Bridges, Oil Wells, And Open Meetings

            I’ve written about the proposed bridge across the Little Missouri State Scenic River north of Medora enough times that I don’t need to go into a lot of background to bring you up to date on the project. I decided last week that I needed a little Bad Lands time, and the Billings County Commission was going to have a meeting, and a “discussion of the Little Missouri Crossing” was on their agenda, so I headed west. Turns out it was an interesting discussion.

The proposed location for the Little Missouri State Scenic River Crossing. Pretty scenic. For now.

            The three-member Commission has a new chairman, Lester Iverson, who was elected to the Commission just a year ago and who is the staunchest supporter of the bridge of the three commissioners. When the appointed hour came for the agenda item on the bridge, he made a little pep talk, then Dean Rodne, also elected at the same time as Iverson but who is a bit skeptical of the bridge, jumped in. He said he had visited with Pat Weir, the county’s state’s attorney and bridge proponent, and they had a plan.

They’d appoint a committee, Dean said, with one or two commissioners and some members of the public, to look for ways to go forward. Attorney Weir, who was on a speaker phone from Arizona, jumped in and said no, only one commissioner, because if they put on two, they’d be subject to the open meetings law, and the committee’s meetings would have to be open to the public.

Billings County Pioneer editor Richard Volesky and I were sitting in the audience (in fact, we WERE the audience) and we both know something about the open meetings law—like the fact that it didn’t matter how many commissioners were on the committee, its meetings would still have to be open.

Turns out County Auditor Marcia Lamb (who coincidentally is Weir’s step-daughter–he’s married to her mother–it’s a small county) was prepared for that as well, because she interrupted Attorney Weir and read from the open meetings law on her computer: “As long as a governing body delegates any of its public business to two or more people, a ‘committee’ is formed that is subject to the same open meeting requirements as the original governing body.” Oops. 

The lawyer said “Oh.” Then was silent for a minute. Then he suggested a Plan B. He said if the Commission still wanted a committee, even if it had to hold public meetings, they could appoint two people against the project and two for it, and those four could select a fifth member for the committee, and the committee would go to work to try to find a solution. 

Well, by that time the commissioners had lost their enthusiasm for a committee, and were looking for Plan C. So they started talking about the possibility of reopening discussions with the Short family, to see if they could be convinced to change their mind and sell their land to the county. As I reported some months ago, the Shorts had turned down an offer, and when the county threatened to use eminent domain to take their land, they hired a lawyer and took the county to court. Facing a lawsuit and adverse public opinion, the county backed away from the eminent domain strategy pretty quickly.

Rodne suggested that Weir contact the Shorts on behalf of the Commission and see if they wanted to talk. Weir said he’d have to go through the Shorts’ lawyer and said he would do that and report back to the commissioners.

The meeting ended. I took a little Bad Lands drive, but the wind was kicking up the newly-fallen snow and I thought I better get home. When I got home, I thought I’d check with the Short family attorney to see if he was still representing them. I was surprised to find out that Attorney Weir didn’t waste any time—he had already called the Shorts’ lawyer, who happened to be out of the office. I’ve since learned the two lawyers plan to visit next week. I can’t imagine the Short family will want to talk—there’s not enough money in Billings County to get them to allow a truck freeway through their farmyard. But I’ll report back on that meeting after I hear what happened.

So the bridge project is stalled out again, although it will be back on the agenda at the Commission’s February meeting, and probably for a lot more meetings after that. Dang. I’m going to have to make a few more trips to the Bad Lands.

The Commissioners are operating in good faith though. They know the county has already spent several million dollars in studies, engineering fees and legal fees, and if they could find a good place to put a bridge, they’d probably go looking for the money for it. They’re just not going to use eminent domain to get the land.

The thing is, the main argument for building the bridge is wearing thin. I’ve been following this issue since at least 2006, when they first attempted to put the bridge beside the National Park’s Elkhorn Ranch site. They lost that location when a group of national conservation organizations, led by the Boone and Crockett Club, pooled their money, bought the land, and gave it to the Forest Service.

The county’s argument at the time was that it was needed to allow emergency services to get back and forth across the river. But 15 years have gone by and in all that time there haven’t been any serious emergencies or crises which would be solved by the bridge, that I know of. In fact, the county’s emergency service center is in Medora, where the bridge there makes it easy for fire trucks, ambulances and police vehicles to chase down problems on either side of the river.

Representatives for the proposed Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library have been publicly advocating for the bridge, saying it would make it easier for visitors to their library to get to the Elkhorn Ranch. The problem with their argument is that the major users of the bridge and the roads to it are going to be oil trucks, and if, as county commissioners claimed long ago, there could be as many as a thousand trucks a day on the road—a big, noisy, dusty truck every minute and a half, 24 hours a day—it’s not going to be a very attractive route for city slicker tourists. In fact, it could be one of the most dangerous roads in the state. No doubt it would CREATE the need for emergency services on a pretty regular basis.

While the bridge might be able to cut ten or fifteen minutes off the trip to the Elkhorn, there are good wide gravel roads to the site now on the west side of the river, and they are pretty safe, carrying very little traffic. I’ve made the trip the at least a dozen, maybe two dozen, times and never encountered more than a handful of vehicles on the road. That’ll change in a hurry if trucks can get across the river out there instead of using the three bridges on paved roads at Medora.

The REAL reason for the Billings County bridge across the Little Missouri River. Each of the X’s represents a proposed location for an NP Resources oil well–actually several wells on each location, a total of 180 wells. The company has leased the mineral rights on every one of those two-section parcels. They’re not fooling around. You can see the Little Missouri winding its way through the maze of leased oil lands. The proposed bridge location on the Short ranch is smack in the middle. How conveeeeenient, as the Church Lady used to say.

By the way, my wife, Lillian Crook, who grew up on a Bad Lands ranch, has written a wonderful piece about the Little Missouri on her excellent Wild Dakota Woman blog. Check it out. It’ll make YOU want that bridge to go away, too.

8 thoughts on “Bridges, Oil Wells, And Open Meetings

  1. Gee, you’ve done such wonderful and continuing work on this issue. My thanks and congratulations.

    On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 8:07 AM The Prairie Blog wrote:

    > Jim Fuglie posted: ” I’ve written about the proposed bridge > across the Little Missouri State Scenic River north of Medora enough times > that I don’t need to go into a lot of background to bring you up to date on > the project. I decided last week that I needed a lit” >


  2. Excellent article and blog. You are a great watchdog for the beautiful Badlands. Amazed by your contacts and sources. Been to the Elkhorn many times and canoed the Little Missouri between the units. Can’t say enough good things about the area even though I live 10 hours away from the Badlands. Keep up the good work.


  3. Thanks for the update ! From the outset it seems like a land grab to only benefit the oil companies and associated parties. Time will tell as to how it plays out! Thanks


  4. Read Jim’s whole post. He’s such a warrior for the Little Missouri. Then I read about half of his wife’s blog but stopped partly due to the pangs of loss of so many special places that are being lost to development and broken up for more and more people. Just slammed into my grief button.

    I would love to meet Fuglie. Such a champion for nature. Such a champion against crooked politicians.



  5. Jim, Herb Meshke used to tell how when he was a kid growing up in the badlands, they had a rope and pulleys across the Little Missouri. Attached to that was an old car hood, and they would ride in the car hood and pull themselves across the river to get to school. Perhaps that is an option that the oil companies could look at.


    1. Interesting that cable unit took kids across to school on private land. I appreciate Jim’s interest in protecting the Badlands. I feel the rights of the land owners should be considered also. If the Shorts want to sell, that is their right. You have your right to express your concerns. What I have a problem with is someone or someone’s telling private land owners what people in New York want in our backyard. Jim thanks for your interest in enjoying the Little Mo but accept the fact some of the land is privately owned. God bless Pat Weir elected by vote of owners of property in the County. Go for it!


  6. Jim,
    1. The oil wells that are plotted are on NP Resources. Does NP stand for the old Northern Pacific Railroad? Or is NP Resources the name of an oil company with which I’m unfamiliar?
    2. As far as I am concerned, the longer that delays can be made on oil-related projects like The Bridge to Nowhere, the better. Those projects require too many natural resources and cause too much pollution to be worth the work. Global warming will eventually stop oil production and extraction in places like North Dakota. You’ve got to drill down too far for it to be sustainable.
    3. I can’t understand why they’re are not more wind farms in North Dakota. That’s a resource that needs to be exploited. Just not next to Theodore Roosevelt National Park.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s