2016 Lake Sakakawea Land Transfer

[Tim Sandstrom]

UPDATE

Reminder: Tribal Land Transfer Meetings June 22 in Bismarck, June 23 in New Town. 30,000 acres impacted -- it's important to know more.


Wednesday, June 22 – Bismarck, North Dakota Heritage Center
Russell Reid Auditorium, 612 East Boulevard Ave.


Thursday, June 23 – New Town
4 Bears Casino Ballroom, 202 Frontage Rd.


At each location, the public can visit one-on-one with agency officials from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. to learn about the decision, hear about the proposed implementation and ask questions. A formal presentation will be made on the MOA, Final Effects Report and proposed implementation starting at 6:30 p.m. After the presentation Corps and BIA officials will be available to answer questions.

-------------------------

Well Nodak Angler I've been retired from most of the website chit chat but a topic too important to ignore is back. Going to bring some political action with me too but this won't be Trump versus the world. This is political items that will directly affect you as an outdoorsman. And sorry admin folk, links below do go to FBO so you'll be giving them some traffic but I hope you understand.

Per sources the land transfer of old is now back again and further along then it should be. A Corp official is quoted to say, "they [Army Corp of Engineers] were continuing to move forward with the project but didn't have a time frame." Furthermore, the ACOE told Hoeven's office "they are moving ahead with the project regardless of how you [the public] feels."

Basically the public has been ignorned, the facts have been ignored and the master manual is being ignored. You can bet your last dollar this presidency wants to make a splash and given the regime's history they don't give a damn what the people have to say. Especially the majority.

So what's next? Well its obviously early and the truths need to come out including time frame, justification, implications, etc. The difficult part will be getting details because in 2013 when this was a hot topic the ACOE wouldn't give information and the testimony and web site created to handle the previous transfer was removed from public access. More alarming, freedom of information requests were denied.

That's where we need public input. We need comments, we need action. Contact the Governor's office, contact Friends of Sakakawea, contact our state reprentatives. Ask them questions, give opinions if you have them. If you haven't formulated one, use the informational links below to get informed and then give your opinion to our representatives.

As a Matter of Fact (Article: Tim Sandstrom or Ladd Erickson 2005)

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (Article: Tim Sandstrom 2005-2006)

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back - Take Two (Article: Tim Sandstrom 2006)

Land Transfer - Interview with Ladd Erickson (Article: New Town News, Ladd Erickson 2006)

Lake Sak land transfer/3 Affiliated Tribes (Talk Forum 2005)

TAT - ACOE: The Land Transfer is Back (Talk Forum 2007)

2013 Proposed Lake Sakakawea Land Transfer (Talk Forum 2013)

HB 1338 - Transfer of Excess Lake Land (Talk Forum 2013)

Other Articles will be posted later (new FBO management is working to restore links)

Interactive Map of 2013 Transfer (same lands in 2016)

Interactive Link to Map (link is external)

Who to contact and how:

John Hoeven Bismarck, ND US Federal Building 220 East Rosser Avenue, Room 312 Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: 701-250-4618

Washington, D.C. 338 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington DC, 20510 Phone: 202-224-2551

Email: https://www.hoeven.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-the-senator


-----------

Heidi Heitkamp Bismarck Office 228 Federal Building 220 East Rosser Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: (701) 258-4648

Washington OfficeSH-502 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-2043

Email: https://www.heitkamp.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-heidi


-----------

Kevin Cramer Bismarck 220 East Rosser Avenue 328 Federal Building Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: 701-224-0355

Washington, DC Office 1032 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone: 202-225-2611

Email: https://cramer.house.gov/contact/email-me


-----------

Governor Jack Dalrymple Office of Governor State of North Dakota 600 East Boulevard Avenue Bismarck, ND 58505-0100 Phone: 701.328.2200 Email: http://governor.nd.gov/contact-us

-----------

ACOE Project Manager: Larry Janis

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn: CENWO-OD-T Larry Janis 1616 Capitol Ave. Omaha, Neb. 68102 Phone: 402-995-2440

Email: larry.d.janis@usace.army.mil

-----------

Linda F. Burke

Freedom of Information Act Officer http://www.usace.army.mil/FOIA.aspx (link is external) 1-202-761-8557 (Washington D.C.) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District ATTN: CENWO-OC 1616 Capitol Avenue, Suite 9000 Omaha NE 68102-4901

Email: linda.f.burke@usace.army.mil

-----------

Maggie Oldham

Chief, Public Affairs Office Omaha District - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Office: 402-995-2416 Mobile: 402-650-8154

Email: margaret.e.oldham@usace.army.mil

 

[Lycanthrope]

So Im confused why taking lands away from the feds and making them state is a bad thing. Wouldnt it make access to the lake easier? Why do you think these lands would end up in private hands? I dont see any reason to think they wouldnt just be made into state park and probably have accessibility increased? Why would anyone think this land would be 'given' to individuals and access be restricted?

 

[Kurtr]

Isnt this what they want out in oregon the feds give the land back to the state so the people of the state can decide what to do with the land? The way the COE f's stuff up i dont know if taking the land back from them would be a bad idea

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

Lands are transferred to the Three Affiiated Tribes and would become tribal jurisdiction.

And transferring to the state is illegal according to the master manual because no lands can be transferred if they are not in excess to the purpose of the Garrison Dam. Since recreation is a purpose...zero lands can be defined as excess.

If for some magical unicorn reason lands can be found to be in excess and a transfer was to occur, lands and the mineral rights should go to original owners or heirs. Not to another government entity or soverign nation.

 

[Kurtr]

Well if it is not going to stay public i guess the coe should keep it

 

[Obi-Wan]

Tim Do you have a dog in this fight? ( family land that was bought for the dam or water storage )

If the land goes back to the state I know there is a few ND state legislators that want it returned the original owners. This land was bought at fair market value and should remain property of the people for use by everyone.

 

[johnr]

The land could become unexcisable? Making certain camp grounds and boat ramps unusable?
Is that the fear for the most part?

I like to use the lake and land that our taxes paid for, not sure the tax base the tribe has put towards our ramps and recreation in comparison to what they receive for some unknown reason, but I am sure hoping that the land stays to the use of all of us.

 

[eyexer]

very important! the land is not going back to the state. it's going to the tribe. what happens after that is anybodies guess. they could deny access to the lake from any of that land. they could charge huge amounts to access the lake from that land. why the land wouldn't be returned to the original land owners is the big question. I cannot imagine this getting through the courts. But natives have done some amazing things through the court system

 

[espringers]

They shouldn't go back to original owners either. They were already compensated and could also deny access. This land needs to stay in control of the feds. If it's given to anyone else, it needs to be with perpetual easements for continuous public access.

 

[Riggen&Jiggen]

Basically what this means is that currently there is a ring of land around Sak to the waters edge that the Corp currently manages and is responsible for. The Corp wants to turn this land back to the private sector. Meaning the land portion of Sak that is not in the reservation would go to the highest bidder. The portion that exists within the boundaries of the reservation would go back to the Tribe. This means that access could be limited, charged, or cut off depending on what the new land owner decides to do. Also this may open up further avenues for the tribe to litigate for more control over Sak. What if the tribe decides they want rights to net fish? If the Corp does not wants to give the land back there should be a solution brought about that the state gets control. But like Tim mentioned that would mean that a lot of laws would have to be changed in the current structure of the Corp. On the surface first reaction is that is not such a bad deal but when dig a little deeper and fully understand it that is when you say OH F*ck No.

 

[Vollmer]

Being that this is under the Obama administration, I hope that everyone realizes that there is a hidden, and very negative (even evil), purpose for doing this.

 

[espringers]

To stick it to whitey?

 

[Bed Wetter]

Thanks for chiming in, Timmers. 10-4

- - - Updated - - -

Wait, wasn't it tribal netting that destroyed the Mil Lacs fishery? Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong lake? Anyway, that would be CATASTROPHIC.

 

[NodakBuckeye]

I cannot imagine the hassles that will ensue if it goes through. If it does, I am going to demand they give my Mom's family the 1800 acres they took back in Ohio for a flood control res and park. Might need to change sex, last name, skin color, etc... to have a shot though. Those with interests around other reservations better be paying attention.

I think the tribe has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can be trusted to manage an income source for the betterment of all, right? Best roads, schools, etc... in the state right there. What could go wrong?

 

[Sum1]

Im changing my last name to ole Two Bears Running. Gonna get me some!

 

[eyexer]

Thanks for chiming in, Timmers. 10-4

- - - Updated - - -

Wait, wasn't it tribal netting that destroyed the Mil Lacs fishery? Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong lake? Anyway, that would be CATASTROPHIC.

yes it's Mille Lacs. It'll never be the same, the natives destroyed it. And the state won't stand up to them.

 

[Account Deleted]

Again with this? Relentless. Another round of emails tonight I guess.

 

[Enslow]

yes it's Mille Lacs. It'll never be the same, the natives destroyed it. And the state won't stand up to them.

Oh really according to people on nodak angler slot limits were the reason for the issues on mille lacs i thought...

 

[eyexer]

Oh really according to people on nodak angler slot limits were the reason for the issues on mille lacs i thought...

hell no lol. They net something like 500,000 lbs a year out of it. It's been an issue forever. It's the same reason they shut down fishing on upper red lake. Natives netted out all the fish and got busted for selling them to high end restaurants. Slot limits were put in place just so they could continue fishing the lake. Now that it's been netted out so bad they're about to the point they have to close it completely. They closed down night fishing last year also.

 

[Kentucky Windage]

I know I will upset 2 bears running, but IMO, it should not go to the Indian reservation. I'm undecided about the sale to the public. It could limit access to the lake but it could open opportunity for cabins, boat ramps, camp sites, etc. I am pretty sure I am not a fan of the Core though.