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

Finley, North Dakota without water after watermain leak.

Published

on

Finley, North Dakota without water after watermain leak.


A do not use water advisory issued by the City of Finley, North Dakota. April 2026.

FINLEY, N.D. (KFGO) – The city of Finley, North Dakota has been without potable water since Friday due to a suspected water main leak. Steele County Emergency Management says it is unclear how long it will take to restore water services in the city.

The North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality says the available water in Finley has been deemed unusable for drinking, cooking, bathing and washing dishes or laundry.

Advertisement

The water system will need to be flushed and samples that say the water is safe will need to be collected for the water advisory to be lifted.



Source link

Continue Reading

North Dakota

Richard D. Langowski Obituary April 16, 2026 – Tollefson Funeral Home

Published

on

Richard D. Langowski Obituary April 16, 2026 – Tollefson Funeral Home


Richard D. “Rick” Langowski, age 78 of Minto, North Dakota passed away on Thursday, April 16, 2026 at his home in Minto.

Rick was born March 10, 1948 in Grafton, North Dakota, the son of the late Julian and Catherine (Wysocki) Langowski. In 1967, he volunteered for the military bringing him to Germany as a Motor Sargent. After an Honorable Discharge he took a job at the International Airport in Grand Forks, ND. His duties included: refueling planes and jets as well as maintaining the grounds. He had the opportunity to meet the famous singer Mr. James Brown.

Rick was united in marriage to Alice Odegard on June 17, 1982 in Minto, North Dakota. The family made their home in Minto where they raised Jason and Angela. Rick was very proud of his children and loved them more than anything. He told everyone and bragged about the children he raised. He cherished his grandchildren and loved to be present in every aspect of their lives.

His career changed to semi driving where he drove for Cenex Transportation for four years and ten years for Valley Transports. His love for the open road directed him into the used car business. He opened Minto Auto Sales and Services in 1987, proudly operating for 39 years. He had the privilege to meet many people and travel to many places. He enjoyed riding his many Harley Davidson Motorcycles. In 2025, he sold the business to his longtime mechanic and friend, Aaron Anderson. In Rick’s opinion, “Minto Auto is one of the best mechanical shops in the area.”

Advertisement

He was a member of the Sacred Heart Catholic Church, Minto, ND. He loved hunting with Jason, watching sports, especially the Yankees and Twins. In 2017, Rick was able to enjoy a father/son trip of a lifetime to Alaska. He thoroughly enjoyed every aspect of the trip and thought was the best time of his life.

Rick is survived by his children: Jason Odegard, Reynolds, ND; Angela (Nick) Eppert, Goshen, IN; grandchildren: Ashlyn, Kaia, Annika, Boden and Caelan; sisters: Carol King, Grand Forks, ND; Connie Jones, Argyle, MN; seven nieces and nephews. He is also survived by his very close friend and confidant, Yvette Estep, Grafton, ND. He was preceded in death by his parents and siblings: Robert and Ronald.

Rick’s family would like to extend a very special thank you to Yvette Estep, an employee of Rick’s, affectionately known as “hotrod.” She was there for Rick, along with Aaron for doctor’s appointments, treatments and helped comfort him throughout his battle. Jason and Angela will be forever indebted to her and consider her family.

Mass of Christian Burial will be Wednesday, April 22, 2026 at 10:30 A.M. at the Sacred Heart Catholic Church of Minto. Visitation will be for one hour prior to the service at the church. Interment will be at the Sacred Heart Catholic Cemetery, Minto, ND. Military Rites will be provided by the Minto American Legion Post and the North Dakota National Guard Honor Guard.

Advertisement

or send flowers to the family in memory of Richard D. Langowski, please visit our

.



Source link

Continue Reading

North Dakota

Tesla Sues North Dakota Over Direct Sales Ban

Published

on

Tesla Sues North Dakota Over Direct Sales Ban


By Nehal Malik

Tesla is heading to court to challenge one of the final frontiers of the traditional car dealership model. The automaker has officially filed a lawsuit against the state of North Dakota, seeking the right to open its first two showrooms and service centers in Bismarck and Fargo.

Advertisement

For years, North Dakota law has required vehicle manufacturers to sell their products through independent, third-party franchised dealerships. Tesla, which famously avoids the middleman to sell directly to consumers, argues that these decades-old rules are an unnecessary barrier. According to a report by the Minot Daily News, the case is now in the hands of District Judge Bonnie Storbakken.

A Battle Over Definitions

The core of Tesla’s legal argument relies on a specific reading of state law. Currently, North Dakota defines a “manufacturer” as a person who assembles or imports a vehicle and sells it to dealers in the state for resale. Tesla argues that because it sells directly to its customers and does not use third-party dealers at all, it technically doesn’t fall under that legal definition.

“Tesla just wants to be able to sell its vehicles in North Dakota, and not force customers who would wish to purchase a Tesla vehicle to have to drive to Minnesota or another state to do it,” said Ari Holtzblatt, one of Tesla’s attorneys. Currently, the more than 800 Tesla owners in North Dakota have to leave the state just to take delivery of their cars or receive first-party service.

The state’s Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pitcher, isn’t buying it. He argued during a recent hearing that “Tesla can operate in North Dakota the same way that every other manufacturer does. They can appoint dealers, they can enter into franchise agreements, and they can sell through that.” From the state’s perspective, the law isn’t stopping Tesla from doing business; it’s just regulating how the company’s cars get into owners’ hands.

Challenging the Franchise Model

Tesla has a long history of fighting these “protectionist” franchise laws across the U.S. In many cases, Tesla’s legal victories have paved the way for other EV startups like Rivian and Lucid to secure their own direct-sales exceptions. In some of the more restrictive states, Tesla has even found innovative workarounds by partnering with Native American tribes to open stores on sovereign tribal land.

Advertisement

The direct-to-consumer model is vital for Tesla because it allows the company to control the entire customer experience and maintain higher margins by cutting out dealer markups. For the customer, this often translates to a more transparent buying process without the high-pressure sales tactics or hidden fees associated with traditional dealerships.

The Road Ahead for North Dakota

North Dakota has historically lagged behind in EV infrastructure, though the state is slowly catching up with a growing number of Supercharger locations and charging ports along the I-94 corridor. Tesla’s attempt to establish a physical presence in the state is a clear sign that the company sees untapped potential in the region.

If the court rules in Tesla’s favor, it won’t mean instant licenses, but it will give the company the green light to reapply with the Department of Transportation. As the automotive world shifts toward an electric future, these legal battles in North Dakota will likely determine how much choice consumers actually have when it comes to how they buy their next car.

By Nehal Malik

Tesla is gearing up for its first major financial check-in of the year. The company has officially scheduled its Q1 2026 earnings call for after the bell on Wednesday, April 22, 2026. Ahead of the event, Tesla has shared its company-compiled earnings consensus for the quarter, which aggregates estimates from 20 top sell-side analysts, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Wedbush.

According to the data, analysts are expecting average total revenues of approximately $21.4 billion for the quarter. On the profitability side, the consensus for GAAP Earnings Per Share (EPS) sits at $0.16, with an adjusted non-GAAP figure of $0.33. While the company noted it “does not endorse any information, recommendations or conclusions made by the analysts,” these numbers provide a clear benchmark for what Wall Street expects from Elon Musk and his team.

Advertisement

Setting the Stage for Q1 Results

This earnings report follows a quarter in which Tesla’s delivery numbers came in slightly below analyst projections. The company delivered 358,023 vehicles, just missing the initial analyst consensus of 365,645. Even with the slight miss, deliveries grew about 6.3% compared to the first quarter of last year.

To put these new earnings estimates in perspective, we can look back at Q1 2025. In that first quarter of last year, Tesla reported an adjusted EPS of $0.27 and revenue of $19.34 billion. While the Q1 estimates show a healthy gain in earnings that aligns with the year-over-year growth in deliveries, the focus during the call will likely be on margins and future growth rather than just the raw revenue numbers.

A Roadmap Beyond the Model S and X

The Q&A session with executives is expected to be one of the most eventful in years, especially since Model S and Model X production has officially ended. Tesla is currently offering its final Signature Edition units as a tribute to its flagship legacy, leaving a “premium-shaped” hole in the lineup that many investors hope will be filled by a new high-end SUV (CyberSUV, anyone?) or the long-awaited next-gen Roadster.

We also expect significant updates on Tesla’s AI and robotics divisions. Musk recently confirmed that the AI5 chip design is complete, with work already beginning on AI6 and Dojo 3. Additionally, the Cybercab robotaxi is slated to enter mass production this month, and investors will be looking for a firm timeline on the first unsupervised autonomous rides.

What to Watch For

Beyond the balance sheet, the call will likely touch on the Optimus humanoid robot. Tesla is rumored to be close to unveiling a production-ready prototype later this year, and any mention of “Optimus in the factory” will surely move the needle.

Advertisement

As Tesla transitions from a traditional car manufacturer to an AI and robotics powerhouse, this earnings call will serve as a pulse check for that transformation. We’ll be covering the call on April 22 to see if Tesla can beat expectations and provide a clear vision for its hardware-heavy roadmap through 2027.

By Nehal Malik

Tesla’s Spring 2026 Software Update (version 2026.14 and later) is officially here, and while the “flashy” features like the new “Hey Grok” wake word are getting most of the attention, the vehicle’s user interface is also getting a massive glow-up. Tesla has updated the parked vehicle visualizations, bringing improved vehicle models to the center touchscreen.

Installed on 0.9% of fleet

Advertisement

Last updated: Apr 18, 2:05 pm UTC

The new look was first showcased by Tesla enthusiast @sergiumogan on X, who posted a direct comparison between the old and new interfaces. The difference is immediately apparent, with improved lighting and the car model and the surrounding scene looking significantly more realistic.

Higher Fidelity via Unreal Engine

The jump in quality is thanks to Tesla’s integration of Unreal Engine into its software stack. This technology was previously used on the flagship Model S and Model X, but it is now trickling down to the rest of the fleet. The car model itself is higher quality, with improved lighting effects that make reflections on the paint and glass far more noticeable.

Advertisement

The environment around the car has also been completely redesigned. Instead of a simple gray void, the “park scene” now features a professional, studio-like atmosphere. There is a cool fog-like effect over the windscreen, with spotlight-style lighting shining down on the car, creating a sense of depth that was missing in previous versions. This level of polish makes the car feel like a premium piece of tech even when it is just sitting in your garage.

Hardware Requirements and Compatibility

Currently, this high-fidelity visualization is only showing up for the new “Highland” Model 3 (2024+) and the 2025+ Model Y (Juniper). However, there are plenty of reasons for owners of older vehicles to be optimistic. This feature will likely become available for some other models in a future update, such as the Cybertruck, roughly 2022+ Model 3, and 2022+ Model Y, provided they are equipped with the AMD Ryzen-powered MCU 3 infotainment unit.

The processing power required for these lighting effects and high-res textures means that older Intel Atom-based cars (MCU 2) will likely be left out of this specific visual upgrade. While this might not be the most “exciting” functional feature, it proves that Tesla is working on all aspects of the user experience. The company isn’t just pushing its self-driving software to the limits; it is making sure the car looks and feels modern every time you step inside.

It’s not just the parked screen; these improved models are also used on the vehicle visualizations.

A Strong Start to the Spring Update

The Spring 2026 Software Update has delivered on its promises in spades. Between interactive maps for the rear screen and the rebranding of Dog Mode to Pet Mode, not to mention a brand new Self-Driving App that brings subscriptions, tutorials, and usage stats under one umbrella, Tesla is keeping its fleet feeling fresh.

As the Spring Update continues to roll out to more owners globally, we expect to see even more hidden UI tweaks discovered. Tesla has successfully turned its cars into evolving platforms where a simple over-the-air update can make your three-year-old vehicle feel like a brand-new model.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending