JIM FUGLIE: View From The Prairie — Of Refineries And Bridges

There is news this week on several fronts involving threats to the North Dakota Bad Lands. There are some long documents to read. Here’s a summary. More when I get done reading them.

THAT DAMN REFINERY

First, Meridian Energy’