Billings County sued over eminent domain as bridge dispute rekindles – Bismarck Tribune

A family whose ranch would be impacted by a bridge proposed over the Little Missouri River near Medora is suing Billings County, opening a new chapter in the yearslong battle in the western North Dakota Badlands.

Members of the family that owns the Short Ranch filed the lawsuitagainst Billings County and its commissioners in federal court.The lawsuit alleges a breach of contract and an improper deployment of what it said is an inevitable use of eminent domain in the countys actions pertaining to the project. Eminent domain is the taking of private land for public use with just compensation.

The Billings County Commission is composed of Lester Iverson, Steven Klym and Dean Rodne. The three commissioners did not immediately respond to the Tribunes requests for comment Aug. 3. County States Attorney Patrick Weir declined comment.

The proposed bridge that would run through the Short ranch has been in the works since 2006, according to attorneys for the family.

The county has said the bridge would provide reliability for emergency services, commerce, recreation and public travel.Public safety officials have supported the proposal in the past. Current Billings County Sheriff Dean Wykoffhas saidhe supports a bridge but opposes the use of eminent domain to build it.

The Short family believes the bridge would primarily benefit oil companies, according to their legal documents. They argue that the needs listed by the county can be fulfilled elsewhere.

If the county needs a bridge for public use, it needs to be built on public land and there is an incredible abundance of suitable public land for a bridge in Billings County, plaintiff David Short told the Tribune.

Current bridges over the Little Missouriare at Medora on Interstate 94 and south of Watford City on U.S. Highway 85. There are 18 unimproved private fords and one unimproved public ford that are used by some vehicles to cross the river, according to an environmental impact statement done in accordance with the National Environmental Protection Actas a requirement for building on anything under federal jurisdiction.

After the completion of the EIS in 2018 the Short family publicly opposed the project. They filed a lawsuit against the Federal Highway Administration, the agency that conducted the study, and also sued the County Commission when it intervened in the FHWA suit and voted to condemn parts of the Short ranch in 2020.

Plans for the bridge were seeminglyendedin 2021 whenthe commissionvoted 2-1 to scrap the project and not use eminent domain to secure the land. The Shorts dropped their case after they reached an agreement with the county that it would not pursue eminent domain or any legal action to take the Shorts' land, according to legal filings.

Plaintiff Sandy Short arguesthat most Billings County residents are opposed to the use of eminent domain.

Our family has cared for and protected this land for over a century, even while Congressman Don Short represented the State of North Dakota in Washington D.C., she told the Tribune. Taking it away from us now by the abusive power of eminent domain is wrong, it's un-American.

The deciding vote was flipped after then-County Commissioner MikeKasian lost his seat on the board to Klym in 2022.

Billings County opened up easement agreements again earlier this year, formally extending them on June 23 and offering $20,000 per acre for easements on the 30-acre ranch along with other temporary easements for construction. The countys previous offer had been $2,500 per acre with other construction-related easements.

Lawyers for the Short family argue this move is a breach of the agreement the family signed with the county in which the family would drop its previous lawsuits in exchange for the county stopping the pursuit of easements or eminent domain on the Shorts' land.

Derrick Braaten, one of the attorneys who filed the case, argued that this would mean agreements that the county signs with third parties would be subject to the whims of an election.

The Shorts' attorneys also argue that the use of eminent domain byBillings County is inevitable given the actions of the commissioners and the position of the family. They said this would be an improper use of the procedure, violating the Shorts' Fifth Amendment rights as well as North Dakota law.The Fifth Amendment states that private property can't be taken for public use without just compensation.

The lawyers question the extent to which the bridge serves public use and argue that due process has not been followed -- requirements for eminent domain.

There are exceptions to eminent domain, said Tim Purdon, who filed the suit with Braaten. The government doesnt always win in eminent domain cases.

See the original post:
Billings County sued over eminent domain as bridge dispute rekindles - Bismarck Tribune