measure 5 phone call

just got a call from steve adair and now im on a live conference with a measure five meeting?  whats the deal?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Dedeye1 Said:
I'm voting NO on #5. I love the idea of using some of our millions in oil and gas money for the public, but this is NOT the way to do it!!
My idea would be this...
Less of a percentage to start with...what they are talking now is a LOT of money! Some of that money could go to better things.
Rent/lease/program the land...NOT buy it! Buying land up with a huge checkbook would drive land prices up much, much too high for the average man to buy anything!
Set it up like a PLOTS program. Landowners enrolling a stuble field get (these are just numbers off the top of my head) $1.00/acre, wetlands $3.00/acre, crp type land $10.00/acre and so on.
And deffinetly have an elected official(s) in charge of it. That way we can vote them out if they are screwing up.
We don't want a private group in charge of all the money...all of a sudden the head guy is making 600K a year...NOT!! Or they come up with all these "administrative fees". NOT! I'm not apposed to the people that work for this program to make a decent living, but it should be reasonable! And have a budget! No new pickup EVERY year type of thing or "use it or lose it" like the Feds.
Let's face it...Landowners would be much more open to the idea of opening their land up to public use (hunting, fishing, hiking, picnicking, etc) if they are able to make some decent money doing so and still being able to do what THEY want to do with it (farm it, graze it, etc.).
And if a landowner wants to let Delta Waterfowl or Ducks Unlimited or whoever come on their land and do their thing, well, that's their business.

Good common sense ideas, sounds a lot like The Outdoor Heritage Fund.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

One of the things I would like to see is payment for buffer zones.  Lets face it agriculture creates 100 times the habitat destruction, and chemical pollution of oil.  The money comes from oil, but there is a lot more we could do with it.  With the amount of tile we will see in he next ten years it would be good to have them drain into a restored wetland or acres of prairie to buffer the waterways from all the nitrogen, phosphates, and herbicides that are headed their way. 

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Hunt_Fish31 said,

Most farmers get subsidies.  Until this last farm bill crop insurance was not linked.  Now that it is there will be some accountability in destroying and degrading natural resources.  But even that accountability is coming into question.  The Grain Growers want USDA to end their partnership with DU.  Those DU employees help promote and get farmers into CRP and other programs.  Why attack that partnership.  It also brings into question where NRCS is in wetland conservation.  Does the Grain Growers think NRCS will allow them to tile and keep their subsidies?  Just seems a little odd.

 

The agreement between Ducks Unlimited and USDA or the NRCS branch was a Memorandum of Understanding. No input from the Ag community.

A memorandum of understanding (MoU) describes a bilateral or multilateral agreement between two or more parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement.

Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called “four corners”). The required elements are: offer and acceptance, consideration, and the intention to be legally bound (animus contrahendi). In the U.S., the specifics can differ slightly depending on whether the contract is for goods (falls under the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC]) or services (falls under the common law of the state).

Ducks Unlimted also has a MOU with US Fish and Wildlfe Service. The USFWS recently signed a Memoranum of Understanding with the EPA to use its offices in Bismarck. EPA is in ND investigating dead ducks. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:
One of the things I would like to see is payment for buffer zones.  Lets face it agriculture creates 100 times the habitat destruction, and chemical pollution of oil.  The money comes from oil, but there is a lot more we could do with it.  With the amount of tile we will see in he next ten years it would be good to have them drain into a restored wetland or acres of prairie to buffer the waterways from all the nitrogen, phosphates, and herbicides that are headed their way. 

Scare tactic     scare tactic        scare tactic.

Bruce, there was a study done over on the east side of SD. If my memory serves me right I believe it was Soiux Falls.  They tested water quality on the up stream side of town where they thought they would find impacts from agriculture for a base line and then on the down stream side where there would show impacts from urban run off.

One guess which one put higher levels of most everything into the river system.   So it seems urban impacts on water quality are even more significant that agriculture.

http://www.oeconline.org/our-work/water/stormwater/stormwater%20report/i...

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban.cfm

I don;t have anyone else paying taxes to provide me clorinated, clean drinking water, we have to test and make sure we are taking care of our water supply ourselves with the First District Health Services. Have been doing so for over 40 years. and despite having  a cattle operation and a shallow surface well in the same yard adn being surrounded by farmland that drains into a drainage directly beside our well water source, our nitrate levels remain consistantly below the lowest allowable levels most every year.

Only when floods such as this spring happen do the levels increase slightly, but yet still below levels that start concern.  And that as you should know is a result from natural surface organic matter decomposing and directly impacting water that otherwise would go thru the natural filtering process of perculation .

My Mom is kind of a hoarder in that she keeps records like this since they started testing in a folder. . They moved over to my Grandparents homestead in 1973 and have tested our water every year. Just this spring we were going thru them after it flooded and we got our test results back.

Before you throw a stone bruce, take a look at how much glass surrounds you.

Damn you city dwellers for your impacts on water quality.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I'm going hunting with grandkids gst.  You marinate in your bs over the week-end.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Fritz the Cat Said:

Ducks Unlimted also has a MOU with US Fish and Wildlfe Service. The USFWS recently signed a Memoranum of Understanding with the EPA to use its offices in Bismarck. EPA is in ND investigating dead ducks. 

The Nature Conservancy, the out of state org funding this measure more than anyone else to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, has formed an "official collaboration" with the EPA as well.

http://www.browse-search.com/?category=Web&p=1&st=&q=The+Nature+Conserva...

Now here is a link to the EPA's latest activist driven attack on agriculture and small business across the country.

http://www.cfact.org/2014/08/14/epa-in-hot-wotus-as-people-say-ditch-thi...

Now as a "public" agency one would think the EPA would have to make known their intents. Not so fast, in partnering with these private green orgs to implement environmental agendas they have kept a few things out of the public's eye.

Here is a link to the maps that EPA developed regarding their WOTUS plan that they did not make public until forced to by a FOIA request to be made public.

http://www.cfact.org/2014/08/28/wotus-is-america-all-wet-to-epa/

Now here is a link to the private acres EPA is seeking to take control of under the WOTUS.

http://www.cfact.org/2014/09/02/wotus-all-ten-of-epas-regional-wetland-m...

Scroll down and veiw Region 8 which encompasses North Dakota.

Take the time to actually check out these links.

Now someone please tell us why those people that make their living from the private lands within the blue areas shown covering ND that EPA and groups like TNC want to control and push their environmental activist agendas should support and trust what they are doing.

And that is EXACTLY what the EPA has become. It is no longer a common sense regulatory agency, it has been taken over by groups and individuals with agendas that are far beyond what it was intended for.

Measure 5 is dominated by TNC, they are paying for a very large portion of it, the Washington DC based agency (The Hamburger Company) that runs their other campaigns for liberal environmental activism across the country  is running this measures campaign and they will expect a pay back for all of this if this measure should pass here in our state.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:
I'm going hunting with grandkids gst.  You marinate in your bs over the week-end.

once again bruce please show factually what is "bs".


weedy1's picture
weedy1
Offline
Joined: 9/26/12

So now gst is a water quality specialist.  I believe if you check the impaired watershed list maintained by the ND State Health Department you will find that most of the ones listed are in rural areas with limited urban impacts.  Not saying that city dwellers don't have a negative impact on our surface water and groundwater quality.  But gst's comment was just another smoke screen for him to throw up, and I do mean throw up.

The issue of the cost of the Measure 5 keeps coming up.  Once again I refer you to the latest approved state budget, which you can find easily on internet.  I contains $170 million for capital improvements on the UND campus (new buildings).  Not to disparage UND I must also report that NDSU and their Extension Service is getting $75 million for new buildings or additions.  And you can't overlook the $135 million the various state agencies are allocated for "extraordinary repairs,  What are these "extraordinary repairs" you ask?  They are things beyond the "ordinary " maintenance costs.  The budget document describes these expenses as being required to do things like repaving a parking lot, replacing a sewer line, waterline, etc.

So if you add up the numbers we will be spending a hell of a lot more for new buildings on just 2 of the university campuses and on "extraordinary repairs" of the rest of the buildings the state owns.  Seems to me the protection of water quality, parks, and perhaps wildlife should be just as important as these needs.

If you look at the money expected to be allocated to this measure it runs about 3 million per county.  If you read recent newspaper reports, you probably saw that Pembina County just repaired Renwick Dam which provides the lake around which Icelandic State Park is built.  Construction costs for the safety upgrade ran around $7.5 million and that did not include any planning, design, and construction inspection costs.  Based on typical costs for these service the total cost would have been over $12 million.  This is just one of the dams in the state which has safety concern issues and could have been addressed by funding generated by the measure.  After all, what is Icelandic State Park without a lake

The measure needs a significant majority to pass during the upcoming election.  Just like the amendment to our federal constitution that created prohibition the measure can be rejected by the public if it does not provide the outcomes the voters want.  So why be concerned about the cost of the measure over it's planned life?  It is reversible by the same voters that put it in place using the exact same process and voting majority.  If there was ever an opportunity to give this measure a try, it is during a booming economy and budget surplus cycle 

Right now we are relying on Mother Nature to provide weather conditions conducive to allow wildlife and our fisheries to thrive.  Hard winters with limited habitat have lowered your and my ability to go out and shoot a limit of pheasant, get a permit to hunt deer, antelope, etc.  There are so many projects that could be implemented with the support of this measure that would lessen the impacts of hard winters, droughts, and floods on our environment.

The federal dollars coming to our state for conservation have been dropping each budget cycle and the state needs to step up just to maintain the status quo on conservation support.  Measure 5 gives us that opportunity.

P.S.  I just threw in the issue of Measure 5 being used to fund an abortion clinic to try to match the absurd and asinine comments gst has been making about the issue.  I did not want anyone to think I was as whacked out as he is! 

Weedy

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

gst Said:

Fritz the Cat Said:

Ducks Unlimted also has a MOU with US Fish and Wildlfe Service. The USFWS recently signed a Memoranum of Understanding with the EPA to use its offices in Bismarck. EPA is in ND investigating dead ducks. 

The Nature Conservancy, the out of state org funding this measure more than anyone else to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, has formed an "official collaboration" with the EPA as well.

http://www.browse-search.com/?category=Web&p=1&st=&q=The+Nature+Conserva...

Now here is a link to the EPA's latest activist driven attack on agriculture and small business across the country.

http://www.cfact.org/2014/08/14/epa-in-hot-wotus-as-people-say-ditch-thi...

Now as a "public" agency one would think the EPA would have to make known their intents. Not so fast, in partnering with these private green orgs to implement environmental agendas they have kept a few things out of the public's eye.

Here is a link to the maps that EPA developed regarding their WOTUS plan that they did not make public until forced to by a FOIA request to be made public.

http://www.cfact.org/2014/08/28/wotus-is-america-all-wet-to-epa/

Now here is a link to the private acres EPA is seeking to take control of under the WOTUS.

http://www.cfact.org/2014/09/02/wotus-all-ten-of-epas-regional-wetland-m...

Scroll down and veiw Region 8 which encompasses North Dakota.

Take the time to actually check out these links.

Now someone please tell us why those people that make their living from the private lands within the blue areas shown covering ND that EPA and groups like TNC want to control and push their environmental activist agendas should support and trust what they are doing.

And that is EXACTLY what the EPA has become. It is no longer a common sense regulatory agency, it has been taken over by groups and individuals with agendas that are far beyond what it was intended for.

Measure 5 is dominated by TNC, they are paying for a very large portion of it, the Washington DC based agency (The Hamburger Company) that runs their other campaigns for liberal environmental activism across the country  is running this measures campaign and they will expect a pay back for all of this if this measure should pass here in our state.

weedy, I happened to notice to completely avoided any discussion of this post which provides some facts about who is behind this measure. .

So please list EXACTLY what the untrue statements I have made about this measure are?

They way you talk, it should be very easy for you to establish the credibility of your claims in this manner.

weedy1's picture
weedy1
Offline
Joined: 9/26/12

gst,

I notice that you refer to anyone who has a different point of view from your own as an "activist" or "radical".  That goes beyond being short sighted to the point of being paranoid.  Any direct conversation with you would be a waste of my time and effort.

I just pulled some factual information from the ND OMB website for everyone's consideration.  They can base their decisions on the facts provided.  Measure 5% funding seems like a hell of a lot of money until you compare it with actual ongoing expenditures of the state.

The world won't end if the measure passes or fails, but at least it started a conversation that needed to be held.  Who knows, if the measure does not pass perhaps the legislature will respond as they did with the measure to eliminate property taxes.  That failed measure effort resulted in a reduction of property taxes even though it may be short lived.  The legislature feared what would happen if they just sat back and let things slide.  Maybe this will inspire them to do something they would have not done otherwise.

Perhaps gst you could enlighten me on the conservation efforts (past and present) of the various groups who have come out in opposition to the measure.  Pretty sure the energy groups haven't had a positive impact on our environment.  The commodity groups can't provide a list of their conservation efforts to improve our environment either.  Pretty sure the chamber of commerce groups would fail in this endeavor as well.  I am still trying very hard to rationalize how the consortium took on the word conservation in their name at all.  Perhaps it sounded positive.

I think the best way to deal with you gst is to just ignore your posts.  Perhaps if everyone did, there could be a useful exchange of opinion and facts on the website. 

Enjoy your big government paranoia every time you cash a check from that same government.
 

Weedy

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 I just got push polled by the American Petroleum Institution (API) about M5.  The lady stated that M5 will divert millions of dollars from schools and other programs.  But everything she listed that will lose money is funded from the production tax, not the extraction tax.   M5 only deals with the extraction tax.     When I pointed that out she hung up, but she did tell me to have a nice day, which was good of her.  

I see on the SOS site API just put $1 million in the field to fight M5.   So much for the out of state special interests argument I guess........

scary man's picture
scary man
Offline
Joined: 4/23/11

 any measure that has as many far reaching impacts as this one must be BY North Dakota, FOR North Dakota, there can be no room for out of state influence(except for the NRA, which is one of the few trustworthy national orginizations). if they could make sure that any money used for this sort of thing must not be used for buying land, because groups like the nature conservatory don't allow hunting on their land and ducks unlimited is pay-to-hunt. to me if anyone wants to pass a bill like measure 5 the language must be clear beyond possibilty of misunderstanding. this is like the animal cruelty measure from a few years ago, once we learned that it being pushed by the HSUS, that was it.

free thinker = no thinker

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

weedy1 Said:

gst,

I notice that you refer to anyone who has a different point of view from your own as an "activist" or "radical".  Bullshit ... did you even bother to check out the clients of The Hamburger Company weedy? Do you actually beleive they are NOT "activists"??? You see people can try to inform you a bit weedy but it seems you think yourself to smart to take advantage of the information provided you. That goes beyond being short sighted to the point of being paranoid.  "paranoia" is tied to unfactual beleifs. Prove the links and information I provided are not factual and true. Any direct conversation with you would be a waste of my time and effort. Nice way of not accepting responsibility for your bullshit you spout.   But hey your credibility when accusing someone of not speaking the truth and then not showing where they have not spoken the truth is simply non existant.

People on this site are not stupid weedy. They know the truth when it is shared. THAT is all that is being done here and people like you and ron and plainsman want to call it "scare tactics" and "smoke screens. The TRUTH is what the voters of North Dakota deserve to hear.

So come on weedy quit making excuses and show where what I have stated about this measure is not the truth.

I just pulled some factual information from the ND OMB website for everyone's consideration.  They can base their decisions on the facts provided.  Measure 5% funding seems like a hell of a lot of money until you compare it with actual ongoing expenditures of the state. Over 4 billion dollars in the life of this measure IS "a lot of money weedy" perhaps not to a big govt , take care of everything you need liberal, but to most it is indeed a lot of monies. 3% of $150,000,000.00 or $4,500,000.00 for "salaries" is "alot of money" too weedy.

The world won't end if the measure passes or fails, but at least it started a conversation that needed to be held.  Who knows, if the measure does not pass perhaps the legislature will respond as they did with the measure to eliminate property taxes.  That failed measure effort resulted in a reduction of property taxes even though it may be short lived.  The legislature feared what would happen if they just sat back and let things slide.  Maybe this will inspire them to do something they would have not done otherwise.
Once again you either are simply so poorly informed or intentionally are lying. The legisature HAS "responded" in a pro active process called The Outdoor Heritage fund.

Perhaps gst you could enlighten me on the conservation efforts (past and present) of the various groups who have come out in opposition to the measure. I have brought forth numerous links in the past to the Environmental Stewardship Award program the NDSA in cooperation with the NDG&F has recognizing producers that make large conservation impacts. I have provided links to the ND Grazibng Lands Coalition that show innovative and progressive conservation practices being created and implemented and the impressive results and impacts not only on production but wildlife and habitat.  Pretty sure the energy groups haven't had a positive impact on our environment.  I am sure Fritz could likely speak to the reclamation projects the coal industry here in ND undertakes once the process of providing the raw material to provide you some of the lowest cost electricity in the nations is done. The commodity groups can't provide a list of their conservation efforts to improve our environment either.  Pretty sure the chamber of commerce groups would fail in this endeavor as well.  I am still trying very hard to rationalize how the consortium took on the word conservation in their name at all.  Perhaps it sounded positive.So indeed weedy continue to spout of like a fool that believes in his own superior intellect enough that you have not bothered taking the time to inform yourself as to what is happening

I think the best way to deal with you gst is to just ignore your posts.  Perhaps if everyone did, there could be a useful exchange of opinion and facts on the website. "Ignore" all you wish weedy, you simply can not back up your insinuation that what has been shared in opposition to this measure is not the truth. So please feel free to "ignore" yourself into silence, it is likely the best thing for your credibility.

Enjoy your big government paranoia every time you cash a check from that same government.
 
People like you embrace the new EPA and it's activist agendas expanded under Obama. It is highly likely fromn your posts you voted for him ....................twice.
 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Ladd Said:
 I just got push polled by the American Petroleum Institution (API) about M5.  The lady stated that M5 will divert millions of dollars from schools and other programs.  But everything she listed that will lose money is funded from the production tax, not the extraction tax.   M5 only deals with the extraction tax.     When I pointed that out she hung up, but she did tell me to have a nice day, which was good of her.  

I see on the SOS site API just put $1 million in the field to fight M5.   So much for the out of state special interests argument I guess........

Now people just have to hold those accountable that started the bullshit.

It is pretty hard to argue API would have spent 1 million dollars here in ND to change our constitution without Dick Monson and the guys that started the HFH measure starting this one as well isn't it?

You aren;t one of those fellas like ron that like to go into a fight with a guy that has one hand tied behind his back are you?

Throw the first punch in a fight, expect to get hit back.

weedy1's picture
weedy1
Offline
Joined: 9/26/12

Ooooh!  Did gst just have a temper tantrum with all of the blood red comments in his post.  Perhaps we should leave him alone or he might pop a brain aneurism or something.  Well maybe not a brain aneurism, that would assume he has a brain!

Weedy

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 You can figure out some things by API getting involved at this point.    First, the polls must  show that the measure could pass.    These folks don't message anything that isn't driven by polls.     Polls must show that North Dakotains care about education of kids as much or more than conservation, and that is why that girl with the sad look is being used on post cards and TV ads even though M5 doesn't effect education funding at all.   That is also why when I got push polled yesterday the caller made it sound like M5 will throw all our kids under the bus and  is why there are all these groups opposing the measure I was told.    

Second,  the polls must be showing that even though M5 is passing in their polls, they can change the outcome with a flood of money for mailers and things like that push poll.  

Third, API wouldn't be getting involved if M5 wasn't a threat to getting lower oil taxes and more loopholes in our oil tax system.    Every session since measure 6 in 1980 created our extraction taxes the oil lobby has been getting loopholes from the legislature - and hundreds of millions of dollars go out of state through those loopholes annually.   Our stripper well exemptions are a prime example.    Many many more millions in oil revenue are exempted from ND oil taxes every year than M5 will cost to fund and API and the NDPC never want that messed with.    Also, the last two sessions starting with Gov Schafer's FixTheTaxx bus tour  the API and NDPC have been trying to get oil  tax rate reductions,  again reductions that would cost the state way more in revenue than M5.    Those bills failed, but only because the polls overwhelmingly showed that if they passed the voters would pass a measure overruling the legislature.   I have testified the last two sessions against oil tax reductions because our oil taxes are already low despite what the industry tells you.    I have always loved the pitch "if we don't lower our oil taxes the oil companies are going to leave us and drill elsewhere" .   Then I read the quarterly reports those same companies file with the SEC and they state how much money they are making in ND and will be making over the long term.     It's all just a game to get us to lower our oil taxes and that is why API is now overtly involved in M5.

The supporters of M5 need to show me that the money M5 will provide will be invested in ND in a productive way, a way that gives farmers and ranchers choices if they want income from grass for example.    We need a programs that make sure we can have hay for ranchers in drought cycles to come so our cattle ranchers aren't in the same boat as others that have been wiped out when things dry up.    

To date the supporters of M5 haven't told the public enough about how the money will be used to invest in ND so today I am not ready to vote for M5.    I might be once I hear more about how the money will be used.   I don't support buying ag land with the money but that isn't a realistic concern the way the measure is written.   DU is living in a dream land if they think M5 will be used to buy ag land.

Even if I don't vote for M5 in the end, make no mistake,  the API involvement in this issue is to try to kill M5  so oil taxes can be lowered more easily and loopholes in oil taxes don't get closed.   The push polls and post cards and doom and gloom about our kids   or road money is all just smoke and mirrors driven by polling data.


Dick McFiddleton's picture
Dick McFiddleton
Offline
Joined: 4/9/14

 Gst, you do realize you are hurting your cause more than helping it dont you?  

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

weedy1 Said:
Ooooh!  Did gst just have a temper tantrum with all of the blood red comments in his post.  Perhaps we should leave him alone or he might pop a brain aneurism or something.  Well maybe not a brain aneurism, that would assume he has a brain!

weedy the "blood red comments" simply seemed like the most noticeable color to draw attention to your rhetoric and empty claims.

Still waiting for you to prove what I have stated about this emasure is not true.

I would think everyone would agree the voters of ND deserve the truth about this measure and not childish personal rhetoric

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Von Kaiser Said:
 Gst, you do realize you are hurting your cause more than helping it dont you?  

by stating facts about this measure? Believe me,it would be refreshing to stick to talking about the actual measure.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Ladd Said:
  To date the supporters of M5 haven't told the public enough about how the money will be used to invest in ND so today I am not ready to vote for M5.    I might be once I hear more about how the money will be used.   I don't support buying ag land with the money but that isn't a realistic concern the way the measure is written.   DU is living in a dream land if they think M5 will be used to buy ag land.

Ladd please explain the emboldened language, especially the underlined portion.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

ladd polling indeed drives these issues. The supporters must have done polling that says ND supports more parks and suddenly that is what these dollars will be used for. Check out their informational sites and suddenly that is all they are talking about.

It is surprising what large amounts of dollars can do to sway and influence people. In the M5 animal cruelty issue 2 years ago, HSUS was far ahead in all polls after they had spent several hundreds of thousands of dollars on TV ads almost %70 to %30

Lucas Oil thru Protect the Harvest came in an donated a substantial amount to the opposition to counter the animal activist agenda of HSUS which he does all across the country and suddenly those numbers started to reverse and in the end the people of North Dakota after hearing BOTH sides of the story on an equal footing weighed the information and defeated the measure almost %70 to %30. 

Perhaps we need to start an initiated measure to end outside monies coming into our state to influence ALL politics.

It is too bad the process was started whereby these out of state dollars flow into ND to influence our lives with this measure. But like I said before, if you start a fight by throwing the first punch you had better not whine when someone punches you back.

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 Under M5, all expenditures of money have to be approved by the Governor,  AG, and Ag Commissioner as they make up the Industrial Commission.   As such, the IC would have to approve of any land purchases, which they are not going to do..    If a nonprofit like DU wanted to buy land they would also have to go the process for that which is stacked with Ag groups that historically oppose all land purchases for groups like DU.   Third, M5 doesn't preclude the legislature from limiting the purchase of Ag land under the measure by statute , which will be a bill for sure if M5 passes.....

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

ladd whether  M 5 passes or fails, do you actually think oil companies will stop trying to lower the taxes they have to pay??

In the case of this measure, perhaps they just do not want their own dollars used to make what they do more difficult.


Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 Oil companies always have and will try to get lower taxes, which is natural.   They do it by claims that they will leave the state for some other state has a better tax deal for them, and sponsoring a lot of fundraisers for pols.   In Alaska they claim that if they don't lower their oil taxes the companies will all move to North Dakota.  Here they claim that if we don't lower our taxes they will go to other scale plays.   It's just a game.

The truth is an oil company's share price is driven in large part by what they have for booked oil reserves and no company will divest themselves of booked reserves and lower the value of their company.     Booked reserves are way more important to an oil companies value and profits than taxes.   "Citizens for Common Sense Conservation" is a better poll-driven name than "The Lower Extraction Tax Working Group"  don't you think?

M5 is viewed by API and NDPC as a huddle in getting lower taxes and losing loopholes where they now get extraction tax free oil.   They can't be out front on that because it polls terrible for them, so that is why we are seeing all of the poll-driven straw arguments against M5, like it will impact this or that funding.  

Do the math.  M5  uses 5% of the extraction tax which doesn't fund any of the things that push poll said would be harmed if it passes.    With our production tax considered,  M5 takes between 2.5 and 3% of our annual oil revenue as a whole and places in a trust for the Industrial Commission to spend on recreation and conservation stuff.   With these percentages there is still plenty room for the API to try and get lower taxes, but it is a good investment for them to try and defeat M5 because there will be more money for them to try and get in tax breaks they can send back home to HQ.     

I think some of the farm groups opposed to M5 have long standing world view differences with the groups supporting M5 and their opposition to M5 is based in that and not protecting oil taxes breaks.  So I am not lumping everyone together, and respect that..    I also think however, some of those Ag groups want as many acres in the commodity crop their group represents as they can get and don't want to have any grass acres on even marginal land  because that might reduce their members.    After all, crop insurance covers marginal lands also so the grass the M5 folks want to have competes with federally subsidized efforts to remove grass in favor of cash crops.

Now let me ask you a question if you please.    Why when the oil tax reduction and loophole bills are in play at the legislature, with documented fiscal notes that they will cost ND billions in revenue, don't we see the groups opposed to M5 sending out ads and postcards about that costing our kids education and hurting the funding of our "critical needs"?  When I have been in the room I haven't even seen these groups in the opposing those bills.


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Ladd Said:
 Under M5, all expenditures of money have to be approved by the Governor,  AG, and Ag Commissioner as they make up the Industrial Commission.   As such, the IC would have to approve of any land purchases, which they are not going to do..    If a nonprofit like DU wanted to buy land they would also have to go the process for that which is stacked with Ag groups that historically oppose all land purchases for groups like DU.   Third, M5 doesn't preclude the legislature from limiting the purchase of Ag land under the measure by statute , which will be a bill for sure if M5 passes.....

You might want to rethink your emboldened statement based on what the measure actually states.

First:

The measure states:

4. The commission may employ staff and enter into public and private contracts as may be necessary to operate the fund. The salaries of employees and other expenditures for the operation of the fund must be paid out of the fund. No more than three percent of the funds available in a given year may be paid out of the fund to operate the fund.

5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section.

 

10% of the 150 million will go into a trust, or $15 million.
3% of the $150 million will go to salaries, or $4.5 million (nice paycheck for someone. (I could do quite a little habitat enhancement and conservation on our ranching operation for $4.5 million each year)

So that will leave roughly $131.5 million available for programs. But the language of the measure MANDATES that 75% of the starting $150 million deposited into this fund be spent every year.

 

75% of the $150 million will be $112.5 million that HAS to be spent every year regardless of what the consequences of this spending may be or the true value, (or lack thereof) of the programs it is spent on. If the Industrial Commission does not approve this mandated spending they will be in violation of the state’s constitution and I think everyone knows what the results of that would be with the orgs. funding this measure, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited or the National Wildlife Federation, ect..............lawsuits such as they have used before to accomplish their agendas.

So in reality because of how the wording of this measure was crafted, the Industrial Commission will only have a say over about $18.5 million of the $150 million that will fund this measure. As the measure is written, they will be mandated to fund/allocate whatever else is presented to them.

So ladd, what happens when a land purchase is submitted under the 75% that the IC is mandated to "allocate"?

Second::
The Crosslands lawsuit against the very process you mention held within our states anti corporate farming law is still able to be taken thru the higher courts. Some on here such as hardwaterman seem to think it is inevitable that this law will be overturned. In other states with similar yet slightly different laws it has been overturned.

So given this measure is for 25 years, how can you know what will transpire during that time?

Third:
How fast do you think a lawsuit would be filed against a law passed by statute that prevents this measure from purchasing lands once the people voted on it as written? The orgs behind this measure have proven how they like to use the courts and lawsuits to get what they want. How likely would a judge be willing to rule against the "peoples wishes" written into our constitution if this measure were to pass?

There is a difference between the acts specified under our constitution and those passed by statute. The legislature can not circumvent the constitution by passing legislative statute. At least not at the state level.................yet.

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 You're reading things into that that don't exist.    Nothing in the measure mandates any land purchases or precludes the legislature from limiting them.   That provision removes 75% - 90% from trust protection so it can be spent.  The IC still decides if it will be spent.  If it is not spent then it will be kept in an account at the State Treasures office.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Ladd Said:
 Oil companies always have and will try to get lower taxes, which is natural.   They do it by claims that they will leave the state for some other state has a better tax deal for them, and sponsoring a lot of fundraisers for pols.   In Alaska they claim that if they don't lower their oil taxes the companies will all move to North Dakota.  Here they claim that if we don't lower our taxes they will go to other scale plays.   It's just a game.

The truth is an oil company's share price is driven in large part by what they have for booked oil reserves and no company will divest themselves of booked reserves and lower the value of their company.     Booked reserves are way more important to an oil companies value and profits than taxes.   "Citizens for Common Sense Conservation" is a better poll-driven name than "The Lower Extraction Tax Working Group"  don't you think?

M5 is viewed by API and NDPC as a huddle in getting lower taxes and losing loopholes where they now get extraction tax free oil.   They can't be out front on that because it polls terrible for them, so that is why we are seeing all of the poll-driven straw arguments against M5, like it will impact this or that funding.  

Do the math.  M5  uses 5% of the extraction tax which doesn't fund any of the things that push poll said would be harmed if it passes.    With our production tax considered,  M5 takes between 2.5 and 3% of our annual oil revenue as a whole and places in a trust for the Industrial Commission to spend on recreation and conservation stuff.   With these percentages there is still plenty room for the API to try and get lower taxes, but it is a good investment for them to try and defeat M5 because there will be more money for them to try and get in tax breaks they can send back home to HQ.     

I think some of the farm groups opposed to M5 have long standing world view differences with the groups supporting M5 and their opposition to M5 is based in that and not protecting oil taxes breaks.  So I am not lumping everyone together, and respect that..    I also think however, some of those Ag groups want as many acres in the commodity crop their group represents as they can get and don't want to have any grass acres on even marginal land  because that might reduce their members.    After all, crop insurance covers marginal lands also so the grass the M5 folks want to have competes with federally subsidized efforts to remove grass in favor of cash crops.

Now let me ask you a question if you please.    Why when the oil tax reduction and loophole bills are in play at the legislature, with documented fiscal notes that they will cost ND billions in revenue, don't we see the groups opposed to M5 sending out ads and postcards about that costing our kids education and hurting the funding of our "critical needs"?  When I have been in the room I haven't even seen these groups in the opposing those bills.

ladd a lot of what you posted is likely true except................ the emboldened statement may indeed be true about some crop associations, but there are livestock associations that have led the charge against M 5 from the beginning. Why would they not wish to see these acres into grass production?

The fact of the matter goes to a lot of the links I have been providing about the ulterior motives and agendas as well as judicial actions the orgs behind this measure have engaged in. They simply are NOT production friendly orgs.

Nor are they energy friendly orgs. When you have the largest source of funds to this measure, The Nature Conservancy, forming "official collaborations" with the EPA who is trying to take over regulatory control of millions of private acres far beyond the control they already have, as well as end coal production completely please explain how production agriculture, energy or the business that depend on both in this state should "trust" this measure's supporters claimed intents.

Add to that the "intents" of the measure are changed to suit whomever they are speaking tp trying to gain support as to what these funds will be used for and the "trust me" mantra rings a bit hollow.

To answser your question, it costs lots of monies to run ad campaigns. Some ag orgs simply do not have the funds to oppose those lobbying efforts. Others are constrained as to what they can spend those funds on or lobby for or against.  Often times if it is not related directly to the production of the commodity somehow there is not a position taken for OR against issues such as what you mention.

This measure is not necessarily as much about the monies although they are substantial, as it is about who will be controling them and what those groups agendas are. BOTH sides should be held to a standard of fact when speaking to the ND voter.

I will pet most any dog until he bites me then if I let him bite me again it is my own fault and rather foolish.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Ladd Said:
 You're reading things into that that don't exist.    Nothing in the measure mandates any land purchases or precludes the legislature from limiting them.   That provision removes 75% - 90% from trust protection so it can be spent.  The IC still decides if it will be spent.  If it is not spent then it will be kept in an account at the State Treasures office.

No I am not ladd, it is written in black and white into the measure language. It does not mandate land purchases, it mandates the allocation of 75% of the funds deposited into an account kept by the statetreasurer. If a land purchase falls under this 75% it HAS to be approved by the IC or they will be in violation of the states constitution.

Your emboldened claim is simply wrong ladd read the language. The IC must allocate no less than 75% of the funds deposited into the fund on an annual basis. Unless you are buyhing Steve Adairs claim that "mandated allocation" of these funds does not equate to spending of these funds. They can;t "decide" whether to spend this 75% ladd they are mandated to by constitutional decree.

5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section.

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 Gst - Your wrong...I am out.......

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Ladd said,

Under M5, all expenditures of money have to be approved by the Governor,  AG, and Ag Commissioner as they make up the Industrial Commission.   As such, the IC would have to approve of any land purchases, which they are not going to do..

Jack Dalrymple won't be Governor nor will Wayne Stenehjem be Attorney General nor Doug Goehring be Ag Commish "forever."

What if Joe Satrom ran again for Gov and won? His is currently employed by Ducks Unlimited and is a sponsor of this Con Amendment.

We know the 13 member panel giving proposals to the Inustrial Commision is going to be stacked and some years down the road what if the Industrial Commision becomes so also.........this thing is going to become a run away.

The proponents of this Con keep telling the voters that the current administration seated on the Industrial Commision will not approve or grant land purchases demanded by DU. That is disingenuos. They know time is on their side. Someday within the next 25 years a dream administration is going to come along.

btw, Ryan Taylor is currently campaigning for Ag Commissioner. The democrats would love to get this seat and gain a position on the IC. Ryan Taylor is a nice guy but, his mother was an extreme liberal and her brother (Ryans uncle) Adrian Dokken posted it right here on FBO that he is a proud liberal. adokken was also a two time sponsor of the High Fence Initiative.

I know I know, Ladd is going to say let's debate the issue. The issue is the same small group of people for years cry and cry. I don't care how much money is thrown at 'em, in the future we'll be back in the legislature fighting baiting, non-residents property rights etc.

Empower them with millions and things should get real stupid fast.

Pages