14-02-2025
Modified bill that seeks to create military impact zones intends to build communication, senator says
Feb. 14—BISMARCK — A bill that seeks to create a commission to "harmonize" land use around North Dakota military installations isn't intended to build barriers, but rather to stimulate communication and collaboration between military branches and nearby towns, counties and townships, according to the senator who introduced it.
Sen. Jeff Barta, R-Grand Forks, spoke about Senate Bill 2398 for more than 15 minutes during a meeting of the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee. He stressed that the bill is focused on improving the performance of the military crews and missions that call North Dakota home.
"This is about the security, safety and the mission success of our bases," Barta told the committee.
Later during the meeting, he said, "this is about bringing those people together and how we collate resources and have that shared information to make the best decision for each of those localities (municipalities, townships and counties)."
Robustly amended from its original version, SB 2398 was discussed for more than 35 minutes overall during Thursday's legislative committee hearing. In addition to the creation of "impact zones" around four North Dakota military installations, the bill intends to form a military compatibility commission that would "harmonize land use in military impact zones, prevent encroachment of military installations in military impact zones and promote the sustainability of military operations in the state."
In its original form, the wording of SB 2398 said the commission would "oversee and coordinate land use in military impact zones." (Emphasis was added by the Herald to highlight the words that were changed and then replaced with harmonize).
Also, 2398's original version laid out specific geographic circles around North Dakota military installations, including 25 miles around Grand Forks Air Force Base and Minot Air Force Base and 5 miles around Camp Grafton (South) and the Cavalier Space Force Station. In the amended version, all of those distances are crossed out, replaced with wording that specifies "the outer boundary of each zone must be established by an assessment in a compatible use study and contingent upon the missions of each base."
The bill originally spelled out that the commission would include the governor, or a designee of the governor; a member of the state Public Service Commission, or a designee; a representative from each county, township and city within the boundaries of an impact zone; and, on a voluntary basis, the commander of each installation, or a designee. That has been changed to the governor; one representative selected by the North Dakota Association of Counties who is a member of the association; one representative selected by the North Dakota Township Officers Association who is a member of the association; one representative selected by the North Dakota League of Cities who is a member of the association; and, on a voluntary basis, the commander of each installation or a designee thereof.
The members of the Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee did not vote Thursday to suggest passage or failure of the bill. That will come later.
Five people testified in favor of SB 2398 during Thursday's committee hearing, including Barta; Fred Brooks, regional environmental coordinator of the U.S. Air Force; and representatives from the Minot Area Chamber and Economic Development Corp., the North Dakota League of Cities and the North Dakota Association of Counties. Five people — including Barta, Brooks and Bruce Gjovig, of Grand Forks — submitted written testimony in favor of the bill, while Grand Forks City Council President Dana Sande submitted written testimony that was listed as "neutral." There was no written testimony against the plan.
Earlier in the week, the Grand Forks City Council voted 6-0 to not support SB 2398. Sande's letter to the committee — written on behalf of the council — clarified that council members "support the concept of military impact zones and the idea of a military compatibility commission," but "our concern is regarding the size of the military impact zone."
Specifically, Sande wrote, the originally declared 25-mile circle around Grand Forks Air Force Base would be "an extremely large area that will impact all land use decisions in the city of Grand Forks and the ET zone around the city." He said the city would support an amendment that would exclude the city and the 2-mile extra-territorial zone, which Sande described as a 2-mile buffer beyond city limits.
"Do we support the Grand Forks Air Force Base and their current and future missions? Yes. Do we support creating a plan so potential encroachment on the base is addressed? Yes," Sande wrote. "If the Legislature can amend and fine-tune the issues addressed in this testimony, can we support this bill? Yes."
Gjovig, a member of the Air and Space Force Civic Leader Program, wrote that encroachment on bases — particularly land, airspace and electromagnetic spectrum encroachment — can significantly affect security and mission viability.
"Current encroachment legislation only deals with land encroachment, but airspace and electromagnetic spectrum encroachment is just as crucial for military operations," he wrote.
At present, he wrote, North Dakota lacks "specific state-level legislation to protect military installations from encroachment and lacks a coordinating entity (formal point of contact) to act as a liaison and clearinghouse with developers, local government and others to resolve potential conflicts."
SB 2398 has a connection to a past controversy in Grand Forks. In November 2021, it was announced that the China-based agribusiness company Fufeng planned to build a wet corn mill on the north side of Grand Forks. Among the concerns that were raised — along with perceived issues related to cost to the community, encroachment on nearby landowners and environmental concerns — was that the mill would be a national security threat, due to its proximity to Grand Forks Air Force Base.
In early 2023, after the U.S. Air Force issued a statement saying it was indeed concerned with the Chinese plant being built within 20 miles of the base, the city terminated all agreements and discussions with Fufeng, effectively ending the project.
During Thursday's committee meeting, Barta said the goal of SB 2398 is to help avoid potential threats — intentional and unintentional, foreign and domestic.
"This can help us mitigate some unforeseen circumstances and some unintentional consequences of things being put up that will nonetheless be an enemy to our military mission. Those are on the domestic side," he said. "It's not that someone is intentionally doing it, but when we have a development come in, we don't know the impact it will have until we start asking those questions."
He said the 25-mile radius around bases — included in the bill's original version — "went away in a hurry" because it would have created too many limitations.
So, Barta said, rather than picking some arbitrary number, "we need it to be specific to the missions." Development within the designated area would be subject to review for any potential interference with radar communications and flight operations.
Toward the end of his testimony Thursday, Barta said the goal is to enhance the regulatory framework within the state to protect military installations and to "support the local governments in making informed land use decisions that align with military needs."
