07-03-2025
Sen. Jeff Barta outlines revisions to military compatibility commission bill during committee hearing
Mar. 6—BISMARCK — A revised proposal to create a military compatibility commission seeks to establish "the rules we are going to play by" for developing land and projects near North Dakota's military bases, its prime sponsor said Thursday.
Sen. Jeff Barta, R-Grand Forks, spoke before the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee on Thursday, explaining the difference between the original version of the bill and how it now reads.
The goal, he said, is to pass the bill as a method to get various stakeholders "seated around a table to say 'this is what has to be done in order for you to operate here.'"
Senate Bill 2398 seeks to establish a military compatibility commission and so-called "military impact zones," which would extend from the bases and installations that already exist within the state, including Grand Forks Air Force Base, Minot Air Force Base, Cavalier Space Force Station and Camp Grafton South.
The intent of the commission is to "harmonize land use in military impact zones, review potential encroachment of military installations in military impact zones and promote the sustainability of military operations in the state," according to the bill.
Gone from the bill's original verbiage is a stipulation that the zones extend a predetermined distance from each installation. For GFAFB, for instance, the original distance was 25 miles in each direction, which prompted early concern from the Grand Forks City Council that it could hinder future development in and around the city.
"Since I introduced it, and I introduced it just before deadline, it has changed quite a bit," Barta told members of the committee on Thursday. "With that, I consider the bill a success already. It's an indication of the intent of the bill from the beginning, which is to increase communication and cooperation across all entities and political (subdivisions) when it comes to new development in the area."
Regardless of distances from an installation — which now would be determined separately, depending on the mission — Barta believes a commission would create more openness and dialogue when potential development is proposed near military operations.
"It's only fair to anybody coming to the state to do business that they know what they face," he said. "We're just trying to get all of these people involved and seated around a table to say this is what has to be done in order for you to operate here."
Mostly, though, it's "to ensure protection of North Dakota military installations."
After Barta explained the revisions to the committee, a representative of the North Dakota wind energy industry spoke against SB 2398 — albeit gently.
Levi Andrist said "opposition (to SB 2398) is probably the correct technical term, but we certainly support military compatibility in North Dakota."
Andrist said that in 2011, Congress enacted a national Department of Defense clearinghouse that already oversees wind projects, ensuring that they do not compromise military installations and their missions.
"This is important: A wind project is legally required under federal law to engage with the clearinghouse, and additionally with the (Federal Aviation Administration), if their structure is over 200 feet tall," Andrist said. "... A project is neither developable nor is it financeable if it does not address the DOD's concerns under this process. A wind project will not get built if there are objections by the DOD or military installations in the state."
Additionally, he said, the state Public Service Commission siting process requires hearings to be held in counties where wind projects are proposed. The overall process to create new wind projects is "robust," he said.
With that in mind, Andrist said his industry requests "a friendly amendment," since "we very much support the intent of the bill."
The amendment he suggests would add the following: "Except for activity subject to the United States Department of Defense clearinghouse, established by federal law, the commission shall do the same things the bill is intended to do."
"This amendment would still allow the various types of development to be subject to the military compatibility commission, namely value-added ag projects, aviation activities, commercial activities, industrial development, transportation development and housing development," he said. "This doesn't gut the bill. What the amendment proposes to do is reflect the reality that there is a robust federal review process already required by federal law."
Alan Dohrmann, chief operating officer for Gov. Kelly Armstrong, also spoke Thursday, outlining concerns. He has spoken to Barta about some of the ideas, he said, but Barta doesn't necessarily agree with them.
However, "the one thing everybody agrees on ... is that encroachment on our bases is an important issue that needs to be addressed," Dohrmann said. "We believe that there are processes in place already that can achieve that aim without adding another board or commission."
The main concern of Dohrmann, and therefore Gov. Armstrong, "centers around the fact that to be part of this commission, you must have a military compatibility study. To our knowledge, the only base that has had a military compatibility study done, or compatible use study done, is Grand Forks (Air Force Base), and that was just completed in 2024," Dohrmann said. "As the bill is currently written, if a compatible use study is required, there is a possibility that the only folks who would be on this commission would be the governor, a representative from Grand Forks County if they chose to opt in, possibly a representative from Larimore if they chose to opt in, and then a representative from one of the 41 townships from Grand Forks County if they chose to opt in. ... If they do join, they can look at how to best zone in and around bases and everybody on that committee has zoning authority except for the chair.
"It begs the question: Why do we need to add the governor to a committee made up of local zoning officials who already have the power and responsibility and already have to go through the clearinghouse?"
Grand Forks resident Bruce Gjovig submitted written testimony on behalf of Grand Forks' Mayor's base Retention Committee. The committee, he wrote, urges a "do-pass" for SB 2398, "to protect our military installations against encroachment by land, airspace, and electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) developments."
His letter also suggests a counter-drone amendment to establish a perimeter defense outside the fenceline of installations to better "neutralize threats early." It would include the county sheriff and base security working together for counter-UAS responses.
SB 2398 passed through the Senate 47-0 earlier this session. The bill now awaits its fate in the House.
