# Measure 5, CleanWaterWildlife&Parks



## Buel (Oct 30, 2012)

The Clean Water,Wildlife,Parks Amendment. 
.
The Ag community takes great pride in their farms and ranches. Producers work and nurture the lands ever day, it is in their blood, they are a part of the land and they are glad to be farmers and ranchers.

Many of us don't have a daily opportunity to be so close to nature, but just the same we have a strong sense of affinity for the land, the environment and the life it supports.

To fulfill this need we participate in outdoor activities, some form of recreation. Whether it is hiking, camping, photography, birding, biking, horseback riding, hunting or fishing, we need access, access to grasslands, wetlands, the hills and prairies. Often we struggle for access to private lands, therefore we use public lands and government conservation lands.

North Dakota has lost more then two million acres of government CRP grasslands in the last few years, many participated in PLOTS (Public Lands Open to Sportsmen).

Measure 5 will offer farmers/ranchers a competitive rental rate to enroll in a set-aside program. This will benefit many producers, increasing access to outdoor recreation, enhancing wildlife, especially after a harsh winter, filtering pollutants from run off water and reducing soil erosion. No farm land purchases are required for a successful conservation program.

The amendment will not compete with other important, dedicated funds. As tax revenues increase for North Dakota, the pie grows bigger for all state funded programs. Measure 5 will remain at three cents per dollar collected. A very modest amount, considering how important the North Dakota outdoors is to the very fabric of the state.

Measure 5 can potentially fund, state, wide projects including, Minot needing green-ways in the city flood plain, Valley City needing river bank erosion control and river sediment cleaned out, eastern ND needing Missouri River water, water delivery projects needs in western ND and Devils Lake much needed flood relief.

As defined in the measure the funds must be allocated ( not spent). The trust and fund will protect the funds for conservation purposes. Voters in over thirty states have approved initiatives for funding conservation projects.

Missouri approved $90 million annually by increasing sales tax. In 2008 Minnesota approved a twenty-five year, sales tax increase that has generated $200 million each year since initiated. Florida has a similar measure on this years ballot. North Dakota's measure is not precedent setting.
. 
North Dakota is facing a very critical era in which we need an aggressive and bold conservation plan now. Our options are decreasing everyday. We have an opportunity of a life time to preserve some of our outdoor heritage by passing Measure 5, without raising taxes or affecting the funding for state wide needs

Any purchase of land for conservation must be approved by the governor after a public hearing and a recommendation from a committee that includes the ND agriculture commissioner, the presidents of the ND farm bureau, ND farmers union, ND stockmen's association and the chairman of the county commission, all which are opponents of the measure. Very unlikely that any agricultural land will be purchased.

Lloyd Odahl's op-ed posted 9/19/14. "Conservation groups sponsoring Measure 5 will have limited influence in implementing the measure. Meaning that most of the criticism of the measure we have been hearing is groundless. All proposed projects for Measure 5 are reviewed and recommended by a 13 member citizens accountability board. This committee will be loaded with members opposed or skeptical of the amendment. Six will be appointed by Governor Dalrymple on the recommendation of department heads who are his appointees and he will get the nominees to his liking. These appointees will not necessarily be enthusiastic for the program. Leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives, will each appoint two members. Considering the behavior of the last two sessions, they will appoint members critical of the program. One appointee will come from the energy industry and one from agriculture, neither expected to be friendly The final appointee will be from the Indian Affairs Commission" end of statement.

To paraphrases Omdah, The CWWP Commission, consisting of the three highest elected officials in the state. The Governor, the Ag Commissioner and the Attorney General, will make all the final decisions and have absolute control of the program. They will not permit the purchase of farm lands that drive up land costs nor will they let anyone line their pockets.

Critics of the measure employ the oft-used cliche, "out -of -state- interests." Actually all the sponsors are as much a state entity as the opponents. Some are affiliated with national organizations, just as is the Greater N D Chamber, the ND Farmer Union, the ND Farm Bureau, the ND Stockmen's Association are affiliated their respected national organization.

Ducks Unlimited has had an office in ND for 30 years, and has over 7000 members. Pheasant Forever also has over 4000 members, the ND Wild Life Federation has been in state even longer. Why would these North Dakota members support these organizations if they were not of benefit to them?

These sponsors are here with projects to improve outdoor recreational opportunities for the public in North Dakota. Their accomplishments can not be removed and transferred to another state. Their efforts are for now and future generations.

The American Petroleum Institute contributed more than $1 million recently, to defeat the CWWP amendment. The oil companies working in the Bakken have been vigorously campaigning to defeat measure 5. These are out of state interests. Why are the oil companies so interested in how ND allocates the tax monies collected. Obviously they want the oil tax reduced. In both the 2011 and 2013 legislative sessions, the Senate passed bills reducing the oil tax by 5%, only to be defeated in the House of Representatives each session. How can critics claim the states funding needs will not be meet if the CWWP measure takes three cents of every tax dollar collected, when half the legislature wants to reduce state oil tax revenues. Lets meet the concerns of North Dakota residents before we worry about increasing dividends for stockholders from out of state.

As Lloyd Omdahl said, "Initiated measures are brought to the voters when supporters feel the legislators have turned a deaf ear to their message. Referrals keep the legislators from subverting the will of the people."

To replace unresponsive legislator at the polls takes way more time then the North Dakota environment has left before it is totally destroyed.

You can get a comprehensive understanding of measure 5 at www.cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org, Don't miss the letters "Robert Carlson, former president of the ND Farmers Union" and "Undermining voters is a loosing strategy".

Thank you for caring as to how we leave our outdoor heritage for those yet to come.

Buel Sonderland PS, send copies to others, then support our outdoor heritage by voting yes for Measure 5.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Thank you Buel, well said in all regards. :beer:


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

Well said. If you don't do anything now it will be to late. Just look to the east. I don't think Minnesota can ever come up with enough money to fix the distruction that has occured here. I only wish they would have done something 50-60 years ago and we would still have great water quality and all the life it brings with it.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Who are all the measure 5 whores here?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

We are not alone.
------------------------------------
On Election Day this year, a number of state and local conservation funding initiatives will be on the ballot for voters to consider with the potential of over $25 billion being dedicated for conservation and restoration. The largest initiatives in Florida, New Jersey, North Dakota, California and Maine bring a variety of opportunities for funding land conservation, water quality and outdoor recreation. But support for these initiatives also vary with opponents like state chambers of commerce actively working against some of the efforts, reports the Wildlife Management Institute.

By far the largest initiative is being considered in Florida where an estimated $18 billion is at stake. Amendment 1 is a constitutional amendment that would dedicate 33 percent of annual revenue raised through an existing tax on real estate transactions over the next 20 years to conservation projects. While the state has had bipartisan support for conservation spending, appropriations have declined dramatically in recent years undermining efforts for land conservation and Everglades restoration. Amendment 1 would fund the state's Land Acquisition Trust Fund to acquire, restore, improve, and manage conservation lands including: wetlands and forests; fish and wildlife habitat; lands protecting water resources and drinking water sources, including the Everglades, and the water quality of rivers, lakes, and streams; beaches and shores; outdoor recreational lands; working farms and ranches; and historic or geologic sites. The amendment requires a 60 percent supermajority vote in support to be approved and is broadly supported by diverse organizations. While the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Farm Bureau and other groups oppose the initiative, current polling suggests that it is receiving strong support from voters.

New Jersey is also considering a constitutional amendment for long-term, dedicated funding for a variety of environmental and conservation programs. The state has a long history of support at the ballot for programs like the state's Green Acres land preservation efforts. However, this is the first time the state is seeking dedicated funding that is estimated to total $2.15 billion over the next 20 years to acquire land prone to flooding, protect natural areas, farmland and watersheds, and provide for parks, historic preservation, underground storage tank removal and brownfield remediation. If approved, Public Question #2 will reallocate 4 percent of an existing state corporate business tax for an estimated $71 million annually for the first four years, and beginning in 2019, it would dedicate an additional 2 percent of business tax revenues increasing the annual funding to $117 million. While municipalities, counties and agricultural boards across the state generally support the amendment, Americans for Prosperity has led opposition against the amendment along with the state's governor, Chris Christie.

In North Dakota, the Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks constitutional amendment, Measure 5, would dedicate 5 percent of tax revenue from oil development for conservation and recreation over the next 25 years. Funds would be used for water quality, natural flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, parks and outdoor recreation areas, access for hunting and fishing, the acquisition of land for parks, and outdoor education for children. While North Dakota has seen dramatic losses of prairie habitat in recent years, this initiative is receiving the greatest opposition from business interests including the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Commerce and state agricultural interests who claim that farmlands would be purchased to take them out of production. However, the amendment does not change the North Dakota Corporate Farming Law that prohibits most conservation groups from buying land without governor approval.
"My family has always prided itself on having a strong conservation ethic. Conservation programs funded through Measure 5 will be 100 percent voluntary and could benefit all farming and ranching operations in North Dakota if producers wish to take part. Producers could use grant dollars for things like buffers along waterways, cover crops to advance soil health, enhanced grazing systems, and improved wildlife habitat on marginal areas," said Gabe Brown, an agricultural producer supporting the amendment. "The fact is, Measure 5 will benefit family farms and ranches across North Dakota."

Both California and Maine are considering bonds that will improve the states' water infrastructure. California will be considering a $7.5 billion bond for watershed protection and restoration, forest health, wetland habitat and for additional water storage. Proposition 1 would make improvements to a water system that has been significantly impacted by the current drought in the state. In Maine, Question 6 would create a $10 million bond to fund natural and built infrastructure to reduce threats to the state's water resources, improve stormwater management, and conserve habitat for recreational fisheries, waterfowl, and aquatic and other wildlife species.

In addition to the statewide ballot initiatives, a number of counties and local communities are also considering conservation funding proposals. This includes Los Angeles County, California; Portland, Oregon; Missoula, Montana, Larimer County, Colorado; Benton County, Washington; Bernalillo County, New Mexico, and Beaufort County, South Carolina. In total there are 39 measures being tracked by The Trust for Public Land's Land Vote this election season. (jas)


----------

