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

North Dakota

New ballot measure guide to be mailed to North Dakota voters ahead of election

Published

on

New ballot measure guide to be mailed to North Dakota voters ahead of election


New ballot measure guide to be mailed to North Dakota voters ahead of election

Kxnet.com

Welcome to the KXMB/KXMC YouTube channel, your home for all news, sports, and weather in western North Dakota. Subscribe to our channel for the latest information, breaking news, and weather updates.

Submit your photos, videos, and news tips to https://www.kxnet.com/report-it/. You can also message us on Facebook.

Advertisement

Visit KX News: https://www.kxnet.com/
Stream our shows here: https://www.kxnet.com/live-streaming/
Download our mobile app: https://www.kxnet.com/apps/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/KXNewsND?sub_confirmation
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kxnews
X: https://twitter.com/kxmb
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kx_news/

Get our new KXNews+ app on Roku, Apple TV, or Fire TV. Learn more here: https://www.kxnet.com/kx-news-plus/





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

North Dakota

Federal judge agrees to toss $28M judgment related to Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Published

on

Federal judge agrees to toss M judgment related to Dakota Access Pipeline protests


BISMARCK (North Dakota Monitor) — A federal district court judge indicated he will nullify a nearly $28 million judgment against the federal government related to costs North Dakota incurred during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests so the parties can reach a settlement.

North Dakota is still set to receive a payment Attorney General Drew Wrigley described as satisfactory, but attorneys would not disclose the amount during a Friday hearing.

Attorneys for the United States and North Dakota said the settlement would allow the parties to avoid litigating the case in appeals court,putting the nearly seven-year-old lawsuit to rest.

“We’re hoping we really don’t need to fight any further,” Department of Justice attorney Jonathan Guynn said during the hearing.

Advertisement

The lawsuit, filed in 2019, concerns demonstrations against the construction of the crude oil pipeline, also known as DAPL, that took place in rural south-central North Dakota in 2016 and 2017.

North Dakota claims the federal government caused the protests to grow in size and intensity by unlawfully allowing demonstrators to camp on federal land. The state says it had to pay millions of dollars on policing and cleaning up the encampments as a result. The United States denies the state’s allegations.

North Dakota U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor in April 2025 sided with the state and ordered the executive branch to pay North Dakota the $28 million sum, a decision the U.S. Department of Justice later appealed to the 8th Circuit.

If the settlement moves forward, North Dakota would receive a “substantial monetary payment” from the United States, attorneys said Friday. As a condition of the agreement, the Department of Justice wants Traynor’s judgment and three other orders in which he ruled against the United States to be voided. That includes the court’s 120-page ruling from April 2025.

Both parties said Friday that having the rulings nullified wouldn’t have a significant negative impact on the public, since the documents could still be cited even if they no longer hold the weight of court orders.

Advertisement

At the same time, Guynn said the Department of Justice wants the orders vacated because it doesn’t want the legal conclusions Traynor made to influence the outcome of future lawsuits.

“The downstream consequences of keeping these on the books is troublesome for the United States,” he said during the hearing. If Traynor does not agree to axe the rulings, the United States would likely no longer be willing to settle and move forward with its appeal instead, Guynn added.

Traynor’s orders make findings about the federal government’s responsibility under the Federal Tort Claims Act — the law North Dakota filed the suit under — which the state noted previously in court filings “could have utility holding the federal government to account” in the future.

Still, attorneys for the state said they believe this trade-off is outweighed by the time and money the public would save by not going through the appeals process. North Dakota would also avoid the risk of having Traynor’s judgment overturned by higher courts.

Wrigley said the settlement will be made public once it’s finalized.

Advertisement

The United States’ appeal of Traynor’s decision has been on hold since last summer, when the state and federal government informed the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals they had started settlement negotiations and wished to pause the case.

The 8th Circuit will have to first send the case back to Traynor before he could grant the parties’ requests.

The case went to trial in Bismarck in early 2024. During the four-week trial, the court heard from witnesses including former governors Doug Burgum and Jack Dalrymple, Native activists, federal officials and law enforcement.

The Dakota Access Pipeline carries crude oil from northwest North Dakota to Illinois. It crosses the Missouri River just north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, which prompted the tribe to begin protesting the pipeline on the grounds that it poses a threat to its water supply and sovereignty.

North Dakota’s lawsuit originally requested $38 million in damages from the federal government. Traynor ordered the executive branch to pay $28 million since the U.S. Department of Justice previously gave the state $10 million as compensation for costs it spent related to the protests.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

North Dakota

North Dakota leaders unveil enhanced oil recovery plan for Bakken

Published

on

North Dakota leaders unveil enhanced oil recovery plan for Bakken


BISMARCK, N.D. (KFYR) – North Dakota leaders unveiled an initiative aimed at getting more oil out of the Bakken, using enhanced oil recovery and CO₂.

Senator John Hoeven said the effort is getting a boost from $36 million from the Department of Energy for “Crack the Code 2.0,” a $157 million initiative with state and industry funding.

Hoeven said the goal is to use CO₂ for enhanced oil recovery, calling it “an important, usable, valuable commodity” and saying, “We’re linking our coal plants with our oil and gas producing companies to do it.”

Funding will be used to develop technology to make enhanced oil recovery profitable and viable, and then implement it in North Dakota oil fields in a number of pilot projects.

Advertisement

Hoeven said current recovery rates in the Bakken are limited.

“We’re only producing about 10 to 12% of the oil out of that shale,” he said, “But with EOR, advanced oil recovery techniques, we can double it. We can take it from 10 to 12% up to 25% or better.”

Hoeven said the effort is also tied to electricity demand, saying North Dakota will “produce more electricity for a company that wants to do AI, that wants to do data centers, needs more and more electricity,” and that “it isn’t just about oil and gas.”

North Dakota Petroleum Council President Ron Ness said the pilot projects are expected to start soon.

“We hope to see these pilots putting their technologies into the ground sometime late this year, first quarter of next year,” said Ness.

Advertisement

“So I would expect by this time next year, we’re going to maybe potentially begin to see what are some of the results early on,” Ness added. “And again, this is going to take multiple, multiple swings at this thing. It’s not going to just happen. If it was easy, we’d be doing it. Nobody’s done it anywhere in the world. This is where we’re going to crack the code.”

Copyright 2026 KFYR. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending