A pen stroke from reality, bill seeks to avoid any ‘pathway that creates a problem’ near military bases

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 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 on the region’s economy.

Soon after the announcement, 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,” he said 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 inadvertently 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 on 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),” he said.

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,” he 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.