Latest news with #SenateBill2398
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
A pen stroke from reality, SB 2398 seeks to avoid any 'pathway that creates a problem' near military bases
Apr. 4—GRAND FORKS — A bill that creates military "impact zones" and panels to oversee development within them was born in part from concerns about future wind farm developments and a failed agribusiness project from the past. Now, after Senate Bill 2398 was approved by both the North Dakota Senate and House of Representatives, its chief sponsor may finally be able to relish the result of nearly a year of work on the legislation. "There is always satisfaction with bringing a project (to fruition)," said Sen. Jeff Barta, R-Grand Forks. "I feel very good about this." Awaiting the signature of Gov. Kelly Armstrong, SB 2398 is just a pen stroke from final approval. If it happens, it will do two things in particular: Create impact zones adjacent to military installations and also form committees tasked with providing oversight of proposed development within those zones. The bill especially focuses on the Grand Forks region, due to the proximity of Grand Forks Air Force Base, Camp Grafton (5 miles south of Devils Lake) and the Cavalier Space Force Station. Its genesis, according to Barta, was in part "a conversation about wind farms." But a China-backed corn mill, once proposed to be built in Grand Forks, played a role too, he said. Known locally by the name of its ownership group — "Fufeng" — the planned factory was announced in November 2021, when local government and development leaders touted its potential impact to the region's economy. Soon after the announcement came very public discussions centered around its supposed environmental impacts as well as the possibility that it was a national security threat, due to its planned proximity to Grand Forks Air Force Base. In early 2023, the Air Force provided an official opinion, confirming the concerns about security. The city abandoned the plan shortly thereafter. SB 2398's overarching goal is to help avoid similar problems in the future, Barta and other supporters have said. "We have some great things going with the installations here and I don't even know all of the things they are doing," Barta said via telephone Thursday during a break at the Capitol. It's important to keep the nearby lands free of development that could hinder those operations, he added. "It's just allowing them to do the operational things they need to do to stay at the forefront of (their military activities). We don't have a crystal ball knowing where new developments are going to go ... both in the air and on the ground," he said. "It's about knowing that we aren't going down a pathway that creates a problem. We certainly don't want another Fufeng, right? That wasn't the entire genesis behind this, but it was certainly a contributing factor." He believes Fufeng's proponents and civic boosters "did everything that was asked." But well-intentioned projects can sometimes inadvertantly run afoul of military missions, he said. "Not pointing fingers at anyone whatsoever," he said. "We went through the appropriate channels, so everything should (have been) good, only to find out that no, it wasn't." He stresses that SB 2398 is not specifically a response to Fufeng. However, Grand Forks' saga with the project was big news, prompting coverage by the New York Times. Even today, it's being discussed in national circles. In "Seven Things You Can't Say About China," a book that has spent time this spring in the New York Times bestseller list, author Tom Cotton — a Republican senator from Arkansas — referenced Fufeng and the controversy it stirred. During a recent meeting of the City Council, Grand Forks resident Craig Spicer stood during the public comment segment to read a snippet. "Local officials celebrated the economic investment and job creation at first, but engaged local citizens began showing up at meetings to oppose the project and ultimately prevailed, after which they broke out into chants of 'USA,' " said Spicer, quoting directly from the book. As SB 2398 was being mapped out, the Department of Defense took notice, Barta said. "They see we're doing things right in North Dakota and we can further protect these crucial missions that we have going on at every one of our (military installations)." Bruce Gjovig, a member of the Mayor's Base Retention Committee in Grand Forks, wrote testimony in favor of SB 2398, noting that North Dakota lacks state-level legislation to protect installations from encroachment. "When we accept a military installation, we have a duty to protect it," Gjovig wrote. "Coordination and communication are needed between military authorities and state, county and township jurisdictions. This is critical to ensure certain developments align with military compatibility goals." SB 2398's route through the Legislature wasn't a direct one. Its original wording created predetermined and sizable impact zones — 25 miles in each direction — near military installations. The size of those zones raised concern. Now, the zones will be " established by an assessment in a compatible use study and contingent upon the missions of each military base ." Input during the legislative process also prompted a change in the makeup of the committee — technically committees, with an "s." In an earlier form, the bill called for the members to include the governor. That changed, however, and members now include the state agriculture commissioner, as well as a representative from each county within the boundaries of a zone, to be selected by local county commissions; a township representative, to be selected by the boards of township supervisors; a city representative, to be selected by affected city councils; and, on a voluntary basis, the commander of each military installation, or a designee. Barta noted Thursday that if it becomes law, SB 2398 will authorize multiple panels whose members will specialize in the installation in their particular region. "Those committees are specific to the (nearby) installation," he said. "We're trying to bring it as local as we can." The installations themselves have the ability to opt in on the zones and committees.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Dakota Senate concurs on military zones measure
Apr. 2—BISMARCK — A plan to create "impact zones" around military installations and a committee to give consideration to developments that could impact missions cleared one more legislative step on Wednesday. The North Dakota Senate voted 46-1 to concur on the final version of Senate Bill 2398, intended to create more collaboration, conversation and oversight for projects planned near Air Force bases at Minot and Grand Forks, as well as Camp Grafton and the Cavalier Space Force Station in northeast North Dakota. The Senate's decision to concur — after the chamber voted 47-0 on Feb. 19 to pass an earlier version and after the House passed the new version last week — means SB 2398 now will head to the desk of Gov. Kelly Armstrong. The only dissenting vote on Wednesday was from Sen. Janne Myrdal, R-Edinburg. During a committee hearing in early March , Sen. Jeff Barta, R-Grand Forks, said the intent of SB 2398 is to get various stakeholders "seated around a table to say 'this is what has to be done in order for you to operate here.' " Originally, as previously reported by the Grand Forks Herald, SB 2398 included predetermined "impact zones" that stretched 25 miles in each direction from the Air Force bases in Grand Forks and Minot. That led to initial hesitation from the Grand Forks City Council , whose members were concerned that the long reach of the impact zone could jeopardize future development in and around the city. Grand Forks Air Force Base is about 18 miles from downtown Grand Forks. The size of the impact zones was amended, now to be " established by an assessment in a compatible use study and contingent upon the missions of each military base ." The committee's makeup also changed over the past two months. Originally, it included the governor among its members; now, members include the state agriculture commissioner, as well as a representative from each county within the boundaries of a zone, to be selected by local county commissions; a township representative, to be selected by the boards of township supervisors; a city representative, to be selected by affected city councils; and, on a voluntary basis, the commander of each military installation, or a designee. During comments on the Senate floor Wednesday, Barta said "the way it originally was written the concern was, given the areas that this might encompass, that there would be too many people at the table." Barta said the goal was to create a committee that would be "stealthy enough" but still able to make important decisions. The House passed the amended version on Thursday, March 27, in a 73-19 vote, pushing SB 2398 back to the Senate for its members to concur.
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Grand Forks pursuing planning commission changes to include military presence
Mar. 10—GRAND FORKS — Local government entities across Grand Forks are looking to add representation from Grand Forks Air Force Base on their planning and zoning commissions, a push spurred by proposed state legislation that focuses on land development near military installations. "The city of Grand Forks and the Grand Forks Air Force Base have a great relationship and we want to continue that," Grand Forks City Council President Dana Sande said. "In my opinion, it just makes more sense for the communities that are affected by these military influence zones (to add representation) instead of creating some commission or even a military influence zone." Both the city and the county of Grand Forks are looking to change their planning and zoning commissions. The proposed changes are still in the preliminary stages and any changes to these bodies are still several weeks away at the earliest. The proposed legislation that has spurred conversation, Senate Bill 2398, has laid out creating a state commission to study encroachment and impact zones around the state's military installations. The bill has been heavily amended since it was originally introduced, but its original version would have created a 25-mile area around the base. In many local interpretations of the proposal, it would have meant nearly every single land use decision in Grand Forks would have been subject to state review. The spirit of the bill originates in the Fufeng controversy, according to the bill's authors. The Fufeng company, which has ties to the Chinese government, was in negotiations with the city to build a wet corn mill plant on the north side of Grand Forks. The project raised national security concerns with its proximity to Grand Forks Air Force Base and the Air Force has said that it was not notified of the project until it went public. The Air Force also said it would have appreciated more notice. Avoiding another controversy like Fufeng, but also other mundane planning and zoning items, was also brought up by the Grand Forks County Commission when members discussed changing their planning and zoning commission at their March 4 meeting. "Even here at this board level, we had to go in and call a special meeting to set up more parameters for that radar tower," Commissioner Mark Rustad said during the meeting. "It's nice to have somebody in the room that has some sort of a sense of this ripple effect our decisions possibly have on the base." The radar tower in question was a special use permit that was approved by the County Commission last summer. The county had approved the meeting, but later had to amend the permit in a special meeting to ensure more communication between the various military entities in the area. With SB 2398 still being considered by the Legislature, some on Grand Forks Planning and Zoning felt like amending their composition needed more time to see how the state decides to move forward, especially given the limited information on whether the base is even interested in having representation on these commissions. "I think we're putting the cart in front of the horse a little bit," Grand Forks Planning Commissioner Steven Wasvick said on March 5. "We don't know a lot of information and all of a sudden it ends up on a bill and ends up on the radio and everywhere else." Adding a military member would also likely ensure that the air base is receiving the many land development proposals and changes that the planning and zoning commissions use. While the meetings are publicly noticed, being a member would ensure direct staff contact rather than having to learn about the material through other means. As of now, the local proposals are still in their infancy. Grand Forks Planning and Zoning gave preliminary approval to an ordinance change on March 5, with the intent to keep the conversation going; the change would still take several weeks and the soonest a change would occur is likely mid-April. The county's proposed change is also still at the beginning, with county staff having been directed by the County Commission to begin drafting a proposal for the base.
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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.
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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."
