Well this is going to get interesting

Obi-Wan

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
10,077
Likes
7,723
Points
1,008
Location
Bismarck
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/loc...cle_da7db4a7-8bb6-5217-9af5-e6e67b98fdb8.html

The recent land purchase by Dakota Access LLC of ranch land along the Dakota Access Pipeline route is in compliance with state corporate farming law, according to North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem.

Stenehjem said Tuesday in a press release that, in his initial review, he’s determined that the purchase is “temporarily necessary for commercial development” and therefore meets an industrial and business purpose exception in state corporate farming law.

Dakota Access, a partner of Energy Transfer Partners LP, purchased about 7,000 acres of private ranch land in Morton County in September along the route for the Dakota Access Pipeline.



The company has claimed the purchase was necessary due to members of the ongoing protest movement camping near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation border, resulting in repeated interruptions to construction activities. The company claimed the purchase provided for a safer environment for construction workers to do their jobs.

The land is located to the north of where protesters have been camping for months. Opponents of the 1,172-mile, $3.8 billion pipeline have argued that the pipeline could contaminate Missouri River water in the event of a leak. The project is planned to go under the river, which has led to numerous demonstrations since August and prompted hundreds of arrests.

Dakota Access has entered into an interim agreement that enables North Dakota to file a lawsuit at any time to enforce the state’s corporate farming law if a violation occurs, Stenehjem said in the release.

The agreement went into effect Nov. 10 and expires Dec. 31, 2017.

During the period of the agreement, the attorney general’s office will continue to monitor the company’s compliance and take action if any violations are discovered.

The agreement says, after the expiration of the agreement or after the project is complete, the company must use the property for some use applicable under the corporate farming law or within one years’ time transfer ownership of the property.


North Dakota Farm Bureau President Daryl Lies said he hadn’t yet seen the decision by Stenehjem’s office.

He said on first glance it sounded to him as though a sale between a willing seller and willing buyer of private land had been upheld. He said private landowners should be able to do with their property as they wish.

“I think that’s a positive for private property rights,” Lies said of the decision.



North Dakota Farmers Union President Mark Watne had just received word of the decision late Tuesday afternoon.

“There’s reasons why corporations can’t own land and there’s reasons why corporations can own land,” said Watne, adding he would need time to review the decision.

North Dakota’s corporate farming law has been on the books since 1932.

Bismarck lawyer Sarah Vogel, a former state agriculture commissioner with knowledge of the state’s corporate farming law, was reviewing Tuesday’s decision and didn’t immediately provide comment Tuesday afternoon.

Vogel has previously questioned the need for Dakota Access to have thousands of acres of land when the company already has a construction and pipeline easement for the project.

A Dakota Access spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.



(Reach Nick Smith at 701-250-8255 or 701-223-8482 or at nick.smith@bismarcktribune.com.)
 
Last edited:


deleted___account

Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
2,537
Likes
682
Points
383
Location
701
I'd say the rancher received a nice "gift" at the time of the sale in the beginning. They didn't want the liability while the whole circus was going on. Oil company writes them a nice inconvenience bonus while actually buying the land cheap. Soon as smoke blows over, and it's old news the land gets "sold" back for dirt cheap to the rancher.
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,742
Likes
736
Points
438
Location
williston
I wouldn't be surprised if DAPL is forced to sell that they will challenge the law also.
 


eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,742
Likes
736
Points
438
Location
williston
Ok why do you think they would fight it?
I don't know if they would but it they have something they want to do with it or feel the need to keep it they will. the cost to fight this for a company that size is trivial at best. If it's not going to be farmed or ranched who cares if they keep it
 

Allen

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
11,568
Likes
2,978
Points
783
Location
Lincoln, kinda...
North Dakota Could See Big Revenue Boost from DAPL completion
.



Hah, I think I said just about the same thing several months ago when people were wondering why the State was so adamantly in support of the pipeline. It's good for business, taxes, and ND residents in general.
 

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
DAPL is only temporarily allowed to own this land and will most likely be forced to sell it or give it away. A gift to the state as a show of appreciation certainly would go a ways to appeasing some of the locals plus that ground has a shit ton of prairie dogs for hunting. Would love to see the signs for the oh so ironic Dakota access Wildlife Management Area.

If DAPL wishes they can petition the state to build a facility to monitor the pipeline on this land or something of the sort and if it follows the stipulations put forth under the corp farming law can retain ownership of part or possibly all of these lands. The lands must be leased to be used in an agriculture endeavor.

10-06.1-07. Industrial and business purpose exception.A corporation or limited liability company that is not engaged in the business of farming orranching may own or lease land used for farming or ranching when the land is necessary forresidential or commercial development; the siting of buildings, plants, facilities, industrial parks,or similar business or industrial purposes of the corporation or limited liability company; or foruses supportive of or ancillary to adjacent nonagricultural land for the benefit of both landparcels. The farmland or ranchland while not being immediately used for any purpose of thecorporation or limited liability company must be available to be leased by persons who farm orranch as sole proprietorships or partnerships, or by corporations or limited liability companiesallowed to engage in farming or ranching under section 10-06.1-12.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t10c06-1.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

"The agreement says, after the expiration of the agreement or after the project is complete, the company must use the property for some use applicable under the corporate farming law or within one years’ time transfer ownership of the property. "
 

dean nelson

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Posts
8,270
Likes
67
Points
308
Location
Bismarck


gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
I have no idea what DAPL will or will not do with this land, but the avenue exists for them to retain ownership if they follow the guidelines set forth by the state.

Just as non profits such as DU could own land if they would agree to abide by state law. If they had been issued a certificate of authority to do business in this state before January 1, 1985, or, beforeJanuary 1, 1987.

10-06.1-10. Acquisition of certain farmland or ranchland by certain nonprofitorganizations.A nonprofit organization may acquire farmland or ranchland only in accordance with thefollowing:1. Unless it is permitted to own farmland or ranchland under section 10-06.1-09, thenonprofit organization must have been either incorporated in this state or issued acertificate of authority to do business in this state before January 1, 1985, or, beforeJanuary 1, 1987, have been incorporated in this state if the nonprofit organization wascreated or authorized under Public Law No. 99-294 [100 Stat. 418]. A nonprofitorganization created or authorized under Public Law No. 99-294 [100 Stat. 418] mayacquire no more than twelve thousand acres [4856.228 hectares] of land from interestderived from state, federal, and private sources held in its trust fund.2. The land may be acquired only for the purpose of conserving natural areas andhabitats for biota, and, after acquisition:a. The land must be maintained and managed for the purpose of conserving naturalarea and habitat for biota.b. Any agricultural use of the land is in accordance with the management of the landfor conservation and agricultural use, and is by a sole proprietorship orpartnership, or a corporation or limited liability company allowed to engage infarming or ranching under section 10-06.1-12.c. If any parcel of the land is open to hunting, it must be open to hunting by thegeneral public.d. The nonprofit organization must fully comply with all state laws relating to thecontrol of noxious and other weeds and insects.e. The nonprofit organization must make payments in lieu of property taxes on theproperty, calculated in the same manner as if the property was subject to fullassessment and levy of property taxes.f. All property subject to valuation must be assessed for the purpose of making thepayments under subdivision e in the same manner as other real property in thisstate is assessed for tax purposes. Before June thirtieth of each year, the countyauditor of any county in which property subject to valuation is located shall givewritten notice to the nonprofit organization and the tax commissioner of the valueplaced by the county board of equalization upon each parcel of property subjectto valuation in the county.3. Before farmland or ranchland may be purchased by a nonprofit organization for thepurpose of conserving natural areas and habitats for biota, the governor must approvethe proposed acquisition. A nonprofit organization that desires to purchase farmland orranchland for the purpose of conserving natural areas and habitats for biota shall firstsubmit a proposed acquisition plan to the agriculture commissioner who shall convenean advisory committee consisting of the director of the parks and recreationdepartment, the agriculture commissioner, the state forester, the director of the gameand fish department, the president of the North Dakota farmers union, the president ofthe North Dakota farm bureau, the president of the North Dakota stockmen'sassociation, and the chairman of the county commission of any county affected by theacquisition, or their designees. The advisory committee shall hold a public hearing with the board of county commissioners concerning the proposed acquisition plan and shallmake recommendations to the governor within forty-five days after receipt of theproposed acquisition plan. The governor shall approve or disapprove any proposedacquisition plan, or any part thereof, within thirty days after receipt of therecommendations from the advisory committee.4. Land acquired in accordance with this section may not be conveyed to the UnitedStates or any agency or instrumentality of the United States.5. On failure to qualify to continue ownership under subsection 2, the land must bedisposed of within five years of that failure to qualify.
 

dean nelson

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Posts
8,270
Likes
67
Points
308
Location
Bismarck
you do realize half the people don't even read your post and no one's going to read a post if you post it in fucking legalese!
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,742
Likes
736
Points
438
Location
williston

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
you do realize half the people don't even read your post and no one's going to read a post if you post it in fucking legalese!

Holy Mr. Nelson, why the F bomb?

Everybody is wrong now and then, no need to start dropping F's all over.

At least half the people will know you don;t know everything.........(somehow I'm betting more than that already do)

Technically about half the people voted for Hillary too so they were apparently uninformed as well............;)
 
Last edited:


Paddledogger

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2016
Posts
1,076
Likes
132
Points
258
Location
Dickinson
What is the status of all the cleanup at the camps? Are are the "terrorist" gone from down that way?
 

tikkalover

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Posts
8,677
Likes
2,123
Points
758
Location
Minot
They might be pushing oil through the pipe as early as next week!! Drill baby drill!!
 

tikkalover

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Posts
8,677
Likes
2,123
Points
758
Location
Minot
Judge denies Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe’s injunction to halt DAPL construction under Lake Oahe

WASHINGTON, D.C. UPDATE: U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has denied the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe’s motion for preliminary injunction on the easement where Dakota Access is working on the pipeline under Lake Oahe.
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe says the easement violates their religious freedoms.
 

johnr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
21,641
Likes
7,687
Points
948
Location
Dickinson
These terrorist are now setting up TeePee's in DC to spread the bullshit to Washington.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 311
  • This month: 106
  • This month: 78
  • This month: 65
  • This month: 59
  • This month: 56
  • This month: 53
  • This month: 44
  • This month: 36
  • This month: 34
Top Bottom