2014 Election Analysis–Part 1

All the Republicans are going to win.

All the ballot measures are going to lose.

If I were a betting man, and I could find someone to take the bet, that would be the one I’d make.

Okay, not all the Republicans in the country, or even the state. Just the ones running for statewide office in North Dakota. And most of the Republicans running for the  North Dakota Legislature. Maybe one or two ballot measures might squeak through. But most of them will, and should, lose.

Just another ho-hum election. In spite of millions of dollars being spent on this campaign, not much will change in North Dakota as a result of the voting this year. The Constitution and the Constitutional Office-Holders and the Legislature will look pretty much the same next Wednesday as they do today, a week before the election.

Supporters of various causes and interests are going to take five whacks at changing the North Dakota Constitution next Tuesday, My guess is that all of them will fail. North Dakotans love their Constitution, and don’t tolerate much change in it.

Measure 1 is the right-to-life crowd’s nebulous language about, well, the right to life. It boils down, mostly, to anti-abortion versus pro-choice personal—very personal, the pro-choice people say—feelings on a woman’s right to have an abortion. I’ve always believed that North Dakota is a pro-choice state, willing to forego religious dictates about abortion in favor of keeping the government’s nose out of our personal lives. Nobody really wants an abortion, or wants their wife, mother, sister or daughter to have one, but I think most North Dakotans want that choice left up to an individual woman, not to the government. We’ll see next Tuesday.

Measure 2 is just downright goofy. It is on the ballot as a result of a resolution introduced by 11 Republican Senate and House members, kind of on behalf of the North Dakota real estate industry. It says that we can’t levy a tax on the sales of property. Thing is, we don’t, do that, we never have, and we never will. It’s a solution looking for a problem. If it fails, we won’t see a rush to introduce a bill to tax real estate transfers. That’s the same thing that will happen if it passes. Friend of mine asked me this week where this idea even came from. A few people sitting around having coffee, looking for a feel-good way to say we don’t want to increase taxes? Probably. Well, now we’re going to vote on it, and you have to vote “Yes” to stop any such tax from happening. We’ll see if voters can figure that out. Or if they even care enough to vote on it.

Measure 3 is a bad solution to a problem that does exist. We have a dysfunctional State Board of Higher Education. House Majority Leader Al Carlson has built a career criticizing higher education officials in North Dakota. So he wrote this measure which proposes to abolish the state board in favor of a dysfunctional three member Commission of Higher Education. Our state board is bad, but not THAT bad—not bad enough to convince people this is a good idea. Better we replace the guy who appoints the Board of Higher Education members, as soon as possible.

Measure 4 basically guts our state’s initiated measure laws, and North Dakotans hold those rights sacred. It’s a power grab by the Legislature. And even though most North Dakotans are going to vote to re-elect their current Legislators, my guess is that this will lose by the biggest margin of the constitutional amendments. Go figure.

Then there’s the fifth constitutional measure, Measure 5. Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks. The most “feel-good” ballot measure title ever in North Dakota. Who could possibly be against clean water, wildlife and parks? Well, my guess is more than half of the North Dakotans who will vote in this election, that’s who. I’ve written about this before. Lies and the lying liars who tell them, to quote United States Senator Al Franken, D-Minnesota, will take this one down, along with the sad campaign run by the measure’s supporters. Just last week, in a big postcard in my mail box, and this morning, in another letter to the editor, the Chamber of Commerce and Big Oil are saying that $4 billion will go to out of state conservation groups to buy land in competition with young farmers, and taking money away from roads and schools and police protection. Lies, all of them.

Big Oil is spending a million dollars to try to defeat this measure. I’m still a little puzzled why they are doing that. As far as I can tell, the oil industry has no dog in this fight. Nothing that might happen if this measure passes will affect them. What it boils down to, I guess, is they are just being good friends to their buddies down at the Chamber of Commerce. The money really means nothing to them—it’s pocket change for that industry. As for the Chamber of Commerce, they just don’t like “green” people. In their minds, environmentalists, conservationists, have always just been anti-business, so the Chamber is against whatever they are for. Never mind that hunters, fishermen, hikers, bikers, boaters and campers spend most of their discretionary money at Chamber members’ businesses. Sheesh.

But as I said before, the proponents of this measure, the hunting and conservation groups, have just rolled over in the face of that attack. They keep running sunshine and roses commercials, telling us how wonderful this measure is (and they are right about that) without fighting back against the pervasive dark forces hammering the shit out of them day after day. Let me put it in a way those guys can understand.

Suppose you are out in Montana hunting deer. You’ve spent a ton of money on your new Suburban, bought a new rifle, loaded up with expensive ammunition, hired the best outfitter in the state to lead you through the hunt, and are thoroughly enjoying a fine day fall day in the Rocky Mountains. You get separated from your guide for a while, come around a bend in the trail and are confronted by a grizzly bear. He comes roaring toward you, intent on making you supper. Now, you have two choices. As he comes running toward you on the trail, you can say “Wow, I’ve always wanted to see a grizzly bear up close. This is really cool. What a great guide I have, he’s taken me right up to a grizzly bear, face to face.” So you just sit down against a tree, marvel at the size of that bear, and let him rip you to shreds.

Or, you can raise your rifle and start pumping lead into that critter, and when you run out of ammo you grab your knife and start slashing, fighting back with every ounce of your will, because you came there to get an eight-point muley, not get eaten by a grizzly bear.

Well, Measure 5 proponents chose the first one. They decided not to fight back. Which is why, I think, in addition to the disgusting campaign run by that big grizzly named Harold Hamm, they are going to lose. They had every opportunity to spend their three or four million dollars fighting back against the lies of Big Oil and the Chamber. Frankly, it wouldn’t have taken much.

“Why does Big Oil oppose conservation in North Dakota?”

“Why is Big Oil spending a million dollars to keep you from having the best parks in America?”

“Big oil companies from out of state are spending a million dollars so they can continue to pollute your water and destroy your wildlife habitat.”

“Let’s send a message to the big out-of-state oil companies: You can’t buy an election in North Dakota.”

“North Dakotans want clean water, healthy wildlife and good parks. Why are the big out-of-state oil companies against North Dakotans?”

“Let’s tell the big out-of-state oil companies to keep their noses out of North Dakota politics. Vote Yes on Measure 5.”

Or something like that.

I ran into an old hunting buddy of mine the other day. We first hunted together in the late 1950’s, with our dads. He’s as conservation-minded as anyone I know. I might have expected him to be a supporter of this measure. And he probably would have been one. Except for one thing: “It doesn’t belong in the Constitution.” He’s one of the many thousands, I fear, who will vote against it because it puts too much detail into the Constitution. Everything else being equal, that is the fatal flaw in this measure. A statutory measure to increase the funding in the existing Outdoor Heritage Fund and allow for perpetual conservation easements to keep farmland as farmland, and habitat as habitat, probably could have passed, in spite of the dirty campaign against it. My old hunting buddy could have voted for that. He’s for the deer, and the pheasants, and the ducks that could be saved by a massive state CRP program. Me too.

I hope I’m wrong. I hope I have to eat these words. But I am afraid I’m right. Darn. No, Damn!

Measure 6 will lose because it is sponsored by a bunch of goofballs with a personal agenda. Measure 7, which will bring $4 prescription medicine to North Dakota (yeah, right), will lose because North Dakotans still have old-fashioned sentimental for value their hometown businesses.

Measure 8 just might pass. I’ve seen polls, going back to my Tourism Director days, that say most North Dakotans would prefer that school start after Labor Day. “In my day, we started school the day after Labor Day—it was a tradition—and ended school the Friday before Memorial Day—another tradition—and we turned out all right, didn’t we? Kids get too many silly little breaks from school during the school year these days. We got out for Teacher’s Convention, two weeks at Christmas, and Good Friday. Worked for us.”

Tomorrow: A look at some of the head-to-head races on the ballot.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Dis-ing Measure 5

Three words describe my feelings about the campaign the opponents of Measure 5 (the Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Constitutional Amendment) have run this year: Disingenuous, Dishonest and Disgusting.

“Disingenuous,” because they buffaloed the poorly-led farm organizations into opposing a measure from which the members of those organizations would have been the major beneficiaries. Some Farmers Union members I have talked to are furious with their leadership. Here’s why. If the measure passes, it’s going to put about $125-150 million dollars a year into the hands of the North Dakota Industrial Commission to spend on conservation. There’s only one way I can think of to spend that much money in a year: Pay farmers to take marginal land out of production and create wildlife habitat. The Industrial Commission, which gets to have the final say in how the money is spent, is likely going to tell the Game and Fish Department and the state Agriculture Department to develop a form of state-funded CRP. CRP was the tremendously popular program started by the federal government in the mid-1980s, which paid farmers, at that time, around 35-40 dollars an acre to plant cover crops on marginal land to get some cropland out of production, to ease surpluses of crops like wheat, to raise prices paid to farmers, to inject money into the farm sector. It saved a lot of marginal farms.

But the side benefit was that it created wildlife habitat which led to record numbers of deer, ducks and pheasants in the states which had a lot of CRP.  Everybody won.  But now CRP is fading away, the result of cuts in U.S. farm program funding and higher crop, mostly corn, prices the last few years. But as corn prices fade, CRP is again looking attractive, and if the state had its own program, paying farmers, say, $100 an acre to take a million acres out of production and put it into grass, that would be a direct injection of $100 million a year into the farm sector. And a huge boost to the North Dakota economy. Plus, it would revive flagging populations of deer, ducks and pheasants, which is the goal of those sponsoring the measure. Once again, everybody wins.

