Streyle; Trottier; Weisz; Westlind; Zubke; Speaker
Bellew
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the list of people who to NOT vote ever again.
 


Fly Carpin

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2015
Posts
2,585
Likes
214
Points
303
Location
Helena, MT
If they're going to keep beating this same dead horse, I say we bust out our favorite stick. The project purposes. Then we can see how much land is really "excess".

Lake Oahe Project Purposes:
Flood control
Navigation
Hydroelectric power
Fish and wildlife management
Recreation
Irrigation
Municipal and Industrial H20 supply
Water quality

If those lands in question are being used for recreation, they're not excess. Think I'm going to get that sentence as a tattoo for as often as this comes up lately
 

Blitzkrieg

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Posts
44
Likes
0
Points
76
[QUOTE

- - - Updated - - -

Here is the list of the people in the house that voted for it.

YEAS:
Becker, Rich S.; Becker, Rick C.; Boehning; Brabandt; Brandenburg; Damschen;
Dobervich; Dockter; Ertelt; Grueneich; Hanson; Hatlestad; Headland; Johnson, C.;
Johnson, D.; Johnston; Jones; Kading; Kasper; Kempenich; Kiefert; Koppelman, B.;
Koppelman, K.; Laning; Louser; Magrum; Maragos; Marschall; McWilliams; Monson;
O'Brien; Oliver; Olson; Pollert; Ruby, D.; Satrom; Schatz; Schmidt; Schneider;
Seibel; Simons; Skroch; Steiner; Streyle; Trottier; Weisz; Westlind; Zubke; Speaker
Bellew
Thanks for the list of people who to NOT vote ever again.[/QUOTE]

Add these to the list of who to never vote for again. These are the Yea's from the Senate vote. I am extremely disappointed in my Senator Cook and will save this vote and make it very public during his next campaign. He is now on the conference committee. Email these guys and let them know how you feel.

YEAS:

Anderson; Armstrong; Bekkedahl; Bowman; Burckhard; Campbell; Casper;
Clemens; Cook; Davison; Dever; Dotzenrod; Erbele; Grabinger; Heckaman; Hogue;
Holmberg; Kannianen; Kilzer; Klein; Krebsbach; Kreun; Laffen; Larsen, O.;
 

espringers

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Posts
8,213
Likes
938
Points
438
Location
Devils Lake
I emailed my senator and he responded and we had an actual dialogue. Maybe he already made up his mind before i contacted him. But, he voted no.
 

Colt45

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Posts
1,041
Likes
144
Points
238
Pretty sure this is how the vote went down on the 28th, not like what was posted earlier............ my senator voted no while his name appears as a yes vote on previous posts.........

HCR 3019: SEN. KREUN (Energy and Natural Resources Committee) MOVED that the
amendments on SJ pages 908-909 be adopted and then be placed on the Fourteenth order
with DO PASS.

REQUEST
SEN. ARMSTRONG REQUESTED a verification vote, which request was granted.
The proposed amendments to HCR 3019 were adopted on a verification vote.

SECOND READING OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
HCR 3019: A concurrent resolution requesting the Army Corps of Engineers exercise
nondiscrimination in public land management and develop, in cooperation with the
North Dakota Board of University and School Lands, a process consistent with this
resolution to allow prior owners, their heirs, and their successors to repurchase
eligible land within the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin project.

REQUEST
SEN. GRABINGER REQUESTED a recorded roll call vote on the adoption of HCR 3019, as
amended, which request was granted.

ROLL CALL
The question being on the final adoption of the amended resolution, which has been read,
and has committee recommendation of DO PASS. The roll was called and there were
25 YEAS, 20 NAYS, 0 EXCUSED, 2 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.

YEAS: Armstrong; Bekkedahl; Bowman; Casper; Clemens; Cook; Davison; Erbele; Hogue;
Kannianen; Klein; Kreun; Laffen; Larsen, O.; Lee, G.; Luick; Myrdal; Oehlke; Osland;
Poolman; Roers; Rust; Vedaa; Wanzek; Wardner

NAYS: Anderson; Campbell; Dever; Dotzenrod; Grabinger; Heckaman; Holmberg; Kilzer;
Krebsbach; Larson, D.; Lee, J.; Marcellais; Mathern; Meyer; Nelson; Oban;
Piepkorn; Robinson; Sorvaag; Unruh

ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Burckhard; Schaible
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 132
  • This month: 118
  • This month: 70
  • This month: 64
  • This month: 59
  • This month: 56
  • This month: 54
  • This month: 51
  • This month: 49
  • This month: 45
Top Bottom