BISMARCK, ND (kxnet) — Members of the North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association (NDRWSA) celebrated their 50th Anniversary on Tuesday, July 16, at North Dakota’s Gateway to Science in Bismarck.

The association was established with a mission to ensure that all North Dakotans had access to affordable and clean drinking water. It was founded the same year that the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Gerald Ford.

Since then, the NDRWSA has helped many rural areas across the state with funding and construction of water systems, giving clean and affordable drinking water to many North Dakotans living in rural communities across our state.

“So, even after 50 years, there’s still people out there, in Rural North Dakota that are hauling water. There’s still people in small communities that drink sub-standard water,” said Eric Volk, Executive Director of NDRWSA.

Volk says the association still has more important work to do in the coming years to ensure other rural communities are not forgotten. “There’s partnerships out there, between the State of North Dakota, the Federal Government, and the local entities. I think we all can accomplish our goal,” of expanding access to more rural communities he said.

Volk adds that a little over 300,000 people in North Dakota receive their drinking water from rural water systems, that serve 268 towns across the state.

By Mary Steuer (North Dakota Monitor)

BISMARCK, N.D. (North Dakota Monitor) – Lawmakers are reviewing the Legislature’s workplace harassment policy following a rise in complaints to the North Dakota Ethics Commission.

The policy, which dates back to 2018, outlines a process for reporting and investigating allegations of sexual harassment or discrimination-based hostility. It covers not just lawmakers, but legislative staff as well as third parties like lobbyists and media.

According to Emily Thompson, director of Legislative Council’s Legal Division, no allegations have been filed under the policy since it was adopted.

Still, she said the buzz surrounding recent complaints filed with the Ethics Commission prompted legislative staff and lawmakers to reevaluate the policy. The goal is to make sure the Legislature is prepared to handle harassment complaints if and when they do come up.

“When looking at the Ethics Commission and all of the different complaints that have been arising in media attention, we took a closer look at our policy against workplace harassment,” Thompson told members of the Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee last week.

The Legislature adopted the rules ahead of the 2019 session in wake of the #MeToo movement, said Sen. Kathy Hogan, D-Fargo, who helped spearhead the policy.

“I went to find out what our harassment policy was, and we didn’t have one,” Hogan said in a Friday interview.

The policy puts legislative leadership in charge of receiving harassment complaints. There’s also a complaint form and a checklist to guide officials through the intake and investigation procedures.

Hogan said she’s interested in revising the policy to allow some complaints to be resolved informally, like through third-party mediation. That could help address minor disputes between members of the Legislature that don’t warrant a full investigation, she said.

“How do you screen the cases, the initial reports, to try and resolve them at the lowest level?” Hogan said. “That’s the kind of issue we’re beginning to look at now.”

Rep. Zac Ista, D-Grand Forks, proposed adding a provision to allow complaints that don’t clearly state violations of the harassment policy to be dismissed.

There also was discussion over whether the policy should include greater protections for people accused of unfounded complaints. Currently, any records related to complaints would become public after the complaints are investigated, or within 75 days after the complaint is filed, Thompson said.

“What would happen if a review panel determined the complaint was frivolous, and the potential damage for reputation by it not being confidential?” said House Majority Leader Rep. Mike Lefor, R-Dickinson.

Lefor questioned whether the complaint process should more closely mirror the Ethics Commission’s, which keeps most complaints confidential unless they are substantiated and the accused has an opportunity to appeal.

House Minority Leader Rep. Josh Boschee, D-Fargo, said it may also be worth exploring confidentiality protections for people who come forward to report potential harassment

“I can share that in at least one instance, maybe two, where people came forward concerned about this type of behavior,” he said. “They stopped from moving forward with the process once they found out it was going to become public at some point.”

Committee chair Sen. Jerry Klein, R-Fessenden, indicated the committee would work with Legislative Council on draft revisions to the harassment policy before its next meeting this fall.

The last time the policy underwent revisions was after the 2021 expulsion of former Rep. Luke Simons from the statehouse related to harassment allegations, Hogan said.

The Legislature added a provision requiring a panel of lawmakers to review the complaint within 48 hours after it is submitted, for example. Hogan said the committee is now considering softening that deadline.

“We wanted to be really aggressive,” she said. “We might have gone too far.”

The Legislature also expanded its mandatory harassment training, which takes place before each session, Hogan said. According to an agenda on the Legislature’s website, the 2023 training was an hour and 45 minutes and was combined with presentations on legislative ethics. That included a 15-minute presentation for legislative leaders tasked with receiving potential complaints.

Although there had been allegations of inappropriate behavior involving Simons dating back to 2018, no formal harassment complaints were ever filed, The Bismarck Tribune reported in 2021.

Legislative Council Director John Bjornson had kept notes about his discussions with staff about Simons.

In a February 2021 note, Bjornson wrote: “Clearly there is a major reluctance to file a formal complaint because they believe there is a lack of support from legislators for staff regardless of the knowledge that certain legislators are habitual offenders of decency,” the Tribune reported.

In a Monday interview, Bjornson said he’s hopeful the Legislature’s climate has improved in the wake of Simons’ expulsion.

“I think that people saw that there is some degree of discipline for someone that acts inappropriately,” he said. “We have not had any complaints filed, so it’s hard to tell.”

WEST FARGO – Count me among the anglers who have lived through the drought of the 1980s and witnessed firsthand the 25-plus years of booming fisheries in North Dakota, which few will argue began with the 1993 drought-busting and continues to a lesser degree today.

Anglers recall when North Dakota fishing waters were fewer than 200 and now number about 450. I’ll also agree with the philosophy that we’d like to keep our fishing as good as we can for as long as we can. Who wouldn’t?

So, along the way, I’ve heard anglers suggest differing regulations could or should be implemented to help preserve or maintain the fisheries. My short answer is it wasn’t regulations that created the “good old days” of fishing that we’ve been enjoying. And there’s no regulations that would save our fisheries from a 1980s-style drought. Like it or not, it’s hard to argue.

Before you start firing off emails, realize the fisheries biologists entrusted with the responsibility of managing our fisheries love the fisheries like you do. They realize some regulations can be implemented socially without much of an impact on the fishery. So, when it comes to implementing slot limits, one-over or trophy regulations, there’s plenty of biology and data to consider.

Walleye anglers care about the resource and often express concern when they believe their peers are keeping too many small or big fish. These anglers often think a length limit will solve the problem, and sometimes they are correct. Length limits, if applied appropriately, can help improve or protect a fishery. However, when applied inappropriately, length limits can harm the fishery they were meant to protect.

Minimum length limits are likely to benefit fisheries that meet all of the following:

• Low reproductive or stocking success.
• Good growth.
• Low natural mortality.
• High angling mortality (fish dying from harvest or after release).

Maximum length limits (one fish longer than 20 inches, for example) are likely to benefit fisheries that meet all of the following criteria:

• Reproduction is limited by the number of adult fish.
• High angling mortality of large fish.

Harvest slot length limits must meet all of the requirements for a minimum length limit and a maximum length limit, since they are basically a combination of the two.

Protected slot length limits are likely to benefit fisheries that meet all of the following criteria:

• Good natural reproduction.
• Slow growth, especially for small fish.
• High natural mortality of small fish.
• High angling effort.

Currently, the Devils Lake walleye population does not meet many of the criteria necessary to benefit from a minimum length limit.

In 2008, walleye growth was similar to the North American average, but in recent years, growth has been slower. Reproduction and stocking success is generally good, and total mortality is low, so angling mortality isn’t excessive. Additionally, with high numbers of smaller walleye in the lake most years, a minimum length limit would needlessly restrict harvest opportunities for anglers and could further decrease growth due to increased competition if some fish were protected by a minimum size limit.

Today, Devils Lake’s walleye population does not meet any of the criteria necessary to see a benefit of a maximum length limit.

Large walleye hatches of late indicate that current regulations are maintaining sufficient numbers of adults in the lake. Six of the seven largest hatches, in fact, have been produced since 2008. While the percentage of adults longer than 15 inches in 2012 was relatively low at 24%, the second-largest walleye hatch ever was recorded, indicating there are ample adults in the lake to produce a good hatch if conditions are favorable.

Currently, the Devils Lake walleye population does meet some of the criteria necessary for a protected slot length limit to be effective, but not all of them. Natural reproduction tends to be good, growth is slower than average and angling effort is significant. However, natural mortality of small walleye is relatively low, so forcing anglers to harvest small walleye would be wasteful as these fish could be allowed to grow over time. Additionally, fish in a protected slot limit don’t really need the protection, as total mortality of the population in general isn’t excessive.

Before you climb on board and suggest “we need new fishing regulations,” ask yourself: Is it based on biology – or not?

Doug Leier is an outreach biologist for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. Reach him at dleier@nd.gov.