"Excess" Corp lands above 1620 in Emmons and Morton Counties to Private Owners

[Account Deleted]

I suppose for the five minutes or so the state would own it they would be responsive to their local voters.

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

Tim here is what I meant by "original" intent of what was behind the building of the Garrison dam from the link I shared. Only later was wildlife and recreation included.

My point in sharing that link was to show that many times the reasons why the taking of private lands are justified changes after they are "taken".

What kind of push back would there have been if "recreation" was listed as the purpose behind the taking of private lands? Yet now recreation is a primary point in what people want these "taken" lands managed for.

"On December 22, 1944, Congress authorized the Flood Control Act, later named the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. The primary purpose was for flood control, navigation, irrigation and hydropower, which would be facilitated by the construction of six main stem dams on the Missouri River at Fort Peck, Garrison, Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall and Gavins Point.
North Dakota was promised over a million acres of irrigation as compensation for the 300,000 acres of prime farmland lost to the permanent flood created as a result of the dams and the lost economic benefit that farmland generated. The state was originally to receive this irrigation from water diverted from Fort Peck Dam in eastern Montana. Initially known as the “Missouri-Souris Project,” it included 1,275,000 acres."

- - - Updated - - -

So it seems that the representatives in our state legislature did listen to those that shared their views?

And now the Federal level representatives are not when lame duck politicians try to pass something?

That seems to support the thought that state management of public lands would be more responsive to we the people .

That's an interesting take on history. I have several documents signed by the ACOE among others that showcase recreation as a project purpose. Since I can't help but get the feeling you are trying to play words the states did have to sue the ACOE to get fair representation and "intent" of the Flood Control Act.

The original Flood Control Act had as a purpose recreation and fish and wildlife habitat. The Corps didn't recognize that fact until the upper basin states sued the Corps over that issue in the early 2000's and the 8th Circuit found "The text of the Flood Control Act thus sets up a balance between flood control, navigation, recreation, and other interests". So the original intent of the law was to provide for recreation, and that has always been our state's position, until this lame duck Governor has decided to give away the recreational lands.

Below is a clip right out of the Special Assessment of Project Land Adjacent to Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Summary (commonly known as JTAC).

You don't think the intent all along was for fish, wildlife and recreation? This was why a lawsuit was filed so we could help stop the constant aggressive drain of water to over support navigation downstream.

 

[Account Deleted]

Mic drop.

 

[gst]

Tim. not trying to play words at all. I included the link where the quote I posted came from which is a Garrison Diversion site.

http://www.garrisondiv.org/about_us/history_federal_legislation/

• Home
• Contact Us
• Media Info & Images

Our Mission:
To provide a reliable, high quality
and affordable water supply to
benefit the people of North Dakota.



General

• About Us
• Administration
• Facilities
• News

Focus Areas

• RRV Water
  Supply Project
• Municipal, Rural
  & Industrial Program
• Recreation
  Programs
• Natural
  Resources
• Agricultural
  Irrigation
• Operation & Maintenance
  Activities

• Mission & Values
• History & Federal Legislation
• Chronology
• Media Info

History & Federal Legislation

The Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program
On December 22, 1944, Congress authorized the Flood Control Act, later named the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. The primary purpose was for flood control, navigation, irrigation and hydropower, which would be facilitated by the construction of six main stem dams on the Missouri River at Fort Peck, Garrison, Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall and Gavins Point.
North Dakota was promised over a million acres of irrigation as compensation for the 300,000 acres of prime farmland lost to the permanent flood created as a result of the dams and the lost economic benefit that farmland generated. The state was originally to receive this irrigation from water diverted from Fort Peck Dam in eastern Montana. Initially known as the “Missouri-Souris Project,” it included 1,275,000 acres.
Between 1944 and 1965, soil surveys and studies were performed to assess the feasibility of irrigating the 1.2 million acres originally planned for North Dakota. The studies indicated that the soil in northwestern North Dakota was not suitable for irrigation according to federal irrigation standards. Drainage problems caused by the unusually high density of glacial subsoil were a primary factor. As a result, the Bureau of Reclamation revised the diversion plan proposing instead to take water from the Garrison Dam and reservoir to irrigate other lands to the east. With the new name “Garrison Diversion,” the Bureau of Reclamation 1957 feasibility study on the redesigned project recommended irrigation of 1,007,000 acres and other water development in central and eastern North Dakota.
Garrison Diversion Unit
Because of changes to the original plan and the language in the 1964 appropriations act requiring specific reauthorization for all units of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, the Bureau of Reclamation returned to Congress for reauthorization. During the process of reauthorization, supporters of the project pointed to the many benefits for North Dakota and the need to compensate the state for land inundated by the construction of the Garrison Dam and reservoir. On August 5, 1965, Congress addressed concerns of the project—the high cost, conflict with federal farm policies and the small amount of money to be repaid by water users—by enacting legislation for the Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU). The primary focus of the plan was to include municipal and industrial water, fish and wildlife development, recreation and flood control along with irrigation of 250,000 acres. Between 1968 and 1984, construction and preparatory activities progressed on many features.
Garrison Diversion Unit Commission
As construction advanced on the Garrison Diversion Unit throughout the ‘70s and ‘80s, it became increasingly apparent that major issues, such as environmental concerns, the acquisition of lands, economics of irrigation and Canadian concerns about water flowing from the Missouri River Basin into the Hudson Bay Basin, would require reformulation of the project if it were to be completed. In 1984, construction was halted and a high-level commission was appointed by the Secretary of Interior to study and recommend a change in direction.
The GDU Commission, in its final report issued December 20, 1984, recommended development of a GDU significantly different from the project described in the 1957 feasibility report and the project authorized in 1965.
The major recommendations were:

• 
  [*]Irrigation of 130,940 acres of land, none of which drains to the Hudson Bay. Of these, 17,580 acres would be located on the Indian reservations of Fort Berthold and Standing Rock.
  [*]A grant program of $200 million to facilitate municipal, rural and industrial (MR&I) water service for as many as 130 towns and cities, rural areas and three Indian reservations.
  [*]A water treatment facility to treat Missouri River water that would be transferred into the Hudson Bay drainage via the Sheyenne River and then the Red River. This would provide MR&I water for Fargo, Grand Forks, other cities and rural systems. The cost of building and operating the treatment plant was declared non-reimbursable.
  [*]Mitigation of wildlife impacts on a new basin with specific wildlife features authorized beyond the mitigation requirements.
• Recreation development on a 50/50 cost-share basis.
• The cost of the commission plan was estimated at a total of $1.12 billion in capital costs, including expenditures to date, and $15.8 million in annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs. The proposed elimination of Lonetree Dam and Reservoir and replacement with the Sykeston Canal was of major concern to the state of North Dakota and Garrison Diversion Conservancy District. Lonetree was the project’s principal regulating reservoir; without it, future expansion was limited. Lonetree Dam and Reservoir remained authorized features of the commission plan and construction funds could only be requested after a finding of need by the Secretary and satisfactory consultation with the government of Canada.

Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act
As a provision of the 1986 fiscal year appropriations, Congress stipulated that new construction contracts not be awarded or additional land be acquired unless the project was reauthorized by March 31, 1986. The State of North Dakota and Garrison Diversion Conservancy District subsequently elected to support reauthorization of the project. The Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 was signed into law May 12, 1986 to authorize the recommendations of the Garrison Diversion Unit Commission’s final report. In conjunction with the new act, a statement of principles was signed by all the primary stakeholders in the previous project conflicts.
Following the 1986 act, activities began on MR&I projects, mitigation and wildlife habitat, and construction continued on some of the water delivery features. The continued evaluation of a smaller Lonetree Reservoir as a project feature and further analysis of the recommended Sykeston Canal deferred progress with construction of the principal water delivery facilities. President Bush Sr., in 1990, failed to include any funding for the Garrison Diversion Unit project in his submitted FY 1991 budget.
In connection with the administration’s decision to terminate Garrison Diversion Unit funding in FY 1991, the Secretary established a task group to develop a policy on support for future funding of the authorized project. The task group’s decision was to continue funding only those features of the reformulated project which were consistent with the contemporary water needs, national priorities and the history of Garrison Diversion, but not to fund features which would be used for mitigation. The recommendations also included continuation of the MR&I grant program, Indian MR&I water supply programs, irrigation development on 17,580 acres to include two Indian reservations, continued operation for the Oakes Test Area research activities, recreation, fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancement initiatives, and a minimum level of O&M on the already constructed main supply system facilities. Funding for these features would be considered by the administration within the context of national priorities.
Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000
The Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 (DWRA), as amended to conform to agreements reached with the administration and representatives from Missouri and Minnesota, passed the US Congress on December 15, 2000. The legislation further amended the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act of 1986. The DWRA outlined a program to meet Indian and non-Indian water supply needs in North Dakota. Authorized uses include MR&I, fish and wildlife, recreation, irrigation, flood control, stream flow augmentation and ground water recharge.
Included in the DWRA is authorization for a $200 million increase in the MR&I fund, $200 million to meet the Native American Indian water needs, $200 million to meet the water supply needs of the Red River Valley and $32.5 million for environmental and recreation needs.
The purposes of the DWRA as declared by Congress are to:

1. 
   [*]Implement the recommendations of the Garrison Diversion Unit Commission final report in the manner specified by this act.
   [*]Meet the water needs within the state of North Dakota, including MR&I needs.
   [*]Minimize the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Garrison Diversion Unit.
   [*]Assist the United States in meeting its responsibilities under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.
   [*]Assure a more timely appropriate repayment of federal funds expended for the Garrison Diversion Unit.
2. Preserve any existing rights of North Dakota to use water from the Missouri River.
3. Offset the loss of North Dakota farmland resulting from the construction of major features of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program providing irrigation, MR&I water systems, recreation, flood control, ground water recharge, augmented stream flows and the conservation and development of fish, wildlife and other natural resources.

- - - Updated - - -

A bit of history behind the events of 1943 and the veiws of both Pick and Sloan for what was created In December 1944, Congress passed the Pick-Sloan Plan for Missouri River Development



http://ecointheknow.com/missouri-river-flood-2011/pick-sloan-and-a-new-missouri-river-plan/

Tim, it appears "recreation" was added to the original "intent" Of the 1944 Act thru a series of Congressional amendments starting in 1946, 54, 62 and 64.

This from the original text of the 1944 Act.

https://www.usbr.gov/power/legislation/fldcntra.pdf

That is kind of the purpose behind the intent of my comments. govt continues to change their "intents" of what these lands they control at the Federal level should be irregardless of the publics wishes.

Your own comments of having to sue the Federal govt to include recreational considerations tghat were included in the 1946 amendment kinda backs up that point.

The point I am making is the BLM, USFS BLR or COE are really no different in how they are now operating.

And yet people want these federal agerncies buying and owning more "public" lands.

I just don;t get how some people can complain about govt mananging lands and then turn around and want them to own more. (that is not aimed at you )

 

[Bret]

I looked it up. There is an entire section in the original Flood Control Act of 1944 on recreation. Section 4.

 

[gst]

I could not get it to copy and paste so you will find the language on page 800 in the link I shared under the "explanatory notes" that seem to state the recreation provision was established thru amendment in 1946.

 

[svnmag]

"irregardless" is redundant.

- - - Updated - - -

"irregardless" ain't even a gd word. WTF G?

 

[Bret]

The recreation section of the original FCA has been amended four times in fact....

 

[gst]

I looked it up. There is an entire section in the original Flood Control Act of 1944 on recreation. Section 4.

https://www.usbr.gov/power/legislation/fldcntra.pdf

Read the explanatory notes at the end of Section .

1946 Amendment. The Act of July 24, 1946, 60 stat. 642, amended the section by adding the first provision.

It seemed the "original" intent submitted to Congress by Pick and Sloan had no mention of recreation when this Act was first discussed and passed. It appears that was added two years later. (which is typical of govt bait and switch actions adding things later to bills passed earlier that may have prevented them from passing had those provisions been included originally)

It seems Pick and Sloan were not concerned with jet sking opportunities......

So now here we are having a discussion why our Federal representatives are supporting a Federal agency the COE to transfer lands that will possibly negate recreational "rights" amended to be included in this Flood Control Act of 1944.

And yet people will not believe this same Federal govt would disregard other Acts, such as the Mining act of 1866 that established water and grazing rights for those individuals that developed them on these Federal lands.

So yes indeed the Flood control Act of 1944 includes recreation as amended and sportsmen want to hold that up to claim their interests should be considered and rightly so.

But some of these same sportsmen on this site are dismissing the considerations provided under other Acts this same govt granted when issues such as grazing, mining or logging are talked about. (take a look at the last post in the Armed Protest thread to show the acts and laws and court rulings the govt disregarded concerning the Hammonds)

My point here is that if recreation interests written under an Act in 1944 are to honored shouldn;t other considerations granted under other Acts be honored as well?

If the COE can screw sportsmen over, why should we believe those that claim the BLM is not screwing ranchers, loggers and miners over?

Any ways back to the topic at hand, my apologizes for the short detour to make a point.

- - - Updated - - -

"irregardless" is redundant.

- - - Updated - - -

"irregardless" ain't even a gd word. WTF G?

My apologizes. Usage of dialectal American speech does not make a word a word "regardless" of how it is used.

- - - Updated - - -

The recreation section of the original FCA has been amended four times in fact....

Was the recreational section in the original Act or was the original Act amended in 1946 to include the recreation provision? Just curious if anyone knows at this point.

 

[Bret]

What interested me in this discussion wasn't the FCA, but that we apparently have a legislator named Schmidt who for his own self-interest, sponsored a bill last session to get his families land back for himself. Land that is now the Schmidt bottoms Wildlife Management Area. Then in secret, the Gov's office has written federal legislation so this land can be gifted to him. The thousands of people that use and enjoy the lands in question don't deserve notice or public hearings? He just gets the land?

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

gst,

End of story, recreation is a project purpose. A benefit. A source of existence. A major industry that supports many economies. An industry that supports those you defend at the Stockman's Association whom depend upon wildlife as part of their business.

I'd stop meddling in URLs you have and look at the Master Manual, the Master Plan that adjusts the Master Manual at given intervals and the JTAC report written in the 1980's. If that isn't enough, I'll try to hunt down the pamphlet written in the 1950's used to help promote and sell the project to those who sold land for the project. It specifically states recreation, fish and wildlife.

What you are doing is what the ACOE tried as well. Engineer purposes out of the picture so when states like Missouri bitch about barges floating the ACOE only has to answer to them and not the states upstream who generate many times more dollars in the recreation industry than those in the barge business.

Recreation, fish and wildlife have been project purposes for decades.

 

[espringers]

Oh no you dindnt

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

Here's an email I sent Larry Janis at the ACOE. My intent (oh boy there's that word intent again...gassssssp!) is to understand how the ACOE plays words of "excess" versus "no longer needed". Keep in mind, my focus at this time was for Sakakawea. But obviously, Oahe is the same project and same type of lands.

The answer given is rather open ended and well, hard to comprehend. So I asked for more clarification by quoting the Master Plan which is in essence the Master Manual. Which in essence again is the Pick Sloan Act. Which all were upheld in this court case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1158589.html

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

From Larry to Tim:

Tim,

Todd Lindquist mentioned that you had requested an explanation of the difference between excess lands and lands no longer needed for the construction, maintenance, or operation of the Garrison Project. Below is how I would explain it:

Excess lands are identified by comparing the lands originally acquired for the project against the lands that would be now acquired using the current acquisition criteria. The criterion outlined in Appendix E of Engineering Regulation 1130-2-540 provides the detailed guidance for determining which lands identified are excess. Lands no longer needed for the project are determined by comparing existing lands against those lands needed to operate and maintain the project. In this case vegetative management lands were determined to be no longer needed, while lands essential for recreation, wildlife management, flood control and navigation would be retained.

Hope this explanation helps. If you have any additional questions please let me know.

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

From Tim to Larry:

Hi Larry and others:


Larry, thank you for the response. I have a few follow up comments/questions.


1. Do project purposes not equate into "current acquisition criteria?" Can you or someone please send me the Appendix E of Engineering Regulation 1130-2-540?


2. Attached is a PDF. It is from the 2007 Master Plan/EA study for the Garrison Project. I want you to focus on Management Unit (MU) 69 and 71 of the map. Notice the tan color is wildlife management. Also notice green is vegetation management. Below is text taken from the Master Plan separated by alphabetical bullets to help organize questions and answers to follow:


a. On page 7-107 discussing recreation activities for vegetative management MU 069 it is noted hunting as a primary recreation activity. Hiking, camping, photography and off-road vehicle use are listed as other common recreational activities. Resource objectives on pages 7-108 thru 7-109 include (but not limited to) balance wild land values and public uses, promote access that minimizes adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife, maintain quality in concert with recreation, fish and wildlife, develop and manage levels of recreation activities, promote ecological integrity by controlling noxious weeds and maintain and/or improve wildlife habitat. These are all items consistent with 1.7 of the Master Plan project-wide resource objectives specifically including manage habitat for threatened and endangered species and to support diversity of fish and wildlife species. How does this compare to MU 71 land classification of wildlife management? Let’s compare directly below...


b. On page 7-127 discussing recreation activities for wildlife management MU 071 it is noted hunting is a primary recreation activity followed by boating and fishing. On pages 7-127 thru 7-128 resource objectives are (but not limited to) balance wild land values and public uses, promote access that minimizes adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife, maintain quality in concert with recreation, fish and wildlife, develop and manage levels of recreation activities, promote ecological integrity by controlling noxious weeds and maintain and/or improve wildlife habitat. Again, these items are consistent with 1.7 Master Plan project-wide resource objectives. So how do MU 069 and MU 071 differ from one another?


c. Under 1.4.6 Fish and Wildlife of the Master Manual it specifically states vegetation management is a classified area developed and managed to benefit wildlife. Furthermore, "remaining project lands" are also managed to enhance and benefit wildlife species. Since wildlife management is a project purpose how does the ACOE decide vegetation management lands are no longer needed?


d. Does the ACOE not see erosion as an issue? Per 1.4.8 Water Quality is directly dependent upon silt control, soil-erosion prevention, pollution abatement to provide adequate and safe municipal water, improved clarity of water for recreation, improved clarity of water for fish and wildlife, stock watering and other water supply use. Would you agree lands classified as vegetative management are crucial to meeting project needs?


e. In section 2.1.3 Project Lands recreation activities include (but are not limited to) hunting, camping, picnicking, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, bird watching, wildlife observation, interpretive activities, photography, winter sports and sightseeing. Furthermore, Recreation.gov highlights recreation activities as autotouring, biking, boating, camping, climbing, educational programs, fish hatcheries, fishing, hiking, historic/cultural sites, horseback riding, hunting, lodging, museum/visitor, off-highway vehicle access, recreational vehicles, water sports, wildlife viewing and winter sports. Would you agree these activities take place on all project lands and specifically vegetative management lands?

f. Section 2.11.2 states "wildlife-associated recreation activities are important at the Lake Sakakawea project and in North Dakota." In section 2.11.3 the Master Plan further quotes hunting of big game using firearms or archery is an important fall recreation activity on project lands. The ACOE agrees hunting activity follows state trends of increasing each year and at the time of the master plan & EA the ACOE quotes North Dakota is the fifth-highest among 50 states in regard to hunting participation. Would you agree the vegetative management lands as directed by the Master Plan are bound to project purposes of recreation and wildlife?


g. In section 5.3.5.1 multiple resource management notes lands in vegetation management are permitted for a variety of purposes including erosion control, retention and improvement of scenic qualities and wildlife management. Would you agree vegetative lands are considered multi-purpose lands that again meet project purposes?


h. Recreation is a key project purpose. Recreation is dynamic and not static meaning recreation activities can and must grow to meet the need. Master Plans are revisited to better classify lands and if transferred they will forever be removed from availability. Many vegetative management lands have the same potential recreation value (and in some cases more value) as any other acre within the project. If vegetative management lands are removed from the project, would you agree removing vegetative lands removes the ability to provide additional recreation opportunity?


To borrow words and sentences from the conclusion section of the Master Plan, the vegetative management activities are very important in all areas of the project, regardless of their land classification. They are multiple resource management lands that meet many if not every single project purpose as directed by the Pick Sloan Act. Vegetative management areas are monitored and grazing activities regulated to prevent overgrazing important for the quality of vegetation for wildlife habitat. Finally, collaborate efforts cited in section 8-1 and 8-2 highlight wildlife management are codependent upon vegetative management areas.


With the above, I find it impossible and unimaginable to distinguish excess versus no longer needed nor can I understand wildlife management areas separate from vegetative management areas. I used MU 069 and MU 071 as example because I grew up there. I've stood at the line separating the two MUs looking at identical terrain, habitat and recreation offering. Like excess versus no longer needed the ACOE is trying to justify a distinction without difference.


I look forward to your response on how vegetative management lands can be seen as no longer needed when they are bound in so many ways to the multi project purposes of recreation, fish and wildlife, water quality, municipal and industrial water supply, irrigation, navigation, hydropower and flood control.


Best Regards,


Tim Sandstrom

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

I am waiting response to my latest email.

 

[gst]

gst,

End of story, recreation is a project purpose. A benefit. A source of existence. A major industry that supports many economies. An industry that supports those you defend at the Stockman's Association whom depend upon wildlife as part of their business.

I'd stop meddling in URLs you have and look at the Master Manual, the Master Plan that adjusts the Master Manual at given intervals and the JTAC report written in the 1980's. If that isn't enough, I'll try to hunt down the pamphlet written in the 1950's used to help promote and sell the project to those who sold land for the project. It specifically states recreation, fish and wildlife.

What you are doing is what the ACOE tried as well. Engineer purposes out of the picture so when states like Missouri bitch about barges floating the ACOE only has to answer to them and not the states upstream who generate many times more dollars in the recreation industry than those in the barge business.

Recreation, fish and wildlife have been project purposes for decades.

Tim, I have no doubt that recreation was added as a "project purpose" AFTER the original 1944 Pick Sloan Flood Control Act was introduced to Congress . Can you show where it was mentioned in the original 1944 language that resulted in private lands being taken for what Pick and Sloan presented and Congress compromised on and passed? At thbis point I am merely curious if it weas or if it was added by amendment in 1946.

At this point that is not even the issue I am attempting to get others to consider.

I am NOT arguing recreation is not a consideration today. I shared a link to show where it was indeed apparently added in 1946. You seem to be missing that point that that is how the govt operates I mentioned.

My comments were merely to show that the Federal govt agencies like the COE and BLM are not honoring the language written in these Acts where promises were made to We the people.

I strongly support you trying to hold these govt agencies such as the COE accountable and inform us of their actions. Your factual in depth insight into these issues is appreciated as people like myself do not spend the time to know what is happening, much like others do not spend the time to know what is happening with other Federal agencies like the BLM and USFS as they ignore language from past Acts that some of us follow more closely.

I'm on your side in this one Tim. I was only using what is happening with the COE to make a point that other Fed. agencies such as the BLM are operating in the same manner.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Sorry Obi, I meant 1456.

Here it is (hyperlinked in first post). http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/64-2015/documents/15-0603-03004m.pdf

The bill currently being drafted for introduction to US congress specifically delegates the state may and will try to transfer lands to private.

And yes, as mentioned by someone else Schmidt requires the wildlife management areas to be transferred or the intent is moot.

Contact the governors office. But be prepared to receive lip service talking points that will say protections will be placed for access, ramps etc. So when you call be sure to specifically ask about wildlife management acres.

- - - Updated - - -

I also suggest contacting the Corp asking how these acres can be in excess (or no longer needed) for the Project Purposes.

I have email conversations going on now regarding Sakakawea and will share when information comes available.

ve you contacted the new gov candidates to see how they weigh in on this subject, would be interesting to hear....
Ha

 

[gst]

Out of curiousity Tim, what would you think if the Federal; govt owned 87% of all the lands here in ND and the COE managed them in the manner they are managing the lands they do control.?

Keep in mind that is what other western states like Nevada are facing with the BLM and USFS.

THAT is the point trying to be made here.

 

[johnr]

Excellent work Tim.

Thank you, not trying to sound condescending or anything, just a thanks for all the efforts, I hope it pays off

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

Out of curiousity Tim, what would you think if the Federal; govt owned 87% of all the lands here in ND and the COE managed them in the manner they are managing the lands they do control.?

Keep in mind that is what other western states like Nevada are facing with the BLM and USFS.

THAT is the point trying to be made here.

The issue with the ACOE is they still to this day don't really care about recreation. Its easier for them to lock down the land and make it more difficult to develop for whatever recreation topic. But that said, they have shown signs they are willing to cooperate when motivated individuals do something versus talk about how bad they hate the ACOE. Example, the ACOE wanted to close down Reunion Bay. The Big Bend township formed a park board and are now working with the ACOE to keep Reunion open but also enhance and expand it. I get a little frustrated in that process because the ACOE doesn't "trust" the board enough to give them what they want right away. Instead we have to earn it and prove they are worthy. But I can see that to a point so it is what it is.

I'm a believer that local entities (state, county or township) can better handle public lands (to an extent). You won't get me saying otherwise. But that's not always across the board either. But in general, I believe that. I'm a private rights guy. But I also have grown up enjoying public lands and see the benefit many overlook which is the ease of access to do things in the outdoors limiting the barriers that can exist with privately controlled lands. There needs to be a balance there and I think in North Dakota, we are sort of there.

The National Grasslands in the Badlands seem to be managed well enough. I don't have the insider ranch talk but the 4-8 bucks they pay to graze the lands seems pretty reasonable (maybe the price has changed, idk but I was told that was a common rate). Maybe the Grasslands doesn't allow as much grazing as a rancher would like but I can tell you now spending many hours out there I appreciate the control placed as I've seen extreme grazing acres butted up to Grasslands and I'm a bit surprised a rancher would want to graze their land down like that. Maybe he is an extremist...I dont' know. But point is, I'm not sure the forest service office here is too aggressive. That doesn't mean they dont' exist elsewhere! So please take note I'm on record saying that.

My big question is our state is dependent upon commodities. Commodities swing and when they swing they swing hard. Our budget is a bit of a mess now and would the state have the money available to take care of the lands and develop the lands any better than the feds in times like this? I think that's a fair question to ask!

In the case of the ACOE there will never be the barrier broken especially when it comes to water recreation. The ACOE will continue to control the land from 1838 on down to the bottom of the lake, river. When we add in a 3rd party entity (whether private individual or the TAT) we are adding in another level of complexity.

I don't like how Jim Schmidt is steam rolling the lame duck Governor and defying the public by reintroducing private transfer of lands when the public amended that right out of 1456.

- - - Updated - - -

Excellent work Tim.

Thank you, not trying to sound condescending or anything, just a thanks for all the efforts, I hope it pays off

Lycan and John or for that matter anyone else. I cannot do this myself. YOU MUST PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL the Governor's Office and the US legislators yourself. Tell them you are against any transfer of lands and that you believe there are few if any lands in excess of the Garrison Dam project.

The only way anything will be accomplished in the public's favor is if you make the effort along side me.

And lycan, I have contacted Hoeven's office. They say all US legislators are on board. Even Heidi.

 

[gst]

To answer a couple points, not all BLM district managers or USFWS managers or USFS district managers buy into the removal of multiple use agreements. Some see the benefits and are doing their best to continue them and honor the intent of the Acts that created them despite Federal level policies. Here in ND we have largely been lucky in having individuals that see and work with multiple use parties including recreation on these Federal lands.

More and more especially in western lands this is no longer the case as younger environs become higher ups in these agencies. Mt legislature is currently researching the impact of the closure of many miles of access roads on these "public" lands. Even here in ND we see orgs that work to push those agendas to impact these public lands.

Combine that with corrupt politicians seeking to gain personal benefit and it can be a long road for those impacted.

It is my opinion that thru forums such as this we can impact people of a district here in our state to hold state representatives accountable for their actions MUCH more easily than we can get the people of say Nevada to "fire" a Harry Reid.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Here is where to go to contact he governors office, if anyone doesnt know.
https://www.nd.gov/contactus.htm