Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tim Sandstrom" data-source="post: 86982" data-attributes="member: 1108">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.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA