Latest news with #NorthwestLandownersAssociation
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
CO2 storage law challenged in North Dakota Supreme Court hearing
The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral arguments over Zoom April 17, 2025, in a case brought by the Northwest Landowners Association against the state and the North Dakota Industrial Commission. (Screenshot via Bismarck Tribune) The North Dakota Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in a case that could determine whether a state law on underground carbon dioxide storage is constitutional and fair to landowners. The Northwest Landowners Association and other landowners are suing the state of North Dakota and the state Industrial Commission over a state law that can force landowners to take part in an underground CO2 storage project. Joining the state in defending its statute are Minnkota Power, Basin Electric Power, Dakota Gasification Co. and Summit Carbon Solutions, the Iowa-based company that has a permit to store millions of tons of carbon dioxide in western North Dakota. Initial fate of property rights lawsuit now in the hands of a judge The North Dakota Farm Bureau has joined the landowners in their lawsuit. Derrick Braaten, representing the landowners, said the state law authorizing amalgamation — forcing landowners to allow carbon dioxide storage beneath their property if 60% of the landowners agree to a storage project — is unconstitutional and doesn't allow landowners to use the court system to argue for just compensation. Northeast Judicial District Judge Anthony Swain Benson dismissed the lawsuit in August, ruling that a law passed in 2009 could not be challenged because a statute of limitations had expired. Thursday's arguments delved into the merits of the case. Braaten urged the Supreme Court to overrule the district court on the technicalities. He said the Supreme Court could also rule on the merits of the case or send it back to the district court for further arguments. The Supreme Court took the case under advisement. Judge dismisses landowner lawsuit against state, citing procedural issues Summit Carbon Solutions is seeking to use property in Oliver, Mercer and Morton counties for underground CO2 storage. The underground storage area is referred to as pore space. Phil Axt, representing the state, noted that North Dakota's geology is exceptionally well suited to underground carbon dioxide storage. He said the state should have the authority to regulate a shared resource. He said the case could set a precedent. 'As far as we're aware, no other court has yet addressed the pooling of pore space interests and the interplay between individual rights, majority rights and regulatory authority,' Axt said. 'We think courts around the country will be answering them, but this court is positioned to be the first.' Paul Forster, attorney for Minnkota Power, argued that allowing a small percentage of landowners to stop an underground storage project denies the majority of a right to profit from their property. Braaten also argued that state law takes away the right of landowners to challenge the level of compensation if a landowner is forced into a pool. He noted the potential revenue for Summit Carbon Solutions if it is able to take advantage of federal tax credit for storing carbon dioxide, which the company hopes to gather from ethanol plants in five Midwest states. 'They're making millions, if not billions, of dollars doing it by collecting government tax credits, and they're saying we don't get our share of that, even though it's our property they're using,' Braaten said. Carbon pipeline company seeks dismissals of North Dakota court challenges About 92% of landowners in the 90,000-acre sequestration area for Summit were participating voluntarily at the time Summit's storage permit was approved. Summit Carbon Solutions, which faces a permitting challenge in South Dakota, did not make oral arguments Thursday. Among the arguments Summit made in a brief filed with the court is that the state has a law that forces property owners to participate in oil and gas development. Braaten argued those property owners are fairly compensated. The Northwest Landowners Association successfully challenged a 2019 North Dakota pore space law at the state Supreme Court, with justices finding it unconstitutional. Landowners are also appealing the Industrial Commission's permit decision for the Summit storage area. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Oil company, landowner attorney collaborate on bill to avoid court battles in North Dakota
Landowners are compensated for the area needed for oil well pads, but there are sometimes disputes about the amount of compensation. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor) Bismarck attorney Derrick Braaten says clients have paid him millions of dollars for court battles against oil and gas company Continental Resources over surface damages in North Dakota. But a conversation between Braaten and a lawyer representing Continental Resources could lead to fewer court battles, something Braaten says benefits the company and his clients. A result of that conversation is Senate Bill 2335, which would add a mediation step in negotiations between mineral resource developers and landowners in an effort to resolve disputes without a lawsuit. The bill has received support from Continental Resources, the North Dakota Petroleum Council and the Northwest Landowners Association, which Braaten represents. Litigation only benefits the lawyers, Braaten said during a hearing before the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this month. In these disputes, the developer has already leased the minerals. But, under North Dakota law, developers must pay the landowners reasonable compensation for damage to the land, such as putting in a well pad. 'Neither the landowners nor the developers are benefiting from litigating over every darn well pad,' Braaten said. 'I've got better things to do.' Under the bill, if a landowner rejects a compensation offer from an oil and gas developer, the landowner can choose an appraiser to determine the value of the land being affected and present it to the developer. The developer pays for the appraisal, and after receiving it, has 30 days to make a new offer. Braaten said the appraisal provides a third-party number that at least provides a starting point for negotiations. 'The best thing that can happen here is we figure out how to make landowners and operators come together and come to private agreements,' Braaten said. William Hauser, an attorney for Continental Resources, said the value of the property is at the heart of the disputes. 'The appraisal helps both sides see the realistic value sooner in the process,' Hauser testified. If there is no agreement, the case can still end up in court, though the appraisal is not admissible. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said currently, talks stagnate after the initial offer. 'The landowner is just unhappy and there's no communication,' Ness said. Troy Coons, chair of the Northwest Landowners Association, called the bill an 'excellent compromise.' The bill received unanimous approval in the Senate, and the House committee gave it a unanimous do pass recommendation last week. Two other landowner rights bills went before the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Senate Bill 2321 would require that companies developing infrastructure projects such as pipelines reimburse legal fees for landowners, even if the company abandons or changes the project so that the landowner is no longer involved. It is awaiting committee action. Senate Bill 2379 originally required that land surveyors get written permission from landowners before stepping onto a property. This bill has received pushback from some water resource development groups, saying it would add to water pipeline costs and slow the projects down. The bill was amended to require providing written notice. The committee voted 9-4 Friday to give it a do-pass recommendation. The North Dakota Supreme Court last year ruled against landowners in a survey access case involving carbon dioxide pipeline developer Summit Carbon Solutions. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Local versus state zoning for transmission lines debated at North Dakota Legislature
Troy Coons, chair of the Northwest Landowners Association, speaks during a Senate committee hearing on March 21, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) North Dakota landowners complained about eroding property rights and advocated for local government control Friday as they testified against a bill to take zoning decisions for electrical transmission lines away from local governments and give them to the state. An Otter Tail Power Co. representative contended that two townships in Stutsman County passed highly restrictive zoning rules to stop a massive powerline project. Darron Orr, who lives in one of the townships, disputed that. 'It's not about protesting a project, it's protecting a home,' he said. House Bill 1258 would take away zoning authority from townships and counties for transmission lines. Instead, the state would have that authority, similar to how rules are made for pipelines. The bill had a hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, attracting a standing-room-only crowd with other opponents watching the livestream on their phones from the hallway. Troy Coons, chair of the Northwest Landowners Association, and Derrick Braaten, the group's attorney, noted that a lawsuit over the pipeline language is pending in connection with the Summit Carbon Solutions project. 'We don't know what that language means right now,' Braaten said. 'It's up to the courts.' He said copying the questionable language would be bad policy-making and lawmakers should wait for a Supreme Court ruling. If passed, the short-term effect of the bill would be paving the way for a large transmission line from Jamestown to Ellendale, known as the JETx line. The state's 500-foot setback from residences would be enforced statewide, through the Public Service Commission. The half-mile setbacks passed by the Stutsman County townships would be overruled. The JETx line would go through the district of bill sponsor Rep. Mike Brandenburg, R-Edgeley, who said local governments and landowners take a risk by standing in the way of the state's energy industry, which provides tax revenue that goes back to local governments. 'Do you want the authority or do you want the money?' Brandenburg asked. The broader implication is setting the 500-foot setback for the whole state. Some local officials said the one-size-fits-all approach is unwise. Charlie Sorenson is the chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Mountrail County. He said each county has its own long-range plan and zoning is a key part of that plan. Committee chair Sen. Dale Patten, R-Watford City, asked Sorenson if a uniform statewide rule would be better than a patchwork of local regulations. Sorenson said no. 'My area is going to be different than the Red River Valley,' Sorenson said. 'Zoning is local.' Richard Schlosser of LaMoure County said the bill is another example of lawmakers chipping away at property rights and local control over several legislative sessions. He wondered whether the high-voltage JETx powerline would interfere with his autosteer and other modern technology farmers have come to rely on in the field. He and others noted that the PSC's approval of the JETx powerline was not unanimous and questioned whether it was really needed. Jason Weirs, a manager of transmission project development for Otter Tail Power Company, said the JETx line would increase reliability and prevent outages during ice storms, which has been a problem in the Jamestown area. He said the large setbacks enacted by townships force powerlines away from roads, meaning they are more likely to be in the middle of the field, which some farmers don't like. He said the setback can affect the route in a neighboring township in a negative way. Orr countered that without the half-mile setback, a homeowner in his township would have had a large transmission tower near his home, with no compensation because it would not be on the property. Orr said 500 feet doesn't address the size and scope of these new high voltage transmission lines. He said the ordinance allows the homeowner to grant a variance and perhaps be compensated, which he said is only fair. With the larger setback, the homeowner 'gets to be at the table,' he said. The committee did not act on the bill. The bill passed the House on an 86-7 vote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
