Connect with us

North Dakota

What an appeals court ruling means for North Dakota water users

Published

on

What an appeals court ruling means for North Dakota water users


FARGO — Appeals judges have upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit that could have derailed a pipeline project to deliver Missouri River water to central North Dakota.

The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a federal trial judge’s ruling that the state of Missouri had failed to prove that the Bureau of Reclamation didn’t properly review the proposed Central North Dakota Water Supply Project.

North Dakota officials view the decision as strengthening the legal case for the associated Eastern North Dakota Water Supply Project, which will extend the pipeline to deliver Missouri River water to Red River Valley farmers and residents, including those in the Fargo area, in times of severe prolonged drought.

Missouri, which opposes any upstream diversions of Missouri River water, likely will challenge the Eastern North Dakota water project, but now courts have ruled that federal review of important approvals for the project were proper, said Duane DeKrey, general manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, an arm of state government that is overseeing the water projects.

Advertisement

“We thought the judge at the District Court made some very good arguments so we thought we were in a strong position,” DeKrey said of the appeals court decision, issued Monday, July 10.

“This would take us to the Continental Divide,” where the Missouri River Basin ends and the Red River Basin begins. Once the pipeline is poised to cross the divide, a legal challenge from Missouri is expected, he said.

The Central North Dakota and Eastern North Dakota water projects are associated with the Red River Water Valley Supply Project but differ in that they would be able to use the McClusky Canal, which is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation.

North Dakota aims to draw Missouri River water from the McClusky Canal, seen here, to supply water for central and eastern North Dakota by connecting to a planned pipeline.

Photo courtesy of Garrison Diversion Conservancy District

Advertisement

The Red River Valley Water Supply Project would solely use a state-owned pipeline to carry Missouri River water, avoiding the need for further federal review and making legal challenges more difficult, DeKrey said.

But using the McClusky Canal, fed by water from Lake Audubon, a sub-reservoir of Garrison Dam’s Lake Sakakawea, would have significantly lower capital and operating costs, making it an attractive alternative, he said.

The $1.1 billion pipeline project, now under construction, could be completed by 2032 under funding commitments expressed by the North Dakota Legislature.

The Central North Dakota Water Supply Project proposes to use 20 cubic feet per second of Missouri River water, equal to 14,489 acre-feet of water, or the volume of water that would cover 14,489 acres a foot deep.

Advertisement

The Bureau of Reclamation concluded that depletion of the Missouri River would be “negligible.”

The decision by the three-judge appeals panel upheld an earlier decision dismissing Missouri’s case by Senior U.S. District Judge Nanette Kay Laughrey of the Western District of Missouri.

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

North Dakota

National monument proposed for North Dakota Badlands, with tribes' support

Published

on

National monument proposed for North Dakota Badlands, with tribes' support


BISMARCK, N.D. — A coalition of conservation groups and Native American tribal citizens on Friday called on President Joe Biden to designate nearly 140,000 acres of rugged, scenic Badlands as North Dakota’s first national monument, a proposal several tribal nations say would preserve the area’s indigenous and cultural heritage.

The proposed Maah Daah Hey National Monument would encompass 11 noncontiguous, newly designated units totaling 139,729 acres (56,546 hectares) in the Little Missouri National Grassland. The proposed units would hug the popular recreation trail of the same name and neighbor Theodore Roosevelt National Park, named for the 26th president who ranched and roamed in the Badlands as a young man in the 1880s.

“When you tell the story of landscape, you have to tell the story of people,” said Michael Barthelemy, an enrolled member of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation and director of Native American studies at Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College. “You have to tell the story of the people that first inhabited those places and the symbiotic relationship between the people and the landscape, how the people worked to shape the land and how the land worked to shape the people.”

The National Park Service oversees national monuments, which are similar to national parks and usually designated by the president to protect the landscape’s features.

Advertisement

Supporters have traveled twice to Washington to meet with White House, Interior Department, Forest Service and Department of Agriculture officials. But the effort faces an uphill battle with less than two months remaining in Biden’s term and potential headwinds in President-elect Donald Trump ‘s incoming administration.

If unsuccessful, the group would turn to the Trump administration “because we believe this is a good idea regardless of who’s president,” Dakota Resource Council Executive Director Scott Skokos said.

Dozens if not hundreds of oil and natural gas wells dot the landscape where the proposed monument would span, according to the supporters’ map. But the proposed units have no oil and gas leases, private inholdings or surface occupancy, and no grazing leases would be removed, said North Dakota Wildlife Federation Executive Director John Bradley.

This undated image provided by Jim Fuglie shows Bullion Butte in western North Dakota. Credit: AP/Jim Fuglie

The proposal is supported by the MHA Nation, the Spirit Lake Tribe and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe through council resolutions.

Advertisement

If created, the monument would help tribal citizens stay connected to their identity, said Democratic state Rep. Lisa Finley-DeVille, an MHA Nation enrolled member.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Interior Department, which oversees the National Park Service, including national monuments. In a written statement, Burgum said: “North Dakota is proof that we can protect our precious parks, cultural heritage and natural resources AND responsibly develop our vast energy resources.”

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven’s office said Friday was the first they had heard of the proposal, “but any effort that would make it harder for ranchers to operate and that could restrict multiple use, including energy development, is going to raise concerns with Senator Hoeven.”



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

North Dakota

North Dakota Supreme Court Considers Motion to Reinstate Abortion Ban While Appeal is Pending

Published

on

North Dakota Supreme Court Considers Motion to Reinstate Abortion Ban While Appeal is Pending


 The North Dakota Supreme Court hears arguments involving abortion via Zoom on Nov. 21, 2024. (Screenshot Bismarck Tribune via the North Dakota Monitor)

 

 

 

Advertisement

(North Dakota Monitor) – North Dakota’s solicitor general called on the North Dakota Supreme Court to reinstate an abortion law struck down by a lower court until a final decision in the case is made, arguing that the ban must remain in effect because the state has a compelling interest in protecting unborn life.

“We say that not to be dramatic, but because the district court seems to have lost sight of that,” Phil Axt told justices Thursday.

The ban, signed into law by Gov. Doug Burgum in April 2023, made abortion illegal in all cases except rape or incest if the mother has been pregnant for less than six weeks, or when the pregnancy poses a serious physical health threat.

South Central Judicial District Court Judge Bruce Romanick vacated the law in September, declaring it unconstitutionally vague and an infringement on medical freedom.

He further wrote that “pregnant women in North Dakota have a fundamental right to choose abortion before viability exists.”

Advertisement

The law went into effect just weeks after the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled the state’s previous abortion ban unconstitutional and found that women have a right to seek an abortion for health reasons.

Axt argued Thursday that Romanick’s judgment striking down the 2023 law conflicts with the Supreme Court’s prior ruling, and that Romanick’s legal analysis contains “glaring errors.” Axt claimed there’s nothing in the state constitution that supports a right to abortion until the point of viability.

“It’s been clear since our territorial days that in order to justify killing another human being, there must be a threat of death or serious bodily injury,” Axt said.

Meetra Mehdizadeh, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said to reverse Romanick’s decision even temporarily would be to disregard many serious problems he identified with the statute.

Advertisement

The ban does not sufficiently explain to doctors when they may legally provide abortions — which chills their ability to provide necessary health care for fear of prosecution, she said.

“The district court correctly held that the ban violates the rights of both physicians and patients, and staying the judgment and allowing the state to continue to enforce an unconstitutional law would be nonsensical,” Mehdizadeh said.

Axt countered that the law is not vague, and that doctors are incorrect to assume they would face criminal penalties for good-faith medical decisions.

If doctors are confused about the ban, said Axt, “the solution is not striking down the law — it is providing some professional education.”

In briefs filed with the court, the state also argued that Romanick’s judgment vacating the law seems to conflict with his original order declaring the law unconstitutional.

Advertisement

While the order identifies a right to abortion until the point of fetal viability, Romanick’s judgment does not include any reference to viability. The state is now confused as to whether it can now enforce any restrictions on abortion, Axt said.

North Dakota still must observe abortion regulations established under other laws not challenged in the lawsuit, Mehdizadeh said.

Axt further claimed that Romanick’s judgment should be put on hold because it addresses a “novel” area of law, and because it takes a supermajority of the Supreme Court to declare a statute unconstitutional.

“Statutes should not be presumed unconstitutional until this court has had an opportunity to weigh in on the matter, and a super majority of this court is of that opinion,” Axt said.

Justice Daniel Crothers said he questioned Axt’s logic.

Advertisement

“Any novel issue where the district court declares something unconstitutional, it’s sounding like you’re suggesting that we should presume that it’s wrong,” Crothers said to Axt.

The appeal is the latest step in a lawsuit brought against the state by a group of reproductive health care doctors and a Moorhead, Minnesota-based abortion provider, Red River Women’s Clinic. The clinic previously operated in Fargo, but moved across the state line after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

The ban, passed with overwhelming support by both chambers of the Republican-dominated Legislature, set penalties of up to five years in prison and a maximum fine of $10,000 for any health care professionals found in violation of the law.

The arguments were only on whether Romanick’s decision should be put on hold during the appeal, not on the merits of the case itself, which the Supreme Court will consider separately. The justices took the matter under advisement.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

North Dakota

Four western North Dakota volleyball teams punch a ticket to state semifinals

Published

on

Four western North Dakota volleyball teams punch a ticket to state semifinals


BISMARCK, N.D. (KFYR) – The quarterfinal round of the NDHSAA State Volleyball tournament played out in the Fargodome Thursday with four teams from the west side of the state advancing to the semifinals.

In Class A, Century avenged a quarterfinal loss from a year ago to advance to the semifinals. Meanwhile, Legacy upended West Fargo Horace in an upset.

The two teams will face off in the semifinals, which guarantees that a team from the west will make the Class A State Championship game. The Patriots are 2-0 against the Sabers this season.

2024 NDHSAA Volleyball semifinal bracket(KFYR)

In Class B, South Prairie-Max and Medina-Pingree-Buchanan both advanced to the semifinals in their first ever state tournament appearance.

Advertisement

The Royals defeated Kenmare-Bowbells 3-0. The Thunder defeated Central McLean 3-0. That guarantees that a team from the west will also make the Class B State Championship game as the Royals and Thunder will face off in the semifinals.

Class B NDHSAA Volleyball semifinals bracket
Class B NDHSAA Volleyball semifinals bracket(KFYR)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending