- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Posts
- 274
- Likes
- 11
- Points
- 115
"Excess" Corp lands above 1620 in Emmons and Morton Counties to Private Owners
At the Audubon tourney I was approached whether I heard about the "extension" of HB 1456. I said no, and the conversation turned to explanation. From what I'm told (and confirmed at state level) is the Governor's Office has sent a bill for introduction at the fed level. The bill will transfer so-called excess lands above elevation 1620 in Emmons and Morton Counties and then has language that enables the state to transfer to private landowners (heirs of original owners).
In principle, I'm a bit conflicted on this. But my opinion has always been I cannot support a transfer until I see legitimate proof excess lands actually exist to the project purposes as identified in the Pick Sloan Act and further cemented in the Master Manual. If land in fact was proven to be excess by some wild imagination then I could see a transfer. However, I question the cost associated to accomplish such a feat (researching heirs, deeds, recording, etc). Where is the net gain when you compare the loss of public access? It may be best served the land goes to a local entity such as township and county to utilize for possible public recreation areas, etc.
Anyway, why would a western North Dakota guy care about this? None of my business right? Well, as already mentioned the precedence is damaging to my beliefs being there are no excess lands. It's also damaging to access questions (the very questions the state, feds and public have asked about the Lake Sakakawea transfer). What acres are going, will there be access, how much will it cost, how will the properties be identified, what jurisdictions will control, how will NDGF be affected, how will water and other ROWs be secured and granted and the list goes on.
And in general, the land has been in the public realm for decades. It would be lost land forever to the public domain. Do we need to lose more public land?
Often I am told the state legislators are doing what the voters tell them, the state is doing what the legislature is telling them and the fed legislature is doing what the state is telling them.
So lets talk on that a bit, the bill was amended to remove private transfer (that's the people telling the legislators what to do). So the intent of the bill was obviously modified per the voters will. Here's where it gets questionable. The word "encourages" and "encouragement" are used in bill 1457. The state told me in conversation they have to draft the bill (as if it was a mandate). I disagree with that, encourage means the state should do what is right. Look at the case, look at the facts, look at the history of other transfer attempts, look at the concerns and then make a decision. There are thousands of lines of text written by Hoeven and Dalrymple (plus Stenehjem) taking a stance there are no excess lands, there are public access questions, jurisdiction uncertainties, funding and other issues related to Army Corp of Engineer land transfers that remain unanswered.
My point, how can the word encouraging combated with real-life-on-the-record opposition to previous land transfers be pushed through by the state? The Governor's Office should have had a backbone and took the position it always has.
Instead, since I'm forced to read between the lines it looks like Schmidt and Brandenburg have serious influence. After the resolution was passed $42,000 dollars was set aside for Eide Bailly to conduct meetings/hearings and sent out 520 surveys to adjacent landowners and cabin owners to project lands (only 210 were returned). It seems the 210 responses have convinced the state/feds that there is overwhelming support for a transfer. Do you think that's fair representation to a much broader subject? How much support really is there when so many questions are unanswered? Is this a case of Schmidt and Brandenburg telling the Governor to jump and he asks, how high?
I think we deserve public hearings which includes how the Army Corp of Engineers identifies so-called excess lands. Then the state and federal legislators can get a better idea of just how much support exists. Plus forces the Corp to be more transparent on how they derive lands in excess to project purposes.
Call the state and let them know how you feel!
http://governor.nd.gov/contact-us
701.328.2200
Who to contact and how:
Email:https://www.hoeven.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-the-senator
-----------
Email: https://www.heitkamp.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-heidi
-----------
Email: https://cramer.house.gov/contact/email-me
-----------
-----------
-----------
-----------
At the Audubon tourney I was approached whether I heard about the "extension" of HB 1456. I said no, and the conversation turned to explanation. From what I'm told (and confirmed at state level) is the Governor's Office has sent a bill for introduction at the fed level. The bill will transfer so-called excess lands above elevation 1620 in Emmons and Morton Counties and then has language that enables the state to transfer to private landowners (heirs of original owners).
In principle, I'm a bit conflicted on this. But my opinion has always been I cannot support a transfer until I see legitimate proof excess lands actually exist to the project purposes as identified in the Pick Sloan Act and further cemented in the Master Manual. If land in fact was proven to be excess by some wild imagination then I could see a transfer. However, I question the cost associated to accomplish such a feat (researching heirs, deeds, recording, etc). Where is the net gain when you compare the loss of public access? It may be best served the land goes to a local entity such as township and county to utilize for possible public recreation areas, etc.
Anyway, why would a western North Dakota guy care about this? None of my business right? Well, as already mentioned the precedence is damaging to my beliefs being there are no excess lands. It's also damaging to access questions (the very questions the state, feds and public have asked about the Lake Sakakawea transfer). What acres are going, will there be access, how much will it cost, how will the properties be identified, what jurisdictions will control, how will NDGF be affected, how will water and other ROWs be secured and granted and the list goes on.
And in general, the land has been in the public realm for decades. It would be lost land forever to the public domain. Do we need to lose more public land?
Often I am told the state legislators are doing what the voters tell them, the state is doing what the legislature is telling them and the fed legislature is doing what the state is telling them.
So lets talk on that a bit, the bill was amended to remove private transfer (that's the people telling the legislators what to do). So the intent of the bill was obviously modified per the voters will. Here's where it gets questionable. The word "encourages" and "encouragement" are used in bill 1457. The state told me in conversation they have to draft the bill (as if it was a mandate). I disagree with that, encourage means the state should do what is right. Look at the case, look at the facts, look at the history of other transfer attempts, look at the concerns and then make a decision. There are thousands of lines of text written by Hoeven and Dalrymple (plus Stenehjem) taking a stance there are no excess lands, there are public access questions, jurisdiction uncertainties, funding and other issues related to Army Corp of Engineer land transfers that remain unanswered.
My point, how can the word encouraging combated with real-life-on-the-record opposition to previous land transfers be pushed through by the state? The Governor's Office should have had a backbone and took the position it always has.
Instead, since I'm forced to read between the lines it looks like Schmidt and Brandenburg have serious influence. After the resolution was passed $42,000 dollars was set aside for Eide Bailly to conduct meetings/hearings and sent out 520 surveys to adjacent landowners and cabin owners to project lands (only 210 were returned). It seems the 210 responses have convinced the state/feds that there is overwhelming support for a transfer. Do you think that's fair representation to a much broader subject? How much support really is there when so many questions are unanswered? Is this a case of Schmidt and Brandenburg telling the Governor to jump and he asks, how high?
I think we deserve public hearings which includes how the Army Corp of Engineers identifies so-called excess lands. Then the state and federal legislators can get a better idea of just how much support exists. Plus forces the Corp to be more transparent on how they derive lands in excess to project purposes.
Call the state and let them know how you feel!
http://governor.nd.gov/contact-us
701.328.2200
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 |
-----------
| 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 |
-----------
| 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 |
-----------
| 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 |
Last edited:
