701-566-9300As of July, it is my privilege to be the new Legislative Director for the Soybean Growers Association. I have been visiting with legislators, state officials, agricultural and ranching producers or groups, agricultural educational leaders, and government relations colleagues, all of whom have been very welcoming and inviting, I will have big shoes to fill in succeeding Phil Murphy. Thank you, Phil, and I look forward to the challenge.
In my former career, and for many years, I was an Assistant Attorney General and Director of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division. I regularly worked with many state officials, legislators, and state agencies, as well as many federal agencies, etc. Now, I’m delighted to be working with all of you and to be advocating for soybean growers and soybean interests.
In September, I attended the “Symposium on North Dakota Working Lands Mitigation Program,” hosted and presented by Commissioner Doug Goehring and the North Dakota Department of Agriculture. In addition to the insights provided by Commissioner Goehring, the information was presented by Western Ecosystem Technologies, Inc. (“WEST”), which is helping the Department put the mitigation program together. Several legislators also attended and participated, including three farmers and ranchers. This was particularly helpful for our purposes, because this is where the rubber meets the road in terms of impacts on agricultural producers and ranchers (landowners) who are most impacted when land is taken out of production and easements encumber the land of family and legacy farmers for lifetimes.
The Department seeks a program bringing certainty and transparency to the state of North Dakota, landowners, industry and other interested groups, and wanted to provide a first look at this program. The symposium was an opportunity to provide information to and solicit input from all these stakeholders.
WEST walked attendees through all the components which involve plans for construction and post-construction monitoring. The concern was expressed that the government’s role should be to create the framework, and that North Dakota does not need more restrictions and oversights if landowners are already doing things right. The essence of mitigation is avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, and compensation for impacts.
The symposium conducted breakout sessions for participants. Highlights of the industry groups include a focus on the who, what and when: 1) Defining what we are mitigating for and focusing on the wind and type of landscape; 2) Defining the adverse effects; 3) Developing the understanding of the adverse effects and doing a better job of defining the process and developing the trust; 4) Helping industry understand where the dollars go and allowing them to be partners with landowners in ensuring this occurs appropriately and things are maintained with their ownership throughout the life of the permit and project; and 5) Helping Industry understand when the Commissioner has or gets to write a letter for the Public Service Commission (PSC) application, or when that process is engaged. It’s not every PSC application. It’s when the mitigation piece is being employed, or when some party would like to involve the Commissioner to determine whether there is a need for mitigation. In some instances, the Commissioner possibly could write a letter indicating, for example, “No you have done X, Y and Z.” This is not a matter for the Commissioner writing a letter for every application of a transmission or battery storage, or something else like that. It could be but doesn’t have to be so.
The highlights for the ranching and other agricultural groups, and other interest groups include: 1) The fact that the landowners will be brought to the table and be part of the mitigation will really resonate with the landowners moving forward. The biggest take-a-way may be that there will be a place for the landowners to participate in the mitigation, possibly throughout the life of the project, for instance, with a 30-year project throughout the entire time. This suggests a connection with industry and the landowners throughout the project; 2) A strong preference for stacking mitigation. If it comes to stacking, that all be involved in that stacking so that the landowner would not be stymied with other things that are happening now or may happen in the future, such as possible future carbon sequestration; 3) Concerns that these projects will continue to come to our state and there are a limited number of acres. It is hard for farmers and ranchers to watch all these acres go unproductive, and when this occurs, it raises the question of “who will be feeding us?” Stacking those credits is so important to maximize those conservation acres so we are not taking hundreds of acres out of production. An upcoming solar project taking 2,300 acres out of production was raised; 4) Keeping private areas private despite mitigation, which doesn’t dictate something becoming open to the public; and 5) Two overarching themes of: a) flexibility with the process changing over time and b) defining, establishing and maintaining working relationships throughout the project.
I look forward to providing my perspective on the upcoming session.