(Kyle Dunphey/Utah News Dispatch via the North Dakota Monitor)

(Kyle Dunphey/North Dakota Monitor) -Several states including North Dakota are throwing their support behind Utah’s lawsuit that questions whether the Bureau of Land Management can hold onto nearly 18.5 million acres of public land within the state’s borders.

Filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in August, Utah’s lawsuit argues that the BLM can’t indefinitely hold onto land without giving it a designation, like a national monument, national forest or wilderness area. Those 18.5 million acres are what the state calls “unappropriated land” — they’re still leased for grazing, recreation and mineral extraction, but have no designation.

Now, 12 states and a few state legislatures are supporting Utah’s effort, signing amicus briefs on Tuesday with the nation’s high court.

An amicus brief, also called a “friend of the court” brief, is filed by organizations or individuals who are not named in the lawsuit, but have an interest in the case or would like to support a particular side. In total, 11 briefs have been filed with the Supreme Court by various groups, states and politicians, all of them supporting Utah’s effort. They include:

• -Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming and the Arizona Legislature.
• -Iowa, which spearheaded a brief signed by attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.
• -Utah’s entire Congressional delegation, which includes Sens. Mitt Romney and Mike Lee, and Reps. Blake Moore, Celeste Maloy, John Curtis and Burgess Owens, all Republicans. Wyoming GOP Rep. Harriet Hageman also signed onto the brief.
• -The Utah Legislature.
• -The Wyoming Legislature.
• -The Utah Association of Counties.
• -The American Lands Council, a nonprofit organization based in Utah that advocates for access to public lands.
• -The Sutherland Institute, a Utah-based conservative think tank.
• -The Utah Public Lands Council, Utah Wool Growers Association, Utah Farm Bureau Federation, and county farm bureaus from Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, Uintah and Washington counties.
• -The Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit law firm.
• -A coalition of counties in Arizona and New Mexico, the New Mexico Federal Lands Council and New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau.

The brief spearheaded by Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador argues the federal government’s control of unappropriated land curtails state sovereignty.

“The federal government may validly own land in the interior as necessary to exercise enumerated powers, as with military bases, federal courthouses, and so on. But the unappropriated lands at issue here are not being used in the exercise of enumerated powers. They are ‘land that the United States is simply holding, without formally reserving it for any designated purpose,’” the brief reads.

In the filing, attorneys argue that the state’s inability to control that land causes a host of problems. There’s a different criminal code; the land cannot be taxed by the state and results in tax hikes; the state cannot exercise eminent domain; and the state can’t generate revenue from grazing fees, mineral leases or timber sales, the brief claims.

“Granting the relief Utah requests would begin to level the playing field for all western States, and restore the proper balance of federalism between western States and the federal government,” the brief reads.

The brief led by Iowa and signed by eight other attorneys general focuses more on whether the Supreme Court should take up the case, and less on the merits of Utah’s lawsuit. Utah is invoking original jurisdiction, which allows states to petition directly to the Supreme Court rather than starting in a lower court and then going through the appeals process. To invoke original jurisdiction, the issue needs to be between a state and the federal government.

Most of the cases considered by the high court are appeals — in Iowa’s brief, attorneys ask the justices to consider Utah’s complaint.

“Few issues are as fundamentally important to a State as control of its land,” the brief reads. “The Amici States respectfully ask this Court to take this case out of respect for the sovereign dignity inherent in a State’s dispute against the United States.”

___________________________________________________

A state-funded group that researches maternal mortality wants the Legislature to increase its funding five-fold to $240,000 for the 2025-2027 budget cycle.

North Dakota’s 26-member maternal mortality review committee collects and analyzes data on pregnancy-related deaths in the state. It’s affiliated with a national program under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

While the state’s annual maternal deaths are consistently in the single digits, North Dakota’s overall maternal death rate is still significantly higher than the national average, according to Dr. Dennis Lutz, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences.

The review committee is working to collect information that could help speak to why, but still faces several barriers to gathering accurate and complete data, said Lutz, who oversees the committee.

Its budget for the 2023-2025 biennium was $48,000. The committee wants to grow this number to cover expenses including recruiting additional staff, continuing medical education as well as travel costs.

It has plans to add two new staff members — one to act as a liaison to the Indian Health Service, and another to specialize in social work, Lutz said.

“I know it sounds like a lot of money,” he told lawmakers during a Health Care Committee meeting this month in Bismarck. “But on the other hand, if it’s preventative, and if we can reduce maternal deaths and complications and problems with newborns along the way, it’ll be well worth the money.”

Since North Dakota’s fertility rate is about 12,000 births per year, the funding would be equivalent to roughly $10 per delivery, he added.

Rep. Gretchen Dobervich, D-Fargo, a member of the Legislature’s interim Health Care Committee, said she’s spent the last year working on a tribal maternal mortality committee project with the CDC.

She said many North Dakotans face obstacles to quality maternal health care, especially Native residents and those who live in rural areas. A September article published by the North Dakota News Cooperative noted that more than two-thirds of counties in North Dakota were considered maternal health care deserts in 2022.

“As access to prenatal, natal and postnatal care gets more difficult for women to access, it is important for us to find solutions,” Dobervich said.

She said she’s interested in supporting Lutz’s request, but wants to hear more specifics about the maternal mortality review committee’s proposed budget.

In 2022, there were six maternal deaths in North Dakota, said Lutz. That included two traumatic deaths, one case of sepsis and a cardiac arrest.

Only one of those deaths has been confirmed as having been pregnancy-related under CDC criteria, according to a committee report. The CDC defines a pregnancy-related death as any death that occurs during pregnancy or within one year of having been pregnant.

The other five deaths could have been associated with pregnancy, but are still under investigation.

“Sometimes it takes us two or three years to research these cases and figure out what really happened,” Lutz said.

Lutz said the committee is aware of five maternal deaths that occurred in 2023, though those numbers are preliminary.

Based on the committee’s research, North Dakota’s average maternal mortality rate from 2008 to 2022 was about 50 women per 100,000 births, Lutz said.

“That’s a high number anywhere — one of the highest in the country, actually,” he said.

American Indian mothers accounted for about 30% of maternal deaths in North Dakota over that 15-year span, the committee found. By comparison, just about 8-12% of North Dakota births are to American Indian mothers.

Roughly 60% of maternal deaths in North Dakota over that time span were to white mothers, while 5% of deaths were to Black mothers.

The United States’ overall maternal mortality rate has been increasing for more than two decades, though experts aren’t sure why, said Lutz. In 2022, the national maternal mortality rate was about 22.3 deaths per 100,000 births according to data from the CDC. That’s higher than most wealthy nations.

The CDC estimates that about 80% of pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. Within the American Indian and Alaska Native population, this figure is estimated to be roughly 93%. 

It can be extremely difficult to nail down what caused a maternal death, Lutz said. Sometimes, death records are filled out wrong, or are incomplete.

“For example, we’ve had exam cases where a coroner says the patient was pregnant, but she’s 80 years old. Well, obviously she wasn’t pregnant,” Lutz said.

To improve the accuracy of death records, the committee is working with the North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services, but also with local coroners and funeral home directors, he said.

The fact that many medical records are protected from release under law also makes it difficult for the committee to decode the circumstances behind a death.

“Our biggest problem right now is that over a third of all maternal deaths in this country are related to mental health issues — that could be suicide, it could be due to overdoses,” Lutz said. “And because we often have no way to get those records legally — at least their mental health records — we end up calling all those maternal deaths.”

The committee is interested in collecting data on maternal morbidity as well, Lutz said — instances where a mother experiences a health condition during pregnancy, labor or after delivery.

One National Institutes of Health article from 2021 that analyzed data on mothers who gave birth in California between 2007 and 2012 found about 1.3% experienced severe maternal morbidity as defined by the Centers for Disease Control.

Sen. Kristen Roers, a nurse, said the committee might benefit from investing more resources in this area.

“We need to do a better job on our morbidity data, so that we can see what those trends are where you can possibly put an intervention in place,” the Fargo Republican said.

Lutz noted it’s very hard to get information on morbidity cases since they aren’t reported to the state.

“We would have to have the permission of hospitals to look at all their data,” he said, “and I don’t know that they would be willing to do that.”

The committee presents its research to the North Dakota Society of OB/Gyn in hopes that its insights can help educate medical professionals to prevent maternal deaths.

“Most OBGYNs have never had a maternal death in their career. If you’ve never experienced something, how do you prevent it?” Lutz said.

The committee doesn’t yet have data that could speak to how the state’s abortion ban may have affected maternal health care for North Dakota mothers, he said. The law was active from April 2023 to September 2024, when it was declared unconstitutional and vacated by a state judge.

BISMARCK, N.D. (KFYR) – In this week’s segment of North Dakota Outdoors, Mike Anderson tells us HOW deer hunters can participate in the chronic wasting disease surveillance program this fall.

Chronic wasting disease is a fatal brain disease of deer, moose and elk. Even though CWD has a low prevalence in North Dakota, the Game and Fish Department wants deer hunters in the 2024 surveillance units to get their deer tested.

“We’ll have collection sites set up during the rifle season up in the northeast and in 3B2 unit,” said Mason Ryckman, wildlife health biologist. “And so, it will just give the opportunity to hunters to drop off their deer heads at those collection sites.”

Hunters inside or outside the surveillance units can get their deer tested by requesting a self-sampling kit at gf.nd.gov, or by dropping off their deer heads at a Game and Fish Department district office, or deer head collection sites in the surveillance units.

“So once a hunter submits a sample, we get back to the lab, we’ll sample that deer and get that sample off to the diagnostic lab for testing. And from there, roughly a hunter can expect about four weeks to get their results back,” said Ryckman. “Those results will show up underneath their account on our Game and Fish website, and it’ll show up as an inbox message.”

The Game and Fish Department each deer season samples a quarter of the state as part of surveillance efforts.

“Our prevalence right now with CWD is relatively low in North Dakota. We do not want to see it spike up, and that’s why we’re conducting these management practices and doing our surveillance every year,” said Ryckman. “So just to kind of get an idea of the prevalence in the state and how to best manage to keep that prevalence somewhat low.”

It’s important for hunters to participate in the CWD surveillance efforts every year.

“Hunters can help by getting their deer tested and hopefully we can keep healthy deer herds on our landscape for future generations,’ said Ryckman.

Copyright 2024 KFYR. All rights reserved.