2016 Lake Sakakawea Land Transfer

[Rowdie]

Didn't ND get in on the JTAC back in the early 2000's??? This basically all ready happened in SD. The state got the land above the high water mark, and the tribes did too. Now all the free parks and boat ramps are state parks, that require an access fee. The tribes are all a little different I'm guessing. I know SR makes you get a day pass, but all you have to do is buy something from the marina there and you get one.

 

[Kurtr]

Didn't ND get in on the JTAC back in the early 2000's??? This basically all ready happened in SD. The state got the land above the high water mark, and the tribes did too. Now all the free parks and boat ramps are state parks, that require an access fee. The tribes are all a little different I'm guessing. I know SR makes you get a day pass, but all you have to do is buy something from the marina there and you get one.

Well it depends last weekend you didnt need one the people at the bay did not know what we were talking about when asked about a yearly pass. With a little management and work the bay could be a top shelf resort and marina and boat landing but it seems to go down a little more every year. I didnt live here when it was Jeds landing but have heard stories and it sounded like that place was cool back in the day or maybe just the stories are making it better than it was.

 

[Rowdie]

It was ok, It was nice to be able to have a few beers out on the back deck. Camp gound with the COPRPS was a lot better. They didn't shut down the parties. Didn't have to have a pass to drive out to Revheim, and people could camp for free anywhere not in a park. Blue Blanket was a blast over the 4th, well a lot of weekends. Now to go anywhere on the state side you need a flipping sticker, or day pass.

 

[YATYAS]

Well it depends last weekend you didnt need one the people at the bay did not know what we were talking about when asked about a yearly pass. With a little management and work the bay could be a top shelf resort and marina and boat landing but it seems to go down a little more every year. I didnt live here when it was Jeds landing but have heard stories and it sounded like that place was cool back in the day or maybe just the stories are making it better than it was.

I spent some time there the past two summers and thought it was fine both years. Actually made improvements with a new fish cleaning station the second year so not sure how that is going down a little. Did not need a pass to access the lake. Did not see a sign stating that anyone needed to pay anywhere.

 

[guywhofishes]

The tribe has already approved pipeline crossing. It's no surprise given the fact a tribal member(s) are part owners in the company.

Some say access will be better paying a 30 dollar access fee. Play that card if you wish. I have not been able to purchase a deer rifle tag for many years because the tribe thinks non-members do not need a tag. So that means 30,000 acres I could hunt are now gone, completely for the purpose of a rifle tag.

Gst, authority does not exist to transfer to the state and most likely never will. The 30000 acres available for grazing bids will now be controlled by the tribe. You won't necessarily like that outcome. Come take a look at the acres of quality farm land turned to weeds because the leasing tribal member asks erroneous amounts of cash rent. That's hundreds of miles of shoreline cattle could find a tough way to water.

The tribal game and fish really only agrees to the MOU with NDGF because the Corp land created a negotiation piece. We pay them 25000 not to charge access fees and require tribal fishing licenses. So who's to say what's next?

Hundreds of thousands of taxes in lieu will be gone to counties within reservation.

The list can go on.

Bottom line there are no excess acres per definition. In the 90's they came up with 7000. In 2004 they came up with zero. Now 30000? And all they quote in the FAQs is a surplus property act with no indication of criteria on how? It's ludicrous.

But it's here. So I persuade you tell your officials you want the state and counties to sue. At this time, about only recourse because like politicians trying to get elected all we did was piss and moan. Complacency kills the cat, not curiosity.

I wrote to officials (you publicly ragged on me for how I did that as I recall) and I also sent $100 to Friends of Sak - who never once acknowledged me or my interest. And I live on the east and would likely never benefit. So not everyone pissed and moaned and did nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

IMO nothing can keep crony corrupt BS like this from happening and it will keep getting worse

we tipped past that point long ago - our gov't answers to nobody now - learn to live with it

 

[Kurtr]

I spent some time there the past two summers and thought it was fine both years. Actually made improvements with a new fish cleaning station the second year so not sure how that is going down a little. Did not need a pass to access the lake. Did not see a sign stating that anyone needed to pay anywhere.

You need a pass there is a big sign that says so the dock is crap and the fish cleaning station might work every now and then and the bathrooms are worse than going in a porta potty during sturgis rally after a week of 100 degree temps. If you want i can go take a picture of the sign that says with out a pass your rig will be towed. So either you got lucky and didnt get towed or are lieing as every one that has been here the past 4 years knows you need a pass

 

[johnr]

I wrote to officials (you publicly ragged on me for how I did that as I recall) and I also sent $100 to Friends of Sak - who never once acknowledged me or my interest. And I live on the east and would likely never benefit. So not everyone pissed and moaned and did nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

IMO nothing can keep crony corrupt BS like this from happening and it will keep getting worse

we tipped past that point long ago - our gov't answers to nobody now - learn to live with it

yep, and that is when the whores moved in

 

[YATYAS]

You need a pass there is a big sign that says so the dock is crap and the fish cleaning station might work every now and then and the bathrooms are worse than going in a porta potty during sturgis rally after a week of 100 degree temps. If you want i can go take a picture of the sign that says with out a pass your rig will be towed. So either you got lucky and didnt get towed or are lieing as every one that has been here the past 4 years knows you need a pass

I guess I got lucky. Or maybe it didnt matter being I purchased something at the bait shop and I was camping there. It was so busy that I didn't even notice. There were a lot of people there.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

In 2013 our State Legislature proposed Bill 1338:

02000
Sixty-third
Legislative Assembly
of North Dakota
Introduced by
Representatives Brandenburg, Froseth, Heller, Kasper, Kreidt, Kretschmar, Rohr, Schmidt, Onstad
Senators Schaible, Unruh, Warner
A BILL for an Act to provide for the return of certain property managed by the United States
army corp of engineers to the neighboring landowners.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1.
Return of land to landowners.
The governor shall negotiate with representatives of the United States army corps of
engineers for the return of excess lands around Lake Sakakawea above elevation 1,854 feet
[565.01 meters] mean sea level and excess lands around Lake Oahe above 1,617 feet [492.86
meters] mean sea level to the neighboring landowners. The governor shall report on the status
of negotiations to the budget section of the legislative management by December 31, 2014.


Amended version:

REPORT TO
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT.
During the 2013-14 interim, the board of university and school lands
shall study options to address the concerns of landowners adjacent to land under the control of the
United States army corps of engineers surrounding Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe. The study must
include consideration of control of noxious weeds, protecting public access for hunting and fishing, the
costs of possible transition of land from the United States army corps of engineers, and the costs
associated with maintaining any property that may become a responsibility of the state. The study must
also include consideration of the interests of North Dakota Indian tribes. The board may establish a task
force consisting of landowners, hunting and fishing organizations, the game and fish department, the
parks and recreation department, the North Dakota national guard, and other parties that utilize the land
for access. Before October 1, 2014, the board shall provide to the legislative management a report on
the outcome of this study.

Does anyone have that report? Guywhofishes mentioned Friends of Lake Sakakawea. Their take on the issue:

http://www.lakesakakawea.com/activities/minutes/

Lance Gaebe of the ND Land Department spoke about HB 1338, “excess land study.” He explained that the bill gave the land board the right to study the land adjoining Lake Sakakawea. Fiscal note attached to the bill was $50,000. He said the study is to identify concerns, to identify solutions and list the steps to reach those solutions. He said there will be a meeting June 11 in Bismarck. He assured that there was no predetermined outcome. Fleck and Denning Gackle pointed out to Gaebe that there was a bill sponsor and legislator who lobbied at the survey for his position. Gunsch said he will be interested to hear the results because he had some concerns about the survey. Fleck said there are a lot of people who will be disappointed when they find out there is no way that their land will be returned to them.

Jeb Williams explained that there is no land that is considered to be “excess land” based on the 2011 flood

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

I wrote to officials (you publicly ragged on me for how I did that as I recall) and I also sent $100 to Friends of Sak - who never once acknowledged me or my interest. And I live on the east and would likely never benefit. So not everyone pissed and moaned and did nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

IMO nothing can keep crony corrupt BS like this from happening and it will keep getting worse

we tipped past that point long ago - our gov't answers to nobody now - learn to live with it

I ragged on you?

I was just at the Friends Board meeting yesterday and they allowed me to speak. Had Cramer's office, Hoeven's office, Heitkamps office, Lundquist from the Corp, Steinwand from NDGF and of course all Friends board members.

They are doing something. But they could do a lot more if numbers of people showed the same desire. Complacency got us here. Not because nothing can be done and it will get worse so we just live with it. That's the attitude they exactly want and feast off of.

- - - Updated - - -

Fritz, I attended two public meetings about the resolution. Overwhelmingly the tribal members themselves and non-tribal members were against any type of transfer.

There is no current legal authority to transfer lands to the state or private ownership within the Fort Berthold reservation or for that matter outside the boundary. Although, I would argue FBMRA does say lands can be transferred but the play by Corp within reservation is they can only go to tribe. Which for a lack of other words is horseshit because it's horseshit to transfer lands never 'owned' by the tribe to the tribe.

Anyway, people get so caught up in defining recreation as 'fishing' or going to a campground. That's so not the case. It upsets me in fact.

By appropriately holding the corp to multipurpose use per the project purposes there are no excess lands. Zero. I challenged Todd to get the public an answer on just how the hell the Corp found 30000 plus acres as excess to project purposes. I heard a lot of crickets after that followed with I don't know and will check.

Those that think a transfer means easier access to lake and nothing will change need to lift their shoulders and get out from u see the rock they live under. Now instead of one jurisdiction they have two. And per the MOU there are zero garauntees of free unabated access nor verbiage that will forever lock in hunting as we have known it for 40 plus years on those 30000 acres.

The Corp should just adhere to their recreational duties and allow local entities to develop and maintain new Rec areas. But instead they are adding new barriers!

It's a pretty interesting process to take lease of a recreation area. Currently underway south of New Town. If corp removed or reduced or just trusted entities more the subject at hand for recreation development would be lesser a topic.

 

[guywhofishes]

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/2013-pr...land-transferofficial-information-page?page=1

yeah Tim, you were not thrilled with my efforts. I had good intentions.

- - - Updated - - -

See #74-80. Not a big deal but it threw cold water on my enthusiasm.

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

My apologies for making an assumption the tone of your posts regarding my comments seemed much like those of a poster known as wstnodak. Given some peoples decisions to hide behind a new moniker .................

I do find it a bit ironically amusing though your first claim is you will not engage in answering simple questions..........yet you then ask a question with an apparent expectation of an answer........


So to directly answer your question in a little less direct manner than kurt r , no it is not. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the difference between a sovereign nation and a state. Perhaps if you take the time to learn that and come back we can discuss this further and then perhaps you would be willing to return the consideration and answer the question I posed you.

which are you most likely to be able to impact, the Federal Corps management of these lands, or a state agency answerable to your elected state representatives whom you may run into at Menards or Perkins or sit by in church?

- - - Updated - - -



And that Tim is exactly why this is a good example of why many of these Federal lands should be transferred to a entity that is more responsive to the people that are most impacted by the management of these lands..........the people of the state in which they lie.

Despite mounties insinuation, I do not support returning Federal lands to another sovereign nation where the people of a state have no say in the management of them.

If these lands would have been being managed by the state, instead of simply posting a comment to a website, you could have introduced a bill to share your plans with others, gained support, testified in support, and ultimately chosen to run to implement change if the elected representatives in place did not seem responsive to the peoples wishes.

Now as you state, after those public comments have been largely ineffective, you are down to convincing these state officials to sue a Federal agency in a Federal court.

I have this funny idea having conversations over a cup of coffee or after church with a handful of elected state officials (or when they are out campaigning for re election in a public forum) might be a better option for positive results for how these lands are managed than the process you have showed exists with the Feds.

- - - Updated - - -



You mean like the Feds are doing?

gst,

Having coffee and chit chatting after church for the past 40 years is what got us into this mess. I'd probably say a few self-inflicted pats on the back of how smart these coffee drinkers are probably occurred too.

I'd agree with a transfer to the state and to the private landowner IF there actually were lands in excess to the master manual. To this date, I have found no evidence such an acre exists and all that Corp quotes is from the FAQ noted below which I think is an embarrassing vague statement when they claim to be "transparent":

FAQ: In 1991, there were no excess lands but in 2006 there are, how can this be?

Answer: Excess lands are determined using different criteria and a different process governed by The Property Act.

The Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act (FBMRA) allows for project lands that are “no longer needed” for the purposes of construction, maintenance, or operation of the project to be declared as trust lands and held by the United States for the benefit of the Three Affiliated Tribes. The jurisdictional transfer process determines whether and how much land is no longer needed for construction, maintenance, or operation of the project, not what is excess.

But since I am having a cup of coffee as I type this lets pretend we are in the local cafe and further pretend there are excess lands. Per another FAQ and Answer:

FAQ: Why are lands only within the reservation seen as no longer needed and the lands outside are not?

Answer: The Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act only applies to the lands within the exterior boundaries of the reservation.

FAQ: What is being done with the lands that were previously owned by someone other than the Tribe?

Answer: After completing the research it was clear that of the lands proposed for transfer, most were acquired from the Three Affiliated Tribes, but there were some that were acquired from parties other than the Three Affiliated Tribes.

During the public comment period, concerns were raised about the equity of returning land acquired from private entities to the Three Affiliated Tribes. However, under Fort Berthold Mining Restoration Act, there is no provision for transfer of project lands to any entity other than the Three Affiliated Tribes. As a result, Congress would have to provide new authority if transfer back to the original private owners is desired.

I just took a drink from a fresh cup after posting those FAQs for your review hopefully you took a sip after reading. So what's been done the last 40 years? A whole lotta stalling and not nipping this in the butt. Do you think this is the first coffee session on the matter? The first desire or attempt to have "excess" lands transferred to the state or individual or tribe? No. But it has been in stall format and far too long. I suppose to be fair we've had to be on the defense for many many years because there is no legal path through congress to transfer excess lands to anyone but the tribe. However, that doesn't mean people haven't been having coffee on the matter.

Lake Oahe folks last session introduced a bill 1456 with language of "encourages Congress to pass federal legislation to return those lands and mineral rights to the state of North Dakota." That a nice warm fuzzy feeling there. My guess that bill was drawn on a napkin at the diner.

Looks good on paper but its been 40 plus years. When is this going to happen and who's going to get it through congress? And what really is the net gain here? We are going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (more like millions) to transfer land from one public entity to another but also willingly transfer lands to a sovereign nation at the same time? Do people think access (recreation in all forms of the definition) will increase if the state gets small parcels of land checkered throughout areas where the tribes have more bordering acreage? Do you think the Corp is going to magically become easier to work with and reduce their road blocks to "developing" Corp lands for the a single specific item of recreation area?

It reminds me of going to Wyoming to hunt antelope. My buddy's brother had 640 acres of land landlocked. He was proud of that and defended it when I asked why Wyoming doesn't allow corner hopping. I told him in simple terms he gained 640 acres of access but loses millions. How is that a good thing?

But outside of hunting access I just dont' see the economic gains when you compare it big picture. Sovereign nations will gain the bulk of acreage and the state limited. We still are bound by Corp rules to access water or develop. Plus we add in an additional jurisdiction to contend with.

I'd love nothing more for my great-grandpa's acreage to be "given" back to my family but there I go gaining a few acres and losing many, many more. Is it worth it after we've all accepted and become use to public lands for over 40 years? I'm a private landowner advocate but I am also a guy who enjoys public lands. The state does not have many acres of public lands. Reducing it more doesn't seem all that inviting.

 

[Reprobait]

In 2013 our State Legislature proposed Bill 1338:

02000
Sixty-third
Legislative Assembly
of North Dakota
Introduced by
Representatives Brandenburg, Froseth, Heller, Kasper, Kreidt, Kretschmar, Rohr, Schmidt, Onstad
Senators Schaible, Unruh, Warner
A BILL for an Act to provide for the return of certain property managed by the United States
army corp of engineers to the neighboring landowners.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1.
Return of land to landowners.
The governor shall negotiate with representatives of the United States army corps of
engineers for the return of excess lands around Lake Sakakawea above elevation 1,854 feet
[565.01 meters] mean sea level and excess lands around Lake Oahe above 1,617 feet [492.86
meters] mean sea level to the neighboring landowners. The governor shall report on the status
of negotiations to the budget section of the legislative management by December 31, 2014.


Amended version:

REPORT TO
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT.
During the 2013-14 interim, the board of university and school lands
shall study options to address the concerns of landowners adjacent to land under the control of the
United States army corps of engineers surrounding Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe. The study must
include consideration of control of noxious weeds, protecting public access for hunting and fishing, the
costs of possible transition of land from the United States army corps of engineers, and the costs
associated with maintaining any property that may become a responsibility of the state. The study must
also include consideration of the interests of North Dakota Indian tribes. The board may establish a task
force consisting of landowners, hunting and fishing organizations, the game and fish department, the
parks and recreation department, the North Dakota national guard, and other parties that utilize the land
for access. Before October 1, 2014, the board shall provide to the legislative management a report on
the outcome of this study.

Does anyone have that report? Guywhofishes mentioned Friends of Lake Sakakawea. Their take on the issue:

http://www.lakesakakawea.com/activities/minutes/

Lance Gaebe of the ND Land Department spoke about HB 1338, “excess land study.” He explained that the bill gave the land board the right to study the land adjoining Lake Sakakawea. Fiscal note attached to the bill was $50,000. He said the study is to identify concerns, to identify solutions and list the steps to reach those solutions. He said there will be a meeting June 11 in Bismarck. He assured that there was no predetermined outcome. Fleck and Denning Gackle pointed out to Gaebe that there was a bill sponsor and legislator who lobbied at the survey for his position. Gunsch said he will be interested to hear the results because he had some concerns about the survey. Fleck said there are a lot of people who will be disappointed when they find out there is no way that their land will be returned to them.

Jeb Williams explained that there is no land that is considered to be “excess land” based on the 2011 flood

The original bill shows the true intent and that is to make these lands private. If these lands get turned over to the state it will be a never ending fight to keep them public. I hear more than enough of the attitude in this state that land is wasted if it is not tilled, grazed, or has an oil well on it.

As for having a cup of coffee with your local lawmaker, the politically connected and the large landowner have way more influence than others (like myself).

 

[gst]

Tim, I guess I maybe should have made myself clearer, I was not specifically referring to these lands but Federal Lands in general. States all the west are dealing with many land usage restrictions by the Federal govt agencies that are in essence answerable to no one.

I know far less about this particular situation than you and value your insights. But I will tell you this and I assume you have figured it out, having coffee and chit chatting after church is only the beginning. People have to show up at the legislature to follow up. They have to become involved.

How many will take two days off from work to go watch the Viking or Twins lose but will not take a day off from work to go testify on a legislative issue that is important to them? Contrary to what people think, when you are sitting behind them after testifying they know you are engaged and are watching them when the time comes.

for those that think keeping these lands under Federal control will keep them from being sold, take the time to learn what is going on. They are being sold, access is being limited, they are being terribly ,mismanaged as only the Federal govt can do.

There are options states can engage in when gaining these lands back from the Feds that will keep some if not most or all of them open to the public. To me, it would depend upon what percentage of a state is public lands and how they are being allowed to be managed that is the factors needing to be considered.


for those buying into the "farmer/rancher controls the state legislature remember this, politicians are elected by votes. There are more votes in Fargo and Grand Forks than all the farmer/rancher votes combined in the state. So who here truly has the influence?

- - - Updated - - -

Tim, once again as per the last comment in green you posted, this lack of accountability and inability to change things at the Federal level that is seen in that statement once again lends support for more state control versus Federal.

here in our District we have a long time Democrat Senator. On occassion I have had opportunities to engage him in issues and he has supported positions that his constituents present even when it has gone against the state Democratic leaderships views.

For some reason that has been much harder to the point it has never happened with our newly elected Federal Democratic Senator.

 

[eyexer]

So why isn't our federal reps trying to pass legislation to thwart this?

 

[gst]

Ask Heidi why she would oppose changing giving land back to the tribes that elected her.

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/2013-pr...land-transferofficial-information-page?page=1

yeah Tim, you were not thrilled with my efforts. I had good intentions.

- - - Updated - - -

See #74-80. Not a big deal but it threw cold water on my enthusiasm.

So I just gave those a look. That's a blast from the past and since it has bothered you this long let me apologize officially. But I'd like to explain those words as well.

I took the "I support Tim Sandstrom" comment as in spite. But regardless, I also didn't think you would get the full consideration from the comment destination by just quoting me. And is why I encouraged you and others in that thread to write more full opinion representations leaving out my name as I am and was merely a civilian no different than anyone else. With hundreds of letters written over the comment period seeing listen to Tim Sandstrom would have probably just made the garbage bin versus more complete text.

- - - Updated - - -

Tim, I guess I maybe should have made myself clearer, I was not specifically referring to these lands but Federal Lands in general. States all the west are dealing with many land usage restrictions by the Federal govt agencies that are in essence answerable to no one.

I know far less about this particular situation than you and value your insights. But I will tell you this and I assume you have figured it out, having coffee and chit chatting after church is only the beginning. People have to show up at the legislature to follow up. They have to become involved.

How many will take two days off from work to go watch the Viking or Twins lose but will not take a day off from work to go testify on a legislative issue that is important to them? Contrary to what people think, when you are sitting behind them after testifying they know you are engaged and are watching them when the time comes.

for those that think keeping these lands under Federal control will keep them from being sold, take the time to learn what is going on. They are being sold, access is being limited, they are being terribly ,mismanaged as only the Federal govt can do.

There are options states can engage in when gaining these lands back from the Feds that will keep some if not most or all of them open to the public. To me, it would depend upon what percentage of a state is public lands and how they are being allowed to be managed that is the factors needing to be considered.


for those buying into the "farmer/rancher controls the state legislature remember this, politicians are elected by votes. There are more votes in Fargo and Grand Forks than all the farmer/rancher votes combined in the state. So who here truly has the influence?

- - - Updated - - -

Tim, once again as per the last comment in green you posted, this lack of accountability and inability to change things at the Federal level that is seen in that statement once again lends support for more state control versus Federal.

here in our District we have a long time Democrat Senator. On occassion I have had opportunities to engage him in issues and he has supported positions that his constituents present even when it has gone against the state Democratic leaderships views.

For some reason that has been much harder to the point it has never happened with our newly elected Federal Democratic Senator.

I'm not following the other "federal land sales" topics because as you elude to, personal life and time available does matter. So I focus on what is at hand and that is a transfer of federal lands to a sovereign nation. You are compensated for your time you take away from personal life. Those people are definitely needed. Its not always easy to take away personal time but I have done so in this topic. And there are literally hundreds if even not a thousands posts from me on FBO, here and many other areas. I've written letters, I've spoke publicly, I've done what I could. I've seen others do it. But yes sir, you are right, we need more. The trick here is, the feds are ignoring much of the complexities of the issue. That is why we are at the state of potentially needing litigation.

In the meantime, I'm writing, calling and trying to ignite. Its up to everyone else to assist. I cannot speak for other's time or motivations.

I'll ask Andrea at the Governor's office next week how they are progressing with the Oahe bill and where they are on the current transfer.

 

[guywhofishes]

Apology accepted. I couldn't think of how better to express my sentiment than to repeat yours. I could have stated that fact better to them but my views lined up completely with yours so that's why I wrote what I did. I also donated $100 so that shows my sincerity.

cheers,
guy

 

[Fritz the Cat]

House Bill 1338, testimonies pro and con, all 129 pages:

http://www.legis.nd.gov/files/resource/63-2013/library/hb1338.pdf?20160416101951

The $50 dollar study or fiscal note attached to HB 1338.

https://land.nd.gov/docs/biennialreports/report.pdf

STUDY OF FEDERAL RESERVOIR LAND
The 2013 Legislature adopted HB 1338 which directed the Board to study options to address concerns of landowners adjacent to land under the control of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) surrounding Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe. The study considered noxious weed issues, access for hunting and fishing, the costs of conveying land from the COE to the State and the interests of North Dakota Indian Tribes.The legislature appropriated $50,000 from the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund for the study. With the help of a contractor, a study was completed in August of 2014 and the report and summary were delivered to Legislative Management and the interim Water Topics Overview Committee on October 1, 2014.
The study’s purpose was to provide the Legislature with different options regarding the COE’s lands. Several ownership changes and management options were presented including:
1. No change in present management structure
2. Transfer of lands back to the original landowners or their heirs
3. Transfer of the land from the COE to the State, with the land to be managed by the State
4. Transfer the land from the COE to the State and to associated Tribes with each entity managing the acquired land
5. Similar to number 4, but with local government management
6. Corps of Engineers retains ownership, but turns over management to State, Tribal and local governments
7. A direct transfer to preferential lease holders, including grazing lease holders, the North Dakota Game and Fish and State Parks and Recreation Departments and county park boards were suggested as potential owners In response to the study, the 2015 Legislature adopted HB 1456, which defined excess lands around Lake Oahe and encouraged federal legislation to authorize the return of lands and mineral rights to the State of North Dakota.

HB 1456 in 2015,

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/64-2015/documents/15-0603-06000.pdf?20160416122458

Sixty-fourth Legislative Assembly of North Dakota
In Regular Session Commencing Tuesday, January 6, 2015
HOUSEBILL NO. 1456
(Representatives Brandenburg, Kretschmar, Rohr, Schmidt)
(Senators Erbele, Schaible)

AN ACT to create and enact section 54-01-29.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the encouragement of federal legislation to return lands and mineral rights to the state.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. Section 54-01-29.1 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

54-01-29.1. Federal legislation encouraged to return lands and mineral rights to the state of North Dakota.
Uplands of the Oahe Reservoir in Emmons and Morton Counties in North Dakota above the elevation of 1,620 feet [493.78 meters] are defined as excess lands to the operation of the Oahe Dam.

The North Dakota legislative assembly encourages Congress to pass federal legislation to return those lands and mineral rights to the state of North Dakota and the North Dakota legislative assembly encourages the governor of North Dakota to work with the North Dakota congressional delegation and Congress to secure enactment of necessary federal legislation.

 

[eyexer]

House Bill 1338, testimonies pro and con, all 129 pages:

http://www.legis.nd.gov/files/resource/63-2013/library/hb1338.pdf?20160416101951

The $50 dollar study or fiscal note attached to HB 1338.

https://land.nd.gov/docs/biennialreports/report.pdf

STUDY OF FEDERAL RESERVOIR LAND
The 2013 Legislature adopted HB 1338 which directed the Board to study options to address concerns of landowners adjacent to land under the control of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) surrounding Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe. The study considered noxious weed issues, access for hunting and fishing, the costs of conveying land from the COE to the State and the interests of North Dakota Indian Tribes.The legislature appropriated $50,000 from the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund for the study. With the help of a contractor, a study was completed in August of 2014 and the report and summary were delivered to Legislative Management and the interim Water Topics Overview Committee on October 1, 2014.
The study’s purpose was to provide the Legislature with different options regarding the COE’s lands. Several ownership changes and management options were presented including:
1. No change in present management structure
2. Transfer of lands back to the original landowners or their heirs
3. Transfer of the land from the COE to the State, with the land to be managed by the State
4. Transfer the land from the COE to the State and to associated Tribes with each entity managing the acquired land
5. Similar to number 4, but with local government management
6. Corps of Engineers retains ownership, but turns over management to State, Tribal and local governments
7. A direct transfer to preferential lease holders, including grazing lease holders, the North Dakota Game and Fish and State Parks and Recreation Departments and county park boards were suggested as potential owners In response to the study, the 2015 Legislature adopted HB 1456, which defined excess lands around Lake Oahe and encouraged federal legislation to authorize the return of lands and mineral rights to the State of North Dakota.

HB 1456 in 2015,

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/64-2015/documents/15-0603-06000.pdf?20160416122458

Sixty-fourth Legislative Assembly of North Dakota
In Regular Session Commencing Tuesday, January 6, 2015
HOUSEBILL NO. 1456
(Representatives Brandenburg, Kretschmar, Rohr, Schmidt)
(Senators Erbele, Schaible)

AN ACT to create and enact section 54-01-29.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the encouragement of federal legislation to return lands and mineral rights to the state.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. Section 54-01-29.1 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

54-01-29.1. Federal legislation encouraged to return lands and mineral rights to the state of North Dakota.
Uplands of the Oahe Reservoir in Emmons and Morton Counties in North Dakota above the elevation of 1,620 feet [493.78 meters] are defined as excess lands to the operation of the Oahe Dam.

The North Dakota legislative assembly encourages Congress to pass federal legislation to return those lands and mineral rights to the state of North Dakota and the North Dakota legislative assembly encourages the governor of North Dakota to work with the North Dakota congressional delegation and Congress to secure enactment of necessary federal legislation.

It appears we wasted a bunch of tax payers money and legislators time on this. Our federal reps have just thumbed their nose at us.