The Farmers Union, generally the most pro-conservation of the farm groups, made a major mistake siding with the Chamber of Commerce and the North Dakota Petroleum Council. It’s hard to imagine they really did believe those groups, who planted a seed that the money was going to be used to buy land, in competition with new and existing farmers. The Farmers Union has been the staunchest defender of the state’s anti-corporation farming law, and they know that that law would prevent that from happening. I have to believe their opposition is more about putting all the detail that is contained in Measure 5 into the State Constitution. More about that in a minute.

I called the campaign led by the Chamber and the Petroleum Council “Dishonest” because that’s exactly what it is.  Early on, they just made up some things that were completely untrue and began hammering away at them in press releases and letters to the editor. The two biggest lies: All the money in this measure is going to go to out-of-state conservation organizations, and they are going to spend it buying land, which will drive up the price of farmland. They were Big Lies, and the theory behind Big Lies is that you just keep telling them over and over and eventually people will believe they are true.

A series of masterfully crafted letters to the editor written by then-Odney Advertising PR guy Rick Collin, spooned out to willing members of the groups to sign and send to the state’s newspapers, created the New Truth that the money was going to out of state conservation groups to buy land away from beginning farmers. The letters slacked off with the sudden mysterious departure of Collin from the agency in late summer. (Some said he didn’t want to be associated with the Republican ad and PR firm as he competed for the job of State Historical Society Director. I don’t know. I asked him but did not get an answer. Anyway, I’m a blogger—my job is to speculate, not investigate.) But Chamber PR flack Jon Godfread took up the slack, and the campaign is closing around those two lies, and proponents of Measure 5 are doing a poor job of rebutting that pair of powerful arguments.

The whole thing is “Disgusting,” because the campaign by the oil industry and the Chamber has taken politics down to the lowest level North Dakota has ever seen. Disgusting because the groups continue to perpetrate those lies and no one in the media challenges them. The Chamber flack Godfread repeatedly says the money is going to out of state conservation groups, when he knows it is not, because the measure clearly says that the money will be spent by the Industrial Commission members, and they are surely not just going to hand it over with no restrictions to anybody. Here’s his latest, the first sentence of a letter printed in the Forum Oct. 9 and signed by somebody else:

“North Dakotans will be writing a blank check to nonprofit organizations that are more concerned about ducks than people if they pass Measure 5.”

            WE know that this is not true, but not everyone does, and a lot of people only know what they read in letters to the editor. And some of them actually vote. I fault the editors of the daily newspapers almost as much as the Chamber folks for this, for allowing these obviously false letters to be printed. If I were an editor again, I would either tell the person who signed the letter (who knows who actually wrote it?) that I wouldn’t print something that is obviously not true, or else I would print it with a disclaimer at the end of the letter that said “I received this letter, which is full of lies. I only printed it to show my readers what sleazebags the people campaigning against this measure are. I don’t care how you vote on this, but don’t believe anything you read in this letter.”

And then Godfread says, in the same letter, the measure will use a pile of money that would be pulled away from other resource needs in North Dakota, like education, roads and other infrastructure, property tax relief” which is also not true. And then there’s his favorite line, which he gets others from the farm groups to say, that the money in the conservation fund is going to be used to buy land, when he knows that our corporation farming laws forbid that.

Truly a disgusting campaign by what has become a truly disgusting organization.

But when no one refutes those arguments, they become true in the minds of otherwise uninformed voters. And no one is refuting them.

Which is why I believe my feeling about the sponsors of the measure can be summed up in one word: Disappointing. The leaders of these sponsoring organizations are good-hearted men with little political savvy, and it shows. It showed first in their drafting of the measure, putting way too much detail into the Constitution for North Dakotans to stomach. So much detail that opponents have been able to use that successfully to detract from the importance of the measure to North Dakota. Editors of the Forum, who sometimes get it right on initiated measures, used that, and only that, to tell their readers to vote against it. Not that the Forum has a lot of credibility these days. They could have saved a lot of ink on their editorial pages this year by just printing one editorial that says “We endorse all Republicans.”

Disappointing in that the sponsors have failed to call the opponents’ dishonesty into question, choosing instead to run a series of mushy, feel-good TV and radio spots while opponents tear the measure apart with untrue claims. Claims that work.

The measure’s sponsors started this campaign with 70 per cent of North Dakotans agreeing in principle that conservation was good and saying they would support some kind of vaguely worded measure to set aside money from the oil tax for conservation purposes. According to a new poll by the Forum, the opponents have whittled away at those numbers with their negative campaign, and now less than half of presumably voting North Dakotans approve it. Anyone who’s been around politics as long as I have knows that you have to respond to negative attacks, to refute them if they are dishonest, and that in the end, if the voters hear both sides, truth generally prevails.  Sponsors certainly have enough money to do that, according to campaign finance reports disclosed last week. If they don’t do it soon, I fear they will have lost their one big chance to really do something for conservation in North Dakota.

More than a year ago, I was invited to supper at a local restaurant with wildlife and conservation leaders and Legislators who had expressed an interest in this issue to discuss plans for this measure. I was told they were planning this constitutional amendment, the one we are voting on now. I warned against it, advising that the people of North Dakota like conservation, but don’t like changing their constitution. I suggested a statutory change that simply added money to the existing Outdoor Heritage Fund and removed the state’s prohibition on perpetual easements, so that land purchases would not be needed and the argument by any opponents that the money was going to be used to buy land would be moot. Or, I suggested, they could write a broader statutory change which might include much of the language in this proposed measure, but amending the state law containing the Outdoor Heritage Fund rather than adding to the Constitution.

If they insisted on a constitutional change, I thought something like a short sentence that said “Five per cent of oil extraction tax revenues will be allocated to a conservation fund,” and then let the Legislature work out the details. Trying to add more than two-thousand words to the constitution, as this does, just doesn’t make any sense to me. (You can read the measure by going here.)

Still, I hope I am wrong, and I think there’s still a chance it could pass by the narrowest of margins if the sponsors of the measure put a little more backbone and a lot less mush into their closing campaign. The Chamber and the oil industry are playing hardball. I haven’t yet figured out what raised their ire about this, causing them to attack it with such vitriol. That’s a subject for another day, I guess. Sponsors have to play the same kind of hardball. Just the fact that their cause is just, doesn’t translate into a winning campaign. Ask a thousand losing candidates. There’s a reason candidates and committees run negative campaigns: They work.

Here’s a tip to the measure’s sponsors. The big winner if this measure passes is wildlife, because of all the money that will go into making habitat. Beneficiaries of that are farmers who will get payments to take land out of production (can you say $64,000 clear profit on a section of land growing grass and trees—every year?),  and hunters, who already know the benefits of CRP to wildlife.  It’s probably going to take about 115,000 votes to pass this measure November 4, given the historically low voter turnout in years when there is no presidential election. Let’s just say there are about 80,000 hunters in North Dakota. And let’s just say there are about 35,000 farmers. Hmmm.

A bunch of good-hearted men and women and their organizations are willing to put up a couple of million dollars and thousands of hours of hard work to give the people and the critters of North Dakota the biggest gift they have ever received. They’ve almost won. I really hope they don’t blow it now. But I’m pretty worried.

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments

Lining Up At The Federal Trough

In the 1970’s, when I was a reporter for The Dickinson Press, the coal boom was happening in western North Dakota, and there was a lot of power plant construction getting underway. Federal government largesse back then wasn’t what it has become today, but there were some federal funds flowing to North Dakota, mostly from the Rural Electrification Administration (now the Rural Utilities Service), to help build power lines and to help with other infrastructure needs.

Our congressional delegation back then was Senators Milton Young and Quentin Burdick and Representative Mark Andrews. Whenever the REA approved a loan or a grant to a North Dakota REC, they would give the congressional delegation the privilege of announcing it. So, from time to time, The Press newsroom would get a phone call from Washington announcing the funding.

The way it worked was, (this was the day long before e-mail) the staffer in the Washington office would dictate a news release over the phone to whoever answered the phone, (usually me).  So I would listen and type as the caller dictated the news release. Something like “Senator Quentin Burdick announced today the Rural Electrification Administration has approved a $270,000 grant to Slope electric Cooperative of New England for upgrading a transmission line . . . etc .” When they were done reading and I was done typing, we’d do a bit of small talk (“Cold back there in North Dakota? 80 degrees here.”) and that was that. I had my story for the next morning’s paper.

But then what would happen is, not too long after that, a second Congressional office call would come, and then a third, each calling to give me the same press release, with a different name in the first paragraph. Well, that got old, so I decided to have some fun with these guys, and I adopted a policy: Whoever called first got their name in the story. The other two got left out. So when the first staffer called me, I took the dictated press release, but then when a second staff person called, I told them “Sorry, but Senator Burdick already called, so Congressman Andrews missed out.”

After that I would sit at my desk and almost giggle at the thought of these three staff persons running down the halls of the United States Capitol to get to their typewriters and hammer out a press release, and then frantically dialing the long distance operator to place a call to this smart-ass reporter back in Dickinson, to get their boss’s name in the paper the next day. But the best thing about my policy was that the press releases got much shorter, usually just two or three short paragraphs, omitting some long-winded quote from Mark Andrews about how valuable our REC’s were to the state and the country and the whole free world. Made my job a lot easier.

I‘ve been thinking about those days a bit lately as I see this spate of press releases in the paper, almost on a daily basis at this time of the year, as the federal government’s fiscal year closes, announcing the incredible number of federal dollars flowing into our state. Now federal dollars flowing into North Dakota is not news. Forever, we have led the nation or been near the top of the list of states who receive more federal dollars than they send in with their 1040s. That’s generally because of the farm bill, which for many years has kept our agriculture industry afloat.

But it seems to be different this year. It seems to me that a great deal of money is flowing in to help us deal with problems associated with growing pains—read: an oil boom. Here are a few recent examples from newspaper stories I’ve read lately.

  • $1.4 million to the state and the Three Affiliated Tribes to help curb violence against women in the Bakken region
  • $5 million to North Dakota and the other states the Bakken oil trains pass through to help train first responders
  • $2.7 million to North Dakota Job Service for upgrades to our unemployment insurance program (Huh? In a state with the nation’s lowest unemployment rate, less than 2%?)
  • $9.9 million to Bismarck State College for job training (You can probably guess what kind of jobs they are going to be training for.)
  • $191,000 to the Department of Transportation for training in how to handle hazardous materials, such as the train wreck near Casselton
  • $4.9 million to the Bismarck Airport for upgrades (made necessary by increased air traffic, no doubt)
  • $210,000 to the ND Public Service Commission for pipeline safety programs
  • $880,000 to the Dickinson Airport
  • $620,000 to the state and the Abused Adult Resource Center in Bismarck to help victims of sexual assault
  • $480,000 to the ND Attorney General for narcotics enforcement

There are a lot more funds plowing into the state for other programs, such as a $6.6 million Health and Human Services grant ($5.4 million to the state, $1.2 million to tribes and social service agencies) to help elderly and people with developmental disabilities transition from institutions to communities. The state’s Department of Health will get over $600,000 for chronic disease prevention programs, a $3.1 million grant to the Agriculture Commissioner to help him promote specialty crops, $1.4 million to the State Health Department to upgrade immunization records, and $6.2 million to Fargo for property buyouts and new sewer construction for flood protection. The list goes on and on. Just in the stories I read in the Tribune since August 1, the total is more than $50 million.

So let me get this straight. A government that is flat-ass broke and running trillion dollar deficits is sending $50 million to a state that is running up massive budget surpluses—by some accounts we have more than $6 billion in the bank and it is growing by billions a year. WTF?

We’re collecting almost $5 billion a year in oil taxes from an industry creating huge social and infrastructure problems, but apparently our state officials have no shame. They stick that money in the bank and take the funny money rolling in from Washington.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m a Democrat and a Liberal, and I think government ought to be here to help us do things we can’t do for ourselves. But I also believe we ought to pay our own way when we can. And in North Dakota, we certainly can. I’m almost embarrassed by some of those grants, especially things like hazmat training, pipeline safety and job training. C’mon. We created those problems. We need to clean up our own mess. We can certainly afford it. According to the state’s Office of Management and Budget, the state’s general fund surplus for the 2013-2015 biennium is expected to be more than $600 million by the time the biennium ends next June.

And there are other problems. Bismarck and Mandan residents just voted to raise their sales taxes to pay for a new jail. The uncontrolled oil boom, which state officials could have helped to control, has caused huge increases in both crime and convictions, and now we are paying for it while the state sits on billions. And I’m not the only one complaining.

My old friend Ron Anderson, a former pretty-conservative Legislator and now a McKenzie County Commissioner, said in the paper the other day he’d “be a rich man if he had a dollar for every person who’s asked him why Bismarck (state government) isn’t building the new Watford City hospital, instead of the board putting together a combination of federal and state loans, and a hefty infusion of a new city sales tax and donated money.”

The huge population explosion in McKenzie County and the huge increase in dangerous jobs and truck traffic have necessitated a new hospital. It’s a $60 million project. The federal government is lending the community $39 million. The city and some generous donors are putting up the other $21 million.

Anderson praised Watford City for passing a bond issue to build its own school and a new sales tax to help finance the hospital and a new events center. “There’s not many who could do that. You people have been tremendous,” he said. “We’ve broken so much ground, there’s not much left.”

            But “They (the state) should be building this. We contribute (billions) to the state, but they’re not,” Anderson said.

All over western North Dakota, the story is the same. Cities are ponying up for new schools, clinics, hospitals, jails, policemen, firemen, EMTs and prosecutors while the state sits on its billions. In many cases, that is okay. But what I don’t think is okay is our continued raiding of the federal treasury when we can afford to do things for ourselves. I think that’s shameful.

But at some point along the line, the job of a congressional delegation became bringing home the bacon. They’ve all done it. They all do it. For the record, in the stories I read, Heidi’s team was first to the phone 7 times, Cramer’s 3 and Hoeven’s 2.  Unless they do things differently today.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

What Would Art Link Do?

It was one of those chance encounters. I was just sitting in a Bad Lands bar on a rainy afternoon having a quiet drink when an old acquaintance happened in and sat down beside me. He was a retired coal company executive, with a friendly face and a firm grip, and we re-introduced ourselves and visited a good long while. Bad Lands bars on rainy afternoons are good for that, especially for two retired geezers with not much else to do or worry about.

Talk, of course, turned to the oil boom pretty quickly, and how different it was from the coal boom of the 1970’s, which we both remember well. And that got me to thinking, later, about how REALLY different it is from those days when coal severance taxes and mined-land reclamation would have started and dominated a similar discussion.

Art Link’s name came up in our discussion. I said I probably can’t count on both hands the number of times I’ve heard in the last year, someone say “Boy, if only Art Link was in charge . . .”  Art was governor of North Dakota from 1973-1980, during energy crisis that set North Dakota off on a mine mouth, coal-fired power plant boom. By the time the boom ended in 1986 we had built five new power plants and were generating almost 4,000 megawatts of electricity using lignite coal to boil Missouri River water to turn the turbines which heated and lighted homes, farms and businesses in all of North Dakota and much of South Dakota and Minnesota.

The “boom” was in construction and mining jobs—building the power plants and digging the coal from massive strip mines in McLean, Oliver and Mercer Counties in west-central North Dakota. Thousands of blue collar workers populated towns like Bismarck, Beulah, Hazen, and Washburn for a dozen years or so, and then the plants were built, and they moved on, electricians and sheet metal workers and plumbers and carpenters finding work in Fargo, Minneapolis and Denver. There was a dip in the housing market with their departure, but these were also the last days of Jimmy Carter and the first days of Ronald Reagan, when home interest rates reached to 18 per cent, so there was a double whammy in the housing industry. It was only a mini-bust.

But the clamor in the 1970s and 80s was over the North Dakota environment—what was the ripping up of the earth and the burning of the coal going to do to our land, our water and our air? The environment was on our minds back then. Congress had passed and Richard Nixon had signed the Clean Air Act, and together they had created the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA in those days enjoyed almost universal support, because it was going to help save our planet—unlike now, when it is viewed by many as a villain which is killing jobs. My, how our priorities have changed!

Link was viewed as the “Go Slow” Governor—his phrase was “cautious, orderly development.” His most famous speech, “When The Landscape Is Quiet Again,” delivered to the 1973 annual meeting of the North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperatives, is revered by many in North Dakota, as Americans revere the Gettysburg Address.

There was a goodness in this dirt farmer with an eighth grade education who had risen to the highest levels of government, representing his state in the U.S Congress before being elected, and re-elected, as its governor. He believed we must be conscious about the state we are leaving to future generations.

Much unlike now, when North Dakota’s elected leaders with Ivy League educations have given carte blanche to another energy industry, the oil companies, to rip and roar at will, with 10,000 wells—6,000 new since 2009—now producing oil and gas and saltwater in the western third of our state, and giving no thought to what we are leaving our grandchildren—except a bankful of money.

The scale is vastly different, of course. Art Link had to regulate just four coal mines, confined to a pretty small geographic area. North American Coal, for example, our largest mine  operator,  has about 150,000 acres under lease, I think, about 225 square miles of North Dakota’s 70,000 square miles—an area the size of five miles on each side of I-94 from Mandan to New Salem.  And they only mine a tiny part of that acreage at a time, perhaps a square mile or so a year, reclaiming it as they go. The oil patch, by comparison, is huge, covering about a third of our state, and we’re drilling up to a thousand new oil wells a year.

But the difference is, Art Link actually DID something. Thanks to Art Link, North Dakota has the best mined-land reclamation laws in the nation. In North Dakota, everything gets put back the way it was before mining started. Oh, the coal companies muttered and sent their lobbyists to the North Dakota Capitol, saying the government was trying to regulate them out of business, and driving up the price of electricity for customers. Somehow, though, they’ve survived all that, and prospered, and they reclaim the land and pay their severance taxes as part of the cost of doing business in a state that cares about its land, it’s water, its clean air, and its future generations.

Or did. Until the Bakken Boom. Those things don’t seem to matter much to our current crop of leaders. All that matters is money now. It is a sad time for those things, even in the midst of the greatest prosperity we’ve ever known. Prosperity has a price tag of its own that can’t be counted in dollars.

Just the other day I visited the North Dakota Century Code, our state’s lawbook. There I found, in Chapter 38, the laws that regulate our energy industry. I looked at Chapter 38-14.1, our coal mine reclamation laws. The first paragraph says this:

The legislative assembly finds and declares that:

Many surface coal mining operations may result in disturbances of surface areas that adversely affect the public welfare by diminishing the utility of land for commercial, industrial, residential, cultural, educational, scientific, recreational, agricultural, and forestry purposes, by causing erosion, by polluting the water, by destroying fish and wildlife habitats, by impairing natural beauty, by damaging the property of citizens, by creating hazards dangerous to life and property, by degrading the quality of life in local communities, and by counteracting governmental programs and efforts to conserve soil, water, other natural resources, and cultural resources.

            Yes, that is actually the wording of a state law, and it is followed by this:

Surface coal mining operations contribute to the economic well-being, security, and general welfare of the state and should be conducted in an environmentally sound manner . . . Surface coal mining and reclamation operations should be so conducted as to aid in maintaining and improving the tax base, to provide for the conservation, development, management, and appropriate use of all the natural resources of affected areas for compatible multiple purposes, and to ensure the restoration of affected lands designated for agricultural purposes to the level of productivity equal to or greater than that which existed in the permit area prior to mining.

There follows 36 pages of a detailed structure for reclaiming coal-mined land, laws written in the 1975 and 1977 sessions of the North Dakota Legislature and signed by Art Link. Indeed, the best reclamation laws in the country.

It goes so far as to say that a mining permit can be denied if our experts determine that the land will not be able to be reclaimed after the mining is done.

It says that no mining will be allowed “on any lands within the boundaries of units of the North Dakota state park system, the national park system, the national wildlife refuge systems, the national system of trails, the national wilderness preservation system, (and) the national wild and scenic rivers system . . .“ (Those sound a lot like Wayne Stenehjem’s “Extraordinary Places, don’t they? Except this is a law. Not an informal “policy.”)

Then I looked at Section 38-8, the laws that regulate the oil industry. Here’s the first paragraph of those laws:

Declaration of policy.

It is hereby declared to be in the public interest to foster, to encourage, and to promote the development, production, and utilization of natural resources of oil and gas in the state in such a manner as will prevent waste; to authorize and to provide for the operation and development of oil and gas properties in such a manner that a greater ultimate recovery of oil and gas be had and that the correlative rights of all owners be fully protected; and to encourage and to authorize cycling, recycling, pressure maintenance, and secondary recovery operations in order that the greatest possible economic recovery of oil and gas be obtained within the state to the end that the landowners, the royalty owners, the producers, and the general public realize and enjoy the greatest possible good from these vital natural resources.

My, what a difference. “The greatest possible good.” Code for “Yeeeehhhaaaawww, we’re all gonna get rich.” And you know what else is different? Nowhere in Section 38.8, or in any other law pertaining to the oil industry, can I find a requirement that well sites be reclaimed when the oil is gone. The only reference to any kind of reclamation at all that I can find is the posting of a bond so the state can clean up the mess when the oil companies move on. “We’re so glad you are here. We hate to see you go. But you guys just leave us a little pocket change and we’ll clean up after you.” It truly is all about money this time around. Screw the environment.

Another difference: The coal-era laws apply to all lands, both private and public, unlike today’s weak “policy” dealing with drilling permits, which applies only to public lands, and exempts private lands from scrutiny before wells are drilled.

And the big difference is the land being affected. Coal is mined below what was once, and will be again, cropland. Oil is mined beneath our state’s most scenic and historic natural resource, our Bad Lands. Coal is lifted from the ground and taken to a nearby power plant where it is burned, hence the term “mine mouth” power plants. Oil requires a network of dirt roads ripping through our Bad Lands, tens of thousands of trucks spewing a fine layer of dust, often making the countryside uninhabitable for humans and critters alike, and hundreds of thousands of potentially explosive rail cars criss-crossing a continent while leaving our farmers’ crops rotting on the ground with no locomotive engines available to haul grain cars to market.

Oh, to be sure, coal has its own problems, creating an air quality crisis many believe is responsible for melting polar ice caps. In spite of everything the coal companies have tried to do right, there will come a day of reckoning for coal. Solutions to the problems created by coal will be national, global. But here in North Dakota, in Bakken Boom times, we could indeed benefit from Art Link’s “Go Slow” policy today.

What would Art Link do today? I think he has already provided us the answer, in his words from that 1973 speech:

When The Landscape Is Quiet Again          

            We do not want to halt progress.

            We do not plan to be selfish and say “North Dakota will not share its energy resources.”

            No . . . we simply want to insure the most efficient and environmentally sound method of utilizing our precious coal and water resources for the benefit of the broadest number of people possible.

            And when we are through with that, and the landscape is quiet again,

            When the draglines, the blasting rigs, the power shovels and the huge gondolas cease to rip and roar

            And when the last bulldozer has pushed the last spoil pile into place

            And the last patch of barren earth has been seeded to grass or grain

            Let those who follow and repopulate the land be able to say

            “Our grandparents did their job well. This land is as good as, and, in some cases, better than, before.”

            Only if they can say this will we be worthy of the rich heritage of our land and its resources.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Tracy and Bob

I’ve got two friends running for the state Legislature in my Legislative district, one a Democrat, Tracy Potter, and one a Republican, Bob Martinson. This isn’t the first rodeo for either one of them, and I have voted for them both in previous elections, but they weren’t running against each other then. So now what do I do?

Tracy is one of my best longtime friends. We have worked together politically since the 1970s, and shared an office in the State Tourism Department for almost eight years. Lillian and I socialize with Tracy and Laura, and we ask each other’s advice on things we need advice on. While I’ve never shared his desire to hold political office, I have worked on each of his campaigns in some capacity. To think that I would not support him in his effort to go back to the Legislature is out of the question.

I began voting for Bob back in the 1980’s after I was able to get out of my partisan blinders and recognize what an effective Legislator he is, not just for my district, but for Bismarck and all of southwest North Dakota. What’s he done for us lately? Just go to the grand opening of the new $50 million North Dakota Heritage Center in November. Bob did that. And a whole lot more. And he and Jodi are also personal friends of Lillian and me.

Well, it was a no-brainer, deciding who to vote for. The ballot will say “Vote for two names.” I will vote for Bob and Tracy. But that’s not enough, because I want to help get them elected, somehow. Because the Legislature will be a better place if these two, who both started their careers as pretty loyal party partisans but have mellowed as the first number in their ages turned to 3, and then 4, and then 5, and now 6, get elected. Partisanship is not part of their vocabularies any more.

I watched Tracy earn the respect from both Republicans and Democrats as one of the smartest guys on the floor during his two sessions in the state Senate. He’d talk to, and work with, anybody who’d listen, and didn’t care what party they were from. The bills he sponsored contained little hint of his party politics. He’s the guy I want leading the charge on tax reform in North Dakota right now.

Bob frustrates his GOP House-mates from time to time because, even after all these years, he just doesn’t seem to understand you’re supposed to vote the way your party leader says. Or that you’re supposed to vote with your fellow legislators from your own district when they introduce crazy abortion bills. He does understand he represents a fairly conservative district, and he’s sincerely interested in how your (and my) tax dollars get spent. He really doesn’t like to get sidetracked by the social issues some Legislators seem to live for these days.

So, the other day, Tracy brought over one of his yard signs to put in my yard, just like I have in past elections. I thanked him. And then I called an artist friend down at United Printing and had him make me a yard sign of my own, white letters on a purple background, saying “Elect Tracy Potter and Bob Martinson to the House of Representatives.” I taped it over the top of the one Tracy had brought. Bet there isn’t another one like that in town. And I put it out in front of our house.

That was on Tuesday. Wednesday I came out and found the tape all pulled loose and the sign flopping around. There was no wind blowing, so obviously someone had done it. I chuckled. Somebody just wanted to see what was underneath, I guess. There’s a sign the same size just down the block from me with all three Republican Legislators names on it, so I kind of guessed it was some Republican operative looking to see if I had covered up one of their signs. Not sure what they were going to do if it had been one of theirs—report me to Republican headquarters? Then again, maybe it was a Democrat and I’ve been reported to Democrat headquarters. Haven’t heard from them yet.

I’m pretty sure Tracy doesn’t mind. I sure don’t have anything against Tracy’s running mate, Darrell Miller, but I can’t vote for three people. Sorry, Darrell. Bob’s running mates are probably not real happy with him, but as far as I am concerned, the best team for District 35 is Bob Martinson and Tracy Potter, and Bob is taking one for the team here. He’s not going to lose an election by being on a sign with Tracy. He’s going to be my Legislator as long as he wants to be.

Since it went up, I’ve gotten a request from someone else who wanted one. I did have a couple extra made up. I guess I can make some more if anyone wants one. Here’s what they look like.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Ice Cream And South American Sauce (And An Apology)

When I was a little kid growing up in Hettinger, North Dakota, my seven favorite words from my Dad were “Anybody want to go for a ride?” That question came usually on a soft summer evening, and it meant we were all going to pile into the station wagon and Dad was just going to drive us around town, and probably on the loop road around Mirror Lake, a whole bunch of blonde heads hanging out the car windows.

See, in those days, “going for a ride” was a big deal. In Hettinger, we were able to, and expected to, walk or ride our bikes everywhere we went. The town was only ten blocks long, from north to South, and about 12 blocks wide, east to west. We walked to school. We walked to church. Even in winter. We rode our bikes to baseball practice or down to the lake to catch sunfish and bluegills. Heck, there were times when we kids went days, even weeks, without getting into the car.

My dad, the wisest man I ever knew, could just tell when us kids had been rambunctious all day long and my mom was at her wits end, needing a break from us. So however many of us there were at the time (there would eventually be seven of us) would jump in the station wagon and we’d just drive around town. And make one special stop: at the Knotty Pine Drive-In.

The Knotty Pine was like a small town Hollywood set for a movie about the 1950’s, complete with speakers on poles between the cars for ordering and car hops delivering trays to us, which propped against a half-open driver’s side window. It was open from about the time school got out in the Spring until it started again in the Fall, generally Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day weekend. (And yes, I am supporting the measure on the ballot here this fall to start school after Labor Day. They did it when I was a kid, and I turned out all right, I think.) If the weather stayed nice in the fall, I remember, the Knotty Pine would remain open into September, but you had to walk up to the window to order during the day, because all of the car hops had gone back to school. There were car hops only in the evenings and on weekends in September. And then a cold spell would hit, and the drive-in would close abruptly, with only a day or two notice.

My favorite treats on those summer nights with Dad were root beer in frosty mugs, chocolate milk shakes, or ice cream cones with cinnamon-sugar flakes somehow mixed  right into the ice cream itself in a special machine inside the drive–in. We only got one thing, and it was hard to choose.

The drive-in was owned and run by a couple of what we considered middle aged “spinsters” named Evy and Julie, who lived together in a house on the east side of town all summer and mysteriously disappeared in the fall, to somewhere in the south, I think. We didn’t know it or even think it at the time (although I suspect our parents did) that they might have been a lesbian couple, and if they were, they were the first, and only, for a long, long time, lesbians I knew. All I knew was, they made life happy at that drive-in for hundreds of kids growing up in Hettinger (and hundreds of moms who shooshed the kids out of the house for a half hour or so in the evening after tending to them all day long). Most moms in Hettinger didn’t have jobs outside the home, and needed a break about 7 on a summer evening.

I was thinking about the Knotty Pine this week when I read of the problems some of the hospitality industry people here in Bismarck are having in trying to find help. Now there’s a problem caused by the oil boom we never counted on.

Just a few weeks ago, on one of those perfect summer evenings, about two hours after supper, Lillian and I decided we’d like a treat from Dairy Queen. I volunteered to go. We live about a 15 minute walk, or a 90-second drive, from the iconic home of the Buster Bar and Hot Fudge Sundaes at the corner of Broadway and Washington. It’s very convenient, but we don’t abuse the privilege more than four or five times a summer. That night was one of them. Lillian ordered a hot fudge sundae, I had my heart set on a Buster Bar, and I hopped in the car, and less than two minutes later I was staring at a sign that said “Closed. No Workforce.”

The sign on the service window said they were still open at their Highway 83 location.  Too far. Lillian’s Hot Fudge Sundae would be mush by the time I got home from there. So I drove to the grocery store up the street and got a carton of chocolate gelato. Craving satisfied. But it was a sad night, knowing there would be no more evening walks or drives to the DQ. (I tried the Highway 83 store a week later—it had a sign that said “Closed for the season August 24.”)

The next night on TV there was a story about the DQ being closed, and also an interview with the owner of Bismarck’s famed Peacock Alley Restaurant. The oil boom has not been a good thing for him, he said. “Low unemployment is a good statistic for politicians to brag about, but it is not a good statistic for business people,” Dale Zimmerman told KX News. In spite of doubling wages over the past four years, Zimmerman has had to cut his hours of operation because he can’t find enough people to serve his customers. He doesn’t want anyone leaving there complaining about poor service. Better to restrict hours. He says he’d hire 20 more people if he could, right now. 20 jobs going wanting. At one restaurant. In Bismarck, North Dakota. Go figure.

This week, it got worse. Mandan’s Seven Seas Hotel and Conference Center owner, Shannon Gangl, announced he was closing  the hotel’s restaurant, Montana Mike’s, due to lack of staff. Not cutting hours. Completely closing. That is a worst case scenario.

Dairy Queen closed for the season before summer’s end. Seven Seas restaurant closed permanently. Two Bismarck-Mandan institutions. Long before there was Peacock Alley, or Pirogue, or Kobe, years before Taco John and Arby’s, there were the Seven Seas and Dairy Queen. Two or three generations of Bismarck kids made that kitty-corner trip across Washington from the Elks Pool on a hot summer day before their bike ride home. And for my generation, the Seven Seas Dining Room and the Gourmet House were the top two fine dining restaurants in the two cities. Bob and Eileen Clifford closed the Gourmet House twenty years ago now, and Barry and Esther Davis sold the Seven Seas not long after, with the new owners renting out the dining room and kitchen space to a chain which served pretty good food.

For my friends and I who came here in the 1970’s, young and poor, the Seven Seas was our place to splurge, for the famous Seven Seas South American Steak, on anniversaries and New Year’s Eve, and a regular place to just go and have a drink and order garlic toast and the best liver pate’ in America and listen to Barry play the piano on a Saturday night. Now, there’s no food at the Seven Seas. Unthinkable. (Although you can still buy Essie’s famous South American sauce at the grocery store—good for you, Esther.)

I sent the story from the local paper to Esther this week (Barry’s been gone a few years now) and she responded “I cannot believe this! How very sad, as we all spent so many fun times with guests who were friends or soon became friends. With the hotel you would think they would have to have food. What awful changes in N.D.” Esther’s two sons, who grew up working behind the scenes at the Seven Seas, chimed in with their disappointment as well.

That’s the downside of the oil boom. More jobs than people, in spite of the huge influx of new residents. The employment crunch has hit here later than most places in the Oil Patch, but for those of us who live in the state capital, the downside of the boom has hit home.

To be sure, there are upsides to the boom here. We went from having no Japanese restaurants in town to three, which is a treat, because we had the least diverse restaurant choices of any major city in the Midwest just a couple years ago. The service is good there, because they have all brought their own staff to town with them. Not only can we get good Japanese food now, but we can hear the workers conversing in languages we don’t understand.  My guess is if they couldn’t do that, the restaurants wouldn’t be here.

North Dakota’s top tourist destination, Medora, has hired foreign workers for years, college-age kids who are here on temporary visas. Without them, Medora wouldn’t be open at all. Last winter, in fact, what is arguably the state’s best restaurant, Theodore’s in the Rough Riders Hotel, was closed for six months because of a lack of help. We’ll see if it is open this winter. I hope so, I love going there in the winter.

So, to all my friends with whom I spent many an evening at the Seven Seas, raise your glasses in a toast to days gone by. To anybody who wants a Buster Bar from the Bismarck DQ, (and it was the only place I know of where you could get a shrimpburger, too) sorry, you’ll have to wait to see what happens next spring. Two fine institutions, victims of too much success. It’s a brave new world in North Dakota. Get used to it.

I Apologize    

A note to all my readers: My blog is hosted by the Forum Communications Company and appears on the website of their North Dakota newspapers in Fargo, Grand Forks, Jamestown and Dickinson. I appreciate their willingness to do that. Sometimes the readers of my blog make a comment on the end of one of my articles. In order to try to keep these comments clean, the Forum does not let them show up until I have approved them. Ever since I started writing this blog, each time someone made a comment on one of my posts, it triggered a switch at Forum headquarters somewhere, and that switch sent me an e-mail telling me there was a comment waiting for me to approve. So I’d rush right in there and approve it, acknowledging to my readers/commenters that I had seen their comment.

For a couple of months now, I haven’t been getting any comments. I never gave it much thought until today, when I was wandering around in the bowels of the Forum blogosphere, and found a whole string of unapproved comments. Damn, those Forum people, I thought to myself, they were supposed to be notifying me when I got comments. So I quickly began approving them, and posting them to the appropriate blog article. Took most of my morning. Still cussing.   Then I got to the bottom and found a comment from my site administrator asking me for my new e-mail address. Duh, of course, when I got hacked so many times I closed my e-mail account, and neglected to tell the guy at the Forum. So of course, all those e-mails that said “There is a new comment on your post waiting to be approved . . .” were just going into cyberspace somewhere, without me knowing about it.
Well, damn. I apologize to all of you who were good enough to post a comment to my blog and then wondered why it did not show up. Some important people, including Earl Pomeroy, and some good friends of mine, have been silently calling me an a-hole for ignoring their comments. The good news is, I finally gave my guy at the Forum my new e-mail address so he (his computer, actually) can let me know when you comment on my blog. Sorry. Old dog. New tricks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Celebrate Today!

Fifty years ago today, on September 3, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law The Wilderness Act. I think it may be the best law ever signed by a President. The Wilderness Act created the National Wilderness Preservation System, which today includes more than 750 wilderness areas in the United States, encompassing more than 109 million acres, including four Federal Wilderness Areas in North Dakota.

Last night at supper, Lillian said “We should celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act by going to a wilderness area and going for a hike.” Done. As the sun rises in the east this morning, we will be headed west to the North Unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, where we will get out of the car and hike into one of North Dakota’s four small wilderness areas—the others are in the South Unit of the Park, the Lostwood Wildlife Refuge and the Chase Lake Wildlife Refuge. I hope there will be people at all of them, celebrating this morning. But not too many.

I am lucky enough to be married to a woman who has dedicated her life to Wilderness. Lillian was raised on a Bad Lands ranch, and, through her mother, who was raised on that same ranch, has the Bad Lands in her blood. It was the idea of preservation of some of those Bad Lands that brought us together—you’ve read about the famous “Bullion Butte Topo Map” on this blog before. Here’s a refresher if you’ve forgotten.

Fifteen years ago, Lillian and a friend founded an organization seeking to expand the federal wilderness area in North Dakota, and named it the Badlands Conservation Alliance. They incorporated it as a 501 C 3 non-profit organization and set to work. They understood that North Dakota needs more Wilderness. There are four more areas, in our Bad Lands, which are still roadless and are classified federally as “suitable for wilderness.” I’ve written about them before. You can read more about them here. BCA’s work has shifted from one of promotion of formal Wilderness designation to one of survival for the “suitable for wilderness” designation, as a result of the Bakken Blitz. But someday . . .

As I sat at my computer last night, I wanted to write my thoughts about the importance of wilderness. And then I thought of Wallace Stegner’s famous Wilderness Letter and decided I could not do better. I’ll share an excerpt from it here, some of the greatest words ever written, and provide a link to the entire text of the letter. I hope today you will take the time to read it, and thank the Congress of the United States—those were the days, the 1960’s, when Congress actually did good things—and President Lyndon Johnson, for giving us this marvelous gift.

Here’s the excerpt from Stegner’s letter. You can read the whole thing by going here.

            Something will have gone out of us as a people if we ever let the remaining wilderness be destroyed; if we permit the last  virgin forests to be turned into comic books and plastic cigarette cases; If we drive the few remaining members of the wild species into zoos or to extinction; if we pollute the last clear air and dirty the last clean streams and push our paved roads through the last of the silence, so that never again will Americans be free in their own country from the noise, the exhausts, the stinks of human and automotive waste. And so that never again can we have the chance to see ourselves single, separate, vertical and individual in the world, part of the environment of trees and rocks and soil, brother to the other animals, part of the natural world and competent to belong in it.

            Without any remaining wilderness we are committed wholly, without chance for even momentary reflection and rest, to a headlong drive into our technological termite-life, the Brave New World of a completely man-controlled environment. We need wilderness preserved–as much of it as is still left, and as many kinds–because it was the challenge against which our character as a people was formed. The reminder and the reassurance that it is still there is good for our spiritual health even if we never once in ten years set foot in it. It is good for us when we are young, because of the incomparable sanity it can bring briefly, as vacation and rest, into our insane lives. It is important to us when we are old simply because it is there–important, that is, simply as an idea.

The Wilderness Act itself is a marvelous piece of work. I don’t know who actually wrote the words, probably some Congressional staffer with help from an environmental lobbyist, but it was good enough to inspire a Congress, a President, and then a Nation, to act.Here’s how it starts:

Section 2.(a) In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as ”wilderness areas”, and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as ”wilderness areas” except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act.

And then it contains this magnificent definition of what Wilderness is:

(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

         “Untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor . . . ” Doesn’t that sound like a place you’d want to go to? Today?  Well, the coffee is made, there’s a hint of false dawn in the east, and there are some wild things in some wild places calling to my partner and me. We will drive both directions today with the sun in our rear view mirror. In between, we will spend this day, with a water bottle in one hand and a walking stick in the other, with those wild things in those wild places. What could be better than that?

If you want to know more about Wilderness and how you can get involved, visit the Wilderness Society’s website. It has a wonderful domain name: www.wilderness.org. And if you want to see what good government can provide, something we’v e not seen much of lately, here’s a link to the actual Wilderness Act itself.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Hacked. Again.

Somebody doesn’t like me.

Okay, for regular readers, you know that I’ve pissed some people off on this blog over the last five years. And I am not unique. Pretty much everybody, except maybe Mother Theresa and Robin Williams, has someone who doesn’t like them. And they’re dead.

But somebody really, really doesn’t like me, and they’ve got a personal campaign going to harass me and discredit me with my friends and acquaintances. And I swear, I’m going to find out who it is. And when I do, I’m going to call them up and say “Why are you doing this to me?” If they are allowed to take calls in their jail cell.

It started about a year ago, when I began getting e-mails and calls from friends saying “Jim, I think someone may have hacked your e-mail account.” Well, sure enough, someone had. Someone got my password to my Hotmail account somehow, accessed my e-mail account, and sent gibberish e-mails to everyone in my address book. A lot of my blog readers were among those getting those weird e-mails.

Lillian is the tech support person at our house, and so I asked her what to do, and she said “Change your password. And make it something unrelated to you, that is not so easy to figure out. Something other than your last name.” (Well, gee, I had tried to keep my password simple so I could remember it when I needed it. Bad idea, it turns out.)

Well, I changed it to something  harder to remember, and wrote it down and put it in my desk drawer in case I needed it. And then a few months later, it happened again. People started getting e-mails from me that I never sent. And once again, I started hearing about it. By now, I’m guessing, people are ready to tell me “Hey, Jim, please remove me from your address book. We don’t want to get a virus from you.” But people are nice, and no one did. They were just shaking their heads and saying to themselves “Geez, that Fuglie’s got a problem. I wish he’d get it fixed.”

Well, I sent an apology to everyone who let me know they had been getting these weird e-mails, and this time, my tech support person said “Get rid of Hotmail—it’s too vulnerable to hackers—and get a Gmail account.” So I did that last May. Closed my Hotmail account and opened a Gmail account with a password that itself is gibberish, and no hacker or hacker’s program will ever be able to figure out. So far, so good.

But when I closed my Hotmail account, I got an e-mail from the Hotmail people saying they were sorry to lose me, and just in case I wasn’t really serious, they were going to keep my account open for two months. That made me angry, but that’s their policy, so I had to live with it. And sure enough, my hacker kept sending stuff out to people from time to time. Until the account was finally closed for good on July 5.

Until this week, that is.

On Thursday night, Lillian said “Jim, someone has hacked your e-mail again.” Well, damn.

She showed me an e-mail she had just gotten. It said “Sup, Lillian.” And there was a link to some obscure website. And then my name. Here’s what it looked like, copied directly from her inbox:

From: Jim Fuglie <jimfuglie@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:35 AM
Subject: From: Jim Fuglie
To: Lillian Crook (I’ve erased her e-mail address)

Sup Lillian


Jim Fuglie

That’s it. See there, in the “From” line it says jimfuglie@hotmail.com. Well, I said, that’s impossible, because I closed that e-mail account. Well, yeah, but there it was, on her computer screen. WTF? How did that happen?

Then Friday morning I got a call from a friend of mine, asking if my e-mail had been hacked again. Well, damn. Sure enough, she had gotten an e-mail like the one Lillian got. Here it is:

Subject: From: Jim Fuglie
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 05:13:47 +0200
To: (I’ve erased my friend’s name and e-mail address)

Hi (Friend)


Jim Fuglie

You can see something a bit goofy in both—in the subject line, where it says “From: Jim Fuglie,” and in the second one, the “Subject” line is above the “From” line, which I’ve never seen before. Whoever is doing this knows what they are doing.  (And don’t click on those links, by the way.No telling what night happen.)

My friend advised me to call law enforcement. I said I would consider that, but first I wanted to learn a little more. Because this was no ordinary hacking. This was someone going to the trouble of actually sitting down at a computer and somehow sending out personal messages, under my name, to my wife and friends. That’s scary. This was no random computer program running through a list of possible passwords, scoring a hit, and then generating a mass e-mail to the people in my address book. No, this was personal. To two people I know and care about. Two messages, one sent at 1:35 a.m. Thursday and the other at 5:13 a.m. Friday. Some spook who doesn’t like me sitting in the dark of night and sending messages to people close to me under my name. That freaks me out a little bit.

Well, anyway, later Friday morning I called a friend who has a computer science degree from UND and works in the tech industry and knows about this stuff, and explained to him what was going on. I told him I was especially perplexed by the fact this person was using my old Hotmail account, that had been long closed. He said he couldn’t be sure, but here is what he thought was happening right now:

He said there is a way (I can’t figure it out, but a techie can, apparently) that someone can send an  e-mail and just type in your name and any old e-mail address in the “From” line, to make it look like that e-mail came from you, on that account. And neither you nor the person who was getting it would ever know the difference, unless they called you and said “Hey, did you send me this e-mail?” He said that person had probably captured my address book the first time it happened and was using that to send out these e-mails.

Well, I didn’t know that was possible, but it explains a lot. I asked him if that was illegal. He said maybe, depending on the circumstances. He’d need to study that a bit more. I said I would ask law enforcement to check on it. He said that would be a good idea.

He told me one other interesting thing. He said here might be a way to track who was doing this. He said there might be some tags or something like that (he used more technical terms) that could lead me to something called an ISP address, an Internet Service Provider, who might be able to track the e-mail to a specific computer. Well, wouldn’t that be something?

I’m going to do a little more checking. Then, if I think I am not going to be wasting their time, I’m going to call the cops. So, if whoever is doing this is also reading this blog, be forewarned. When the FBI shows up at your door, you better have dumped that computer in the Missouri River, or whatever river is closest.

And for the rest of you reading this, if you see anybody dumping a computer in a river in the next day or so . . .

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Protecting ALL Public Lands–A Modest Proposal

I know, I know, it’s been a while, but summer is vacation time, even for old retired folks, and so I took one, along with my lovely wife, to the Grand Targhee National Forest in Idaho–the backside of the Grand Tetons, those peaks you generally see only from the front, in Jackson Hole in Wyoming. Yes, it was grand.

I haven’t written much since I got back, but I want to share with you today  an article which will appear in the current issue of Dakota Country Magazine, which should be on the news stands about now. Here goes.

Here’s a wild idea: What if a state with nearly unlimited financial resources decided to do everything it could possibly do to protect the wildlife, and its habitat, on all of its public lands?

The key words there are “everything” and “all.” What if we really could do that? Well, guess what. In North Dakota, we can. Here are my thoughts, collected in my head one day on top a Badlands butte (where I tend to think most clearly), and transcribed to paper as best I can recall.

The two largest landowners—and mineral owners—in North Dakota are the state and federal governments. That means they have tremendous power and influence over how our state’s minerals—read oil and gas, for now—are developed.

The feds own more than a million acres of National Grasslands, most of them in the Bad Lands of western North Dakota. The state owns a couple million acres of “school lands” given to it at statehood, about half of it in the oil producing counties. Both own most of the minerals under their land.

The N.D. Department of Trust Lands manages oil leases on the state lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM, often called the “Bureau of Leasing and Mining” by environmentalists out west) manages the minerals for the Forest Service. Between them they control the minerals under about 2.5 million acres of state and federal land in the Oil Patch. (The BLM also manages minerals for the state’s Indian Reservations, another couple million acres.)

Here’s why all of this is important. The Forest Service, from time to time, writes a management plan for the National Grasslands. The most recent plan sets aside about 40,000 acres as roadless areas, technically “suitable for wilderness.” A lot of hunters, hikers, photographers, birders and others who just like the idea of saving a few remaining wild places where cars can’t go, applauded the designation, and an active effort was begun to designate those acres as official Wilderness Areas under the Wilderness Act of 1964. That effort is still underway. I wrote about it here a few months ago.

The acres are in two areas south of Medora, known as the Bullion Butte and Kendley Plateau areas, and two north of Medora, Twin Buttes and the Long X Divide. They are some of the most spectacular and isolated areas of the North Dakota Bad Lands.

Some of those blocks of roadless areas include school sections. Like the Forest Service lands, the school lands are leased to ranchers for grazing. However, because the federal government has not leased their minerals for oil development in those blocks, neither has the state. But then came the Bakken Boom, presenting a huge opportunity for the state to make some money off its lands.

The Trust Lands Department holds quarterly auctions of mineral leases on lands nominated by oil companies who’d like to drill on them. A couple years ago, an oil company nominated a section of state land that was landlocked inside a federal roadless area. It was a section on the west slope of magnificent Bullion Butte, which, outside of our national park, is perhaps North Dakota’s most treasured landmark. Citizen protests, however, scared away the oil company that was proposing to lease the land, and the land was withdrawn from the auction.

In July of this year the Trust Lands people posted on their website another long list of their sections that they were going to auction off in a sale on August 5. Well, several of us (who really need to get a life, I suppose), read those lists, and we found several tracts listed as objectionable, including a couple sections inside the Kendley Plateau non-motorized area, another section on the east slope of Bullion Butte, and one inside a state game management area. The Kendley Plateau and Bullion Butte tracts are both within the boundaries of Wayne Stenehjem’s “Extraordinary Places” list. Mike McEnroe of the Wildlife Society and Jan Swenson of the  Badlands Conservation Alliance met with the Trust Lands staff, and I sent an e-mail questioning whether the Trust Lands people were really sure they wanted to lease those, recalling the bad publicity they received a couple years ago.

Well, it turns out the Game and Fish Department staff reads those lists too, and they were doing their job by also calling those lands to the attention of their fellow state agency, saying preserving the integrity of those lands is important, and it is probably not a good idea to allow oil development on them. They recommended that if the Trust Lands Department insisted on leasing those lands, that they attach a stipulation to the lease that there be “no surface occupancy” on those sections. No wells on those sections. Period. Any drilling would have to come horizontally from outside the sections.

Well, the system worked. Partly because of the Game and Fish recommendation, and partly because of the visit by the two folks from the conservation groups, (and partly, I suppose out of just good common sense), the Trust Lands staff has agreed to “suspend” the lease of those tracts for a year. Good for them. For now.

It was a hard call. Both the staff and the Land Board members believe, as Wayne Stenehjem, who, as Attorney General is a member of the Land Board, told me in an e-mail, that “the Land Board does have a duty to maximize the return on the funds in the Common Schools Trust Fund for the benefit of school students in the state, and that requirement cannot be set aside.”

Well, yes, but . . . The section of the law that directs the Trust Lands Commissioner instructs him to determine the “highest and best use” of school lands when considering a sale, trade or lease of land or minerals. And it says “As used in this section, “highest and best use” means that use of a parcel of land which will most likely produce the greatest benefit to the state and its inhabitants, and which will best meet the needs of the people. In making this determination, the considerations of the commissioner shall include soils capability, vegetation, wildlife use, mineral characteristics, public use, recreational use, commercial or industrial use, aesthetic values, cultural values, surrounding land use, nearness to expanding urban areas, and any other resource, zoning, or planning information relevant to the determination.”

Some of us read that to mean that wildlife use, public use, and recreational use, for example, might just sometimes be the highest and best use of some of those lands—especially those in roadless areas that are suitable for wilderness designation.

Drew Combs, the minerals manager for the Trust Lands Department, told me they are working on a possible minerals swap with the Forest Service, which is a very desirable outcome. Wayne Stenehjem apparently also reads those lists, because he also talked with the Trust Lands staff about them, out of concern for his “Extraordinary Places” policy. Wayne also pointed out in an e-mail to me that “there are tons of hurdles to contend with” in trying to arrange a minerals swap with the Forest Service. (Not the least of which, I might mention, is the lawsuit now making its way through the federal court system that the Attorney General has filed against the Forest Service, seeking to open up the section lines inside those roadless areas so the North Dakota counties can build roads through them. Those are the kind of things that make the Forest Service a little grumbly in its relations with the state. And make the Attorney General look a little hypocritical.)

“We’ll see how that (the mineral swap) goes,” Stenehjem said. Yeah, I guess we will. I just hope the Forest Service can look past the state’s lawsuit over the petty issue of “sovereignty” and work with us on this issue. If a trade for the mineral rights between the state and the Forest Service for mineral rights somewhere else in a non-protected area happens, the environmental integrity of those roadless areas can be maintained.

So, in spite of the unbridled enthusiasm emanating daily from the Governor’s office for drilling every acre in the state, some folks at the staff level in state government are helping to make the system work the way it should. The policy the Land Board put in place, in response to public pressure, of having state agencies review each section of state-owned land before mineral leasing, seems to be working. The state Game and Fish Department has been especially attentive to this (I think maybe Terry Steinwand is getting tired of being called a lackey of the Governor by the conservation community, which he is supposed to be representing in his position as Director).

In the latest review of the lands on the list for the August auction, Game and Fish staffers flagged more than 100 parcels for special attention. The recommendations were detailed and specific.  While some did recommend no surface occupancy, most are as simple as placing wells on the north side of a quarter-section instead of the south side, to avoid critical habitat, or to keep development alongside the roads to avoid fragmenting the habitat any more than it already is. These Game and Fish guys know their job and their wildlife, and are paying serious attention to details, without being unreasonable. This is the biggest test yet of the policy, and I really hope it works, because, getting back to what I mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, it could serve as a model for checks on future development on other public lands.

The Game and Fish Department has a pretty sophisticated method of making its recommendations. In some cases, like on or near Game Management Areas, staff is personally familiar with the land. In others, Steve Dyke, Conservation Supervisor for the Game and Fish Department, said the staff generates recommendations from desktop analysis using things like aerial imagery, the Department’s important habitat maps, spacing units, existing roads/pads and land ownership patterns, among other tools.

I asked the guys at Game and Fish if this could be done on all federal lands as well as state lands, and they said when the BLM schedules its own lease auctions, it is getting recommendations from North Dakota Game and Fish. Dyke told me they “do not yet have a good feel for how they are incorporating our recommendations. Hopefully that will become apparent in the near future.” Dyke also pointed out that most of the federal land is leased already, prior to his department’s involvement, and those leases last ten years.

But even though the oil companies have their leases, they still have to clear one more hurdle—they have to get a drilling permit. And both the state and federal government have something to say about that. And both are aware of the Game and Fish Department recommendations. Now we’ll have to see if the folks who issue drilling permits–Lynn Helms  and his staff at the Oil and Gas Division, which answers to the North Dakota Industrial Commission–are up to the task of looking out for the critters and the land. That hasn’t often been the case in the past.  Somebody needs to hold their feet to the fire.

So what we’re finding, as the Trust Lands Department somewhat grudgingly acquiesces to some restraints on their enthusiasm for maximizing income at the expense of environmental sensitivity (the Department Commissioner responded to our first request, to preserve the integrity of Bullion Butte, with “conservation doesn’t support education for my kids and grandkids”), is that, if we want to, we can indeed support the requests from the oil industry to go after the oil, but in a way that wildlife experts tell us will do the least damage. That being the case, we should see how far we can expand the bounds of that effort.

If the Forest Service and BLM were amenable, for example, and if Game and Fish had adequate resources—two big “ifs,” but both doable—perhaps we could provide some measure of wildlife and habitat protection to ALL public lands in the state. Wouldn’t that be something?

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A Loophole Big Enough To Drive A Fracking Truck Through

I’m working on an article for a magazine I write for about the North Dakota Industrial Commission’s new policy for siting oil wells, and I thought I might share some of what I have learned here, because it’s pretty interesting and I can often say things here that my editor at the magazine (although he is fairly generous with me) won’t let me say in print. Things like bad words, really bad words, of which I have a few on my mind today. Let’s see if I can get through this without using too many of them.

The article zooms in on the Industrial Commission’s Policy “NDIC-PP 2.01,” more commonly known as Wayne Stenehjem’s “Special Places,” “Extraordinary Places,” or “Areas of Interest” policy. That’s the policy that identifies 18 of these “Areas of Interest” in the Bakken oil field which have some intrinsic value beyond the minerals under them, generally scenic values, critical wildlife habitat or historical significance. Stenehjem’s idea, proposed to his two fellow Industrial Commission members Jack Dalrymple and Doug Goehring last winter, was to run a routine check on drilling permit applications, and if the request is for mineral development in or near these special areas, that they are subjected to some scrutiny, both by the public and by knowledgeable state and federal officials, to make sure that if a well is sited, the company developing it goes a bit out of its way to make sure it is placed in a spot where it will do the least amount of damage to those intrinsic values. Like tucking the well behind a butte, or keeping it out of woody draws that mule deer like for procreating, sleeping and eating, or out of sight and sound of an eagle’s nest. I published a list of those areas a week or so ago.

That policy took effect May 1. It generally says that when an application for a drilling permit arrives at the Oil and Gas Division, someone on the staff will check it against a list, and if it is on public land, and near one of these places, a process is triggered to enforce the policy. As far as I am concerned, that person—whoever it is—now has the most important job in North Dakota: Starting a process which will help protect the most important places in western North Dakota.

I don’t know who that person is, or if there are more than one of them. Alison Ritter, spokesperson for the Oil and Gas Division, outlined the process for me. To make it happen as efficiently as possible, the Division has compiled a pretty sophisticated GIS tool (you can actually look at the map by going here), and the application is checked against it both when it arrives and again during the evaluation process. If it scores a hit with the areas of interest list, a process begins which includes a review, public comment, agency comment and, hopefully, mitigation. Here’s the process outlined in the policy:

NDIC-PP 2.02. The director shall, within five calendar days after receiving an application to drill a well on public land within an area of interest identified under NDIC-PP 2.01: 

 A. Post on the daily activity reports (emphasis added) section of the Department of Mineral Resources website a notice including all non-confidential permit application information. The posted notice shall include all supporting information or records provided by the applicant which are not confidential. Public comments about public lands within the areas of interest regarding such issues as access road and well location, reclamation plans and timing, noise, traffic, and visual impact mitigation, will be accepted by the Industrial Commission executive director’s designee for 10 calendar days after the notice is posted. 

B. Forward the portions of the application that are not confidential to the Director of North Dakota Game and Fish Department, the State Historical Preservation Officer, the Director of North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, the Director of North Dakota Department of Transportation, the Commissioner of North Dakota Department of Trust Lands, the State Engineer of the North Dakota Water Commission, the State Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the Park Superintendent of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, the Supervisor of Dakota Prairie Grasslands, the Field Supervisor of United States Fish and Wildlife Service North Dakota Field Office and the county auditor of the affected county. Any comments regarding the permit application may be accepted by the Industrial Commission executive director’s designee (Note: I wrote about this designee last week) within 10 calendar days after the information is sent. 

NDIC-PP 2.03. All comments shall be reviewed by the Industrial Commission executive director’s designee who shall summarize any comments received for the director of the Division of Mineral Resources. However, the Mineral Resources director is not bound to act upon any comments. (emphasis added)

NDIC-PP 2.04. The director may consider the comment summaries for the purposes of attaching conditions to any permit pursuant to NDAC 43-02-02, 43-02-02.2, 43-02-02.3, 43-02-02.4, 43-02-03 and 43-02-05 to mitigate potential impacts to the sites listed in NDIC-PP 2.01.

So, as you can see, the process can be used to write and attach special provisions to a drilling permit, designed to help protect these “Special Places.” The Division Director, Lynn Helms, can do that if he wants to, but he doesn’t have to.

It was a good idea Wayne Stenehjem had, and even though it was gutted to remove drilling on private land from consideration—only lands owned by the state, federal or local governments will get this scrutiny—it creates an awareness that we should be considering things other than maximization of wealth to drillers and mineral owners when we site an oil well—at least on public lands.

The problem with the policy is that there is a loophole in it big enough to drive an oil well fracking truck through. Or a thousand trucks, or, possibly fifty thousand or a hundred thousand trucks (I’ve been told it takes a thousand trucks full of water and fracking material to complete a well). Here’s the loophole which is the problem:

The policy only applies to drilling permit applications received by the Oil and Gas Division after May 1, 2014. Applications. Paperwork that comes into the Division office asking for permission to drill a new well. Paperwork that is coming into the Oil and Gas Division now, since the policy took effect May 1.

It does not apply to applications received before May 1. That’s the loophole. You see, one rainy day a couple of weeks ago I was looking at those “Daily Activity Reports” mentioned above (you can see them here), and I spotted approval of a drilling permit for a well to be drilled on state-owned land about half a mile from the boundary of Theodore Roosevelt National Park’s South Unit. Wait a minute, I said. That’s within the “Areas of Interest” boundaries. How come the new policy doesn’t apply?

Well, it doesn’t apply because the application came in before the policy took effect. So even though it is now the policy of the state of North Dakota to carefully examine all oil well sites for their impact on the neighborhood and those who live in it, it doesn’t apply if you beat the deadline.

Well, that’s a bummer. We’ve got a policy in place, but it doesn’t apply right now. We’re going to go ahead and allow wells inside these “Special Places,” as long as they beat the deadline, defeating the purpose of the very policy we put in place to prevent that.

I just happened to look at the legal section of the Bismarck Tribune the very next day, and there was a legal notice posted by the U.S. Forest Service that they were signing off on a well about a mile and a half from the North Unit of the Park, again inside the two-mile boundary zone of the Park that the state wants to protect. Same story. The application came in before the deadline.

I began to wonder just how many of these applications were now on file with the Oil and Gas Division, awaiting approval. See, the Industrial Commission had been discussing this since back in December, so oil companies had four or five months to get their applications in before the policy took effect on May 1. So if they knew they were going to want to drill next to the national park, or beside a wildlife refuge, or snugged up against the shoreline of Lake Sakakawea, they just hurried up and got their applications in before May 1.

So I sent an e-mail to Alison Ritter, a very helpful spokesperson for the Oil and Gas Division, asking how many permit applications were on file when the policy took effect May 1.


You read that right. On May 1, the day the new policy took effect, there were more than a thousand pending applications to drill for oil sitting on somebody’s desk at the Oil and Gas Division, and none of them were subject to the new policy, because they were submitted before the deadline. I don’t have any way to determine how many of them are inside the boundaries of the “areas of interest,” and I have a bit too much fishing and gardening and golfing to do to spend my time looking at a thousand applications to see how many are inside those “Areas of Interest” boundaries, but I do know there are at least two—the ones I just mentioned—and that there are probably more. Maybe a lot more.

Well, shit, that’s discouraging. The oil industry has plenty of time to screw up the “Special Places” before they have to start following the new rules. And there’s nothing we can do about it. Legally, at least.

Last Spring, when the Industrial Commission was putting the finishing touches on the policy, the Attorney General told me he’d like to have coffee and visit about this. So last week I took him up on that offer. I took him copies of the map that showed the locations of these two wells that are going to be drilled inside the two-mile boundary around Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and asked him if there was anything we could do about them, and the other 1,062 pending applications. He was interested in finding out. He said that he’d check to see what could be done with those 1,062 pending applications. We agreed that, legally, the oil companies can plunge ahead. But Wayne thought he might see if we could get some agreement about informally checking those permit applications to see if any of them would have the new policy applied to them if they had come in after May 1. And then, maybe, in good faith, the Oil and Gas Division director could ask the companies to work with him on siting those wells and the roads to them. I expect Wayne’s working on that right now. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for a positive outcome. I know those folks over at the Oil and Gas Division.

So, right now, the old rules still apply. If you’re an oil company and you got your application to drill a well on a school section next door to the National Park filed before May 1, you can just go right ahead. I don’t know how old those applications are, but Ms. Ritter told me it takes an average of 27 days from the time an application arrives until it is approved by the Oil and Gas Division. As I write this, May 1 was about 75 days ago, so all of those should have been approved and issued by now.

I don’t know how many of those 1,062 might have been inside the boundaries of the “Areas of Interest,” but my cursory look showed me there were two, so it’s likely there are more if you carefully scrutinize the daily activity reports. I’m not doing that. I’m going fishing.

I hope Wayne will ask three questions of his staff over at the Oil and Gas Division:

  1. How many of those 1,062 applications have yet to be acted on?
  2. Would you please check and see if any of those not yet acted on are inside the “Areas of Interest” boundaries?
  3. Would you see if you can get your experts, like wildlife or historic preservation staff , to take a look at them and see if there are any problems, and if there are, talk to the oil companies about rectifying them?

That would be a nice thing to have happen, and it would reassure all of us that the state is serious about this business of looking out for “Extraordinary Places.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments