Connect with us

North Dakota

At issue in a Billings County bridge dispute: When is a written promise not a promise?

Published

on

At issue in a Billings County bridge dispute: When is a written promise not a promise?


MEDORA, N.D. — Dave Short stood on a high bluff and pointed down below to a stake driven into the ground on his family’s ranch along the Little Missouri River — a guidepost for bulldozers.

The stake on the valley floor marks the path of a proposed road that would lead to a bridge Billings County wants to build over the river deep in the heart of the Badlands.

Next, he pointed to a knob jutting from the top of the butte, a landmark that also lies along the path of the bridge a project backer once said would carry a thousand oil trucks a day on a road less than a mile from his family’s ranch headquarters.

Advertisement
Dave Short stands in front of a knob that would be bulldozed for a road connecting to a proposed bridge that would cross the Little Missouri River in Billings County, North Dakota, on the Short family ranch.

Patrick Springer / The Forum

“That whole butte would be torn off,” Short said. Dust from traffic over the gravel road would force the Shorts to move their cattle feedlot to a new location. The road for the bridge would sever the ranch headquarters from the rest of the family’s sprawling land.

“We don’t want that road,” he said. “We don’t want that road for anything, and all that traffic across the flat, and all the dust covering everything. In the dry years, it’ll look apocalyptic.”

The Short family’s fight to save its land could depend on a legal question of whether a county commission’s agreement to surrender its eminent domain authority can bind a future commission — or, put another way, when is a written promise not a binding promise?

Advertisement

The ranch has been in the Short family for more than a century, when the family started ranching in 1904, during homesteading and the end of the open range ranching era.

Horse herds used to graze the plateau, where breezes helped keep away the flies. Trails created by the horses still etch the pasture with a trail leading to the craggy butte sculpted from the high plain.

The remote Short ranch, a few miles south of Theodore Roosevelt’s Elkhorn Ranch, now a unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, is quiet, with the rugged beauty of the Badlands left mostly undisturbed.

“That is why we’re trying to protect the ranch,” Short said. “The Short family has always been no-build. Leave this country the way it is.”

‘Least damaging’ location

Advertisement

For decades, Billings County has wanted a crossing over the Little Missouri River between the Long X Bridge, south of Watford City in McKenzie County, and the Interstate 94 bridge at Medora.

The gap between bridges means motorists can have to drive more than 70 miles to cross the river or take their chances during low river levels.

Billings County officials contend a bridge is needed for public safety, to allow faster emergency response, as well as for the convenience of ranchers, commercial traffic and tourists.

A bald man points to hills in the distance.

Dave Short points to the location of a proposed bridge that would cross the Little Missouri River on his family ranch, with a road planned for a gap between buttes on the other side of the river. The road on the Short ranch would pass near a feedlot.

Patrick Springer / The Forum

Advertisement

The Short family counters, however, that there is no need for a costly bridge to serve sparsely populated Billings County, which has 1,043 residents, according to census figures. The vast majority of those reside south of Medora, Short said.

“There is no one out there to connect or benefit from it,” he said. “There’s less than 25 people north of Medora.”

The county’s quest for a bridge gained impetus after the oil boom in the early 2000s. At first, the county proposed a crossing near the historic Elkhorn Ranch in 2006 but abandoned that location after a public outcry.

An environmental review by the Federal Highway Administration examined multiple possible bridge locations and in 2019 chose the site on the Short ranch, which federal officials concluded was the “least damaging practicable alternative.”

Advertisement

“It’s not Billings County that’s choosing where this bridge goes,” said Tami Norgard, a lawyer for the county. “It’s the Federal Highway Administration.”

In April 2020, the Billings County Commission, acting on an agenda item described only as “eminent domain,” passed a resolution approving the use of eminent domain for the bridge project.

But the county’s plans to use eminent domain to take land for the bridge from the Shorts was derailed in the 2020 election, when Jim Arthaud, a leading bridge proponent on the Billings County Commission, was defeated.

In his place, voters elected Dean Rodne, an opponent of using eminent domain to take private land. Commissioner Mike Kasian, who earlier supported using eminent domain for the bridge, changed his mind and joined Rodne in opposing eminent domain.

With two of its three commissioners opposed to taking private land for the bridge, the Short family and Billings County signed a settlement agreement, with the Shorts signing in late July and the commissioners in August 2021. The county would look elsewhere for a river crossing.

Advertisement

In exchange for the county’s promise not to use eminent domain on Short family land for the bridge, the Shorts agreed to dismiss two lawsuits challenging placement of the bridge on their land.

Then, a new pro-eminent domain commission resulted when Steven Klym defeated Kasian in 2022.

After concluding there wasn’t a viable alternative, the new commission majority decided to ignore the agreement signed the year before by the former commission — meaning the Short ranch was once again in the crosshairs of the long-sought bridge.

The county offered the Shorts $20,000 per acre for permanent easements, an offer the family rejected, saying it had no interest in selling any land.

Billings County then exercised an eminent domain provision under North Dakota law called “quick take” that allows it to deposit money for land it has deemed necessary for a public project.

Advertisement

In August 2023, Billings County deposited three checks totaling $52,371 with the clerk of courts, allowing it to take possession of a strip of the Short Ranch.

And, once again, the Shorts were back in court. Because an appeal couldn’t stop the county from proceeding with construction on land it owned, the Shorts filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Bismarck arguing that their constitutional rights were violated.

“The County has gone back on its word, torn up a contract it had agreed to, and taken concrete steps toward condemning the Short Ranch,” the lawsuit said.

In rebuttal, the county argued its lawyers made clear before the agreement was signed that the commission that signed the agreement couldn’t bind a future county commission.

Arguing that bulldozing the buttes to create a road path leading to the bridge would cause “irreparable harm,” the Shorts asked a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction blocking construction until the legal dispute is decided.

Advertisement

“The County’s attempt to take the Shorts’ property will irreparably harm this beauty, forever changing the largely untouched landscape of the Shorts’ property,” the lawsuit said.

The Shorts’ lawyers took the case to federal court because, under North Dakota’s quick-take eminent domain law, a legal challenge in state court cannot block construction even if the dispute hasn’t been decided.

The ability of the state and its subdivisions to take land even before a court has heard challenges gives the state immense power over private landowners, Short said.

“I think most North Dakotans don’t realize the government has that sort of authority,” he said.

Derrick Braaten, a lawyer who represents the Shorts, said governments are increasingly using their power to acquire land through quick take.

Advertisement

“There’s no limit on when they can use it,” he said.

Tim Purdon, another lawyer for the Shorts, added, “It short circuits due process procedures,” with an expedited process that diminishes a landowner’s right to be heard.

‘A contract says what it says’

The crux of the Shorts’ federal court challenge is a claim that the Billings County Commission’s decision to ignore the settlement agreement signed by a previous commission constitutes a breach of contract.

Advertisement

Short ranch headquarters.jpeg

The headquarters of the Short ranch, which has been in the Short family for more than a century, dating to the end of the open range ranching era. The butte in the foreground would be bulldozed if Billings County prevails against the Shorts in court.

Patrick Springer / The Forum

But the county argues that under case law one commission cannot “surrender” its “sovereign eminent domain authority through agreement with a landowner.”

Norgard explained her assertion of the inability of one commission to bind a future commission by giving up its eminent domain authority in the commission’s regular meeting on July 6, 2021, several weeks before the Shorts and commissioners signed the agreement, according to minutes for the meeting.

Sandra Short, the family matriarch, and her daughter, Sarah Sarbacker, were present at the meeting, according to the minutes.

Advertisement

Precedents upholding the inability of one commission to bind a future commission are a matter of “black letter law,” a position the county argues is well supported, adding it is “the consensus among jurisdictions that the right of eminent domain cannot be contracted away or restricted.”

But lawyers for the Shorts argue the signed settlement agreement is a contract that must be upheld.

“In the law, a contract says what it says” and cannot be modified by “oral side deals,” Purdon said.

“Contracts dealing with real estate have to be in writing,” he said, adding the signed agreement does not include a provision for the county to reconsider. “It doesn’t say the county can change its mind later.”

U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor issued a preliminary injunction to bar construction before the dispute is decided.

Advertisement

“The record establishes a probability of success on the merits of the Shorts’ breach of contract claim,” Traynor wrote in his decision. “The Shorts entered into a settlement agreement with the then-Billings County Board of Commissioners.”

The judge added that the commission’s rescission of the agreement after the election is “contrary to the plain language of the Settlement Agreement.”

Billings County is appealing Traynor’s order to the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

‘We just want to be left alone’

The Short ranch has been in the family since 1904. Hugh Connorran Short was a land salesman for the Northern Pacific Railway, whose work took him to Billings County.

Advertisement

He liked the area and bought out a horse ranch. The Shorts continued raising horses but later switched to cattle.

During hard times, the Shorts were forced to sell some land but managed to rebuild the ranch, which now sprawls over 3,000 acres. Another branch of the Short family owns an adjacent 3,500-acre ranch.

Donald Levingston Short, who represented North Dakota in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1959 to 1965, lived on the ranch his entire 78 years. He was Dave Short’s grandfather and Sandra Short’s father-in-law.

Don Short on Short ranch.JPG

Don Short, shown in this undated photograph, represented North Dakota in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1959 to 1965. He spent his entire life on the family ranch in Billings County. The Short family is trying to have the ranch listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Contributed / Short family

Advertisement

The family is trying to have the ranch, which occupies a scenic valley of the Little Missouri River for 12 miles, listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The ranch has a dozen buildings, including three original log cabins.

When Hugh Short started ranching, he qualified as a big rancher as of the end of the open range era, with herds of 500 horses, which he sold to buy 1,000 head of cattle. During the heyday of the open range, in the 1880s, a big ranch had between 10,000 and 25,000 head of cattle.

During a severe drought in the late 1970s, the Shorts sold their cattle. Dave Short, whose father was afflicted with disabling arthritis, sought opportunities off the ranch after graduating from high school and found a career in heavy equipment sales.

For more than 30 years, the ranch has been run by tenant ranchers, but the family is preparing to resume operations, likely in partnership with another rancher, Dave Short said.

Advertisement

Although absentee owners, the Shorts have allowed hunting on their land and take their stewardship role seriously.

“The spectacular land is what I’m fighting for,” Dave Short said, pointing to majestic buttes, banded by varicolored layers of sediment, that dominate the austere landscape. “It’s personal. We just want to be left alone.”





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

North Dakota

North Dakota Game and Fish biologists offer spring fishing previews in video series

Published

on

North Dakota Game and Fish biologists offer spring fishing previews in video series


The North Dakota Game and Fish Department has released its first four spring fishing previews. Bottom line: Things are looking pretty good out there going into another open water season. This week’s previews include the Northeast, North Central and South Central fishing districts along with Lake Sakakawea, Lake Audubon and the Missouri River System.





Source link

Continue Reading

North Dakota

North Dakota legislative resolution marks first step toward federal protection for wild horses

Published

on

North Dakota legislative resolution marks first step toward federal protection for wild horses


MEDORA, N.D. — A resolution passed by the North Dakota Legislature is the first step in seeking federal protection to ensure the future of the wild horse herd at

Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

Legislators this week overwhelmingly

passed

Advertisement

Senate Concurrent Resolution 4006,

which urges Congress to pass legislation protecting the herd.

“It’s important because it puts North Dakota on record saying they’re important and should have full protection,” said Chris Kman, president of Chasing Horses Wild Horse Advocates of Dickinson, a leading proponent for keeping a viable herd.

Park officials proposed eliminating the wild horses from the park in a recent environmental review and are injecting the mares with birth control to prevent reproduction in the herd.

The resolution notes “significant concerns regarding the management of the wild horse herd by Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the long-term health and preservation of the herd” and urges Congress to enact legislation “establishing federal protections for the wild horses to ensure the herd’s long-term health and preservation.”

Advertisement

A herd of about 200 wild horses, grouped in separate bands, has roamed the south unit since before Theodore Roosevelt National Park was established in 1947. A study found

the ancestry of the herd likely traces back to the open-range ranching era of the 1880s,

when Roosevelt ranched in the Badlands.

Following public outcry,

park officials in April 2024 abandoned an environmental review

Advertisement

— which Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., flatly called a horse-removal process — and agreed to maintain a herd of horses but said they would reduce the size of the herd.

Six months later, in October 2024,

the park conducted a helicopter roundup of the horses.

During the roundup, all mature mares were injected with GonaCon, a birth-control drug the park has used aggressively since 2009.

Most of the mares have received multiple injections of the drug, which Colorado State University researchers found to be highly effective after two doses — and determined that

Advertisement

19 of 24 mares failed to regain fertility after two doses.

Wild horses have roamed what now is the south unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park since before the park was established in 1947, dating back at least to the 1880s when Roosevelt ranched in the Little Missouri Badlands.

Patrick Springer / The Forum

As a result of the park’s use of GonaCon, horse advocates fear the park is deliberately creating a non-reproductive herd. Kman said Bruce McCann, the park’s chief of natural resources, told her late last year that the park is using GonaCon with the intent of creating a sterile herd.

Advertisement

The park has not responded to The Forum’s request for comment on the assertion that it is deliberately working to sterilize the herd.

Rangers were out darting mares in the park on Thursday, March 27. Park records show every mare was dosed with GonaCon last year, Kman said.

“GonaCon is not meant to be used every year, so what are they doing?” she said. “Eradicating the herd.”

Now that legislators have sent a clear message to Congress, Kman said she will ask the North Dakota congressional delegation to press the National Park Service to impose a moratorium on any further horse removals and the use of birth-control drugs.

“Federal legislation takes a long time, as you could imagine,” and likely would take several years to pass, if successful, she said.

Advertisement

Hoeven is preparing to take legislative action to protect the horses, spokesperson Alex Finken said.

“Last year, Senator Hoeven secured a commitment from the National Park Service to maintain wild horses at Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and he is working to introduce legislation to ensure the NPS maintains a herd of free-roaming horses on a permanent basis,” Finken said.

The herd, which the State Historical Society of North Dakota has said is historically significant, is threatened by the park’s usage of birth control, Kman said.

“The use of GonaCon absolutely has to stop,” she said. Births in the horse herd have dropped sharply, with 10 foals born last year, two of which died. There were more than 40 births in 2017, a number Kman said was too high. A healthy balance must be struck to maintain the herd’s genetic viability, she said.

As a result of the removal of young horses and the aggressive use of birth control, the horse herd is rapidly aging, Kman said. A 24-year-old mare named Tanker recently died, and many other horses are also reaching the end of their lifespan, Kman said.

Advertisement

“There’s a lot of older horses in the park that are going to be dying over the next few years,” adding urgency to the need for federal protection, she said.

There are precedents for federal protection of National Park Service horses, Kman said. The horses at Cape Lookout National Seashore on North Carolina’s Outer Banks and Ozark Scenic Riverways in southern Missouri are protected by federal law, she said.

Patrick Springer

Patrick Springer first joined The Forum in 1985. He covers a wide range of subjects including health care, energy and population trends. Email address: pspringer@forumcomm.com
Phone: 701-367-5294

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

North Dakota

North Dakota Senate passes guidelines on academic tenure in surprise bill reconsideration

Published

on

North Dakota Senate passes guidelines on academic tenure in surprise bill reconsideration


BISMARCK — The North Dakota Senate voted on Wednesday to enshrine guidelines for academic tenure in century code in a surprise reconsideration of a failed bill.

Academic tenure gives professors a permanent position and protects them from being dismissed or fired without cause. The practice is intended to guarantee academic freedom because it protects professors from being let go for the type of research they are conducting or the papers they publish.

House Bill 1437

requires institutions of higher education to establish a tenure policy. Under the guidelines laid out in the bill, the institution’s president must implement a process for annual evaluations of nontenure, tenure-track and tenured faculty. They must also develop a procedure to evaluate post-tenure faculty at least once every five years.

Advertisement

The bill also states that the policy must define the outcome of an unsatisfactory review of post-tenured faculty, which may include removal from their position.

HB 1437 previously passed the House in a 84-5 vote. It failed on the Senate floor Tuesday in a 26-20 vote. However, one senator, Sen. Brad Bekkedahl, R-Williston, was absent for Tuesday’s vote. When he was present Wednesday, he made a motion to reconsider the bill. Between Tuesday and Wednesday, enough senators changed their mind on the bill to pass it in a 28-19 vote.

The bill now goes back to the House for a vote of concurrence before it can go to the governor for a signature or veto.

Lawmakers said they were surprised the bill was brought back for reconsideration and the chamber had to take a small recess to prepare because the senate staff had not been informed that a reconsideration would be happening.

Multiple senators who changed their vote for the reconsideration said that they were on the fence about the bill but changed their mind after doing more research between days.

Advertisement

The bill received opposition testimony from representatives of the Council of College Faculties, the North Dakota University System, North Dakota State University, the University of North Dakota and Bismarck State College.

North Dakota University System Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs Lisa Johnson speaks in opposition to House Bill 1437 at the North Dakota Capitol on Tuesday, March 11, 2025.

Tanner Ecker / The Bismarck Tribune

Many of the institutions of higher education took umbrage with the bill specifying how to structure a committee to evaluate post-tenure faculty. The bill mandates that each committee include the faculty member’s administrative supervisor, at least one ranking administrator, and tenured faculty making up no less than one-third and no more than one-half of the committee.

Advertisement

“HB 1437 represents an overreach into the governance of higher education in North Dakota, which is constitutionally vested in the State Board of Higher Education,” President of the Council of College Faculties Rachelle Hunt said in written testimony.

Sen. Jonathan Sickler, R-Grand Forks, said the Legislature nixed a similar bill on academic tenure during the 2023 legislative session due to concerns over its constitutionality. He said that after the bill was defeated, the State Board of Higher Education (SBHE) took the concerns raised by the Legislature and spent over a year reviewing tenure practices at institutions of higher education in North Dakota.

He said that the SBHE’s Ad Hoc Committee on tenure had adopted most of the policies called for in HB 1437 since the bill’s introduction in January. He argued that the bill would institute a less-robust review process than what is currently being done by most institutions and expressed concern that the bill does not include any avenue for faculty to appeal the results of an evaluation.

“We need higher ed to be flexible,” Sickler said on the floor Tuesday. “By putting this in code, my concern is that we are locking the board into practice that will not work for it. We’re also putting a single process over a university system that has two-year campuses, polytechnic campuses, four-year institutions and research institutions where tenure policies may need to be different.”

SBHE member Kevin Black submitted written testimony in favor of the bill. He said that the amended version of the bill eliminates tenure as a “right” to continuous employment, clarifies post-tenure review, increases transparency and accountability, and is a step toward fixing the employee-employer relationship at institutions of higher education in North Dakota.

Advertisement

“We should not eliminate tenure, and I’m grateful for this bill’s amended approach,” Black said. “Working together, we can put the necessary guardrails around tenure policies that both drive accountability and reward our highest-achieving faculty members.”

Sen. Chuck Walen, R-New Town, who changed his vote between Tuesday and Wednesday, said he originally voted against the bill because he agrees with colleges taking care of issues such as tenure themselves. However, he added “after reading it, I’m going, this isn’t really hurting the colleges. It is just saying these are the steps to follow. And I thought that’s reasonable, so that was the reason for my (vote) change.”

Sen. Judy Lee, R-West Fargo, said that there had been significant friction between the university system and the executive branch decades ago, which established the independence of the SBHE.

“(Former) Gov. Langer was looking to fire faculty members at the research university in Fargo — and he was quite intrusive into that process — because he didn’t like some of the things he thought they were teaching,” Lee said. “The students rose up and they were successful in making sure that there would be a legal barrier between the Board of Higher Education and the executive branch in that case, but we are part of the legislative group that still shouldn’t be treading on those toes.”





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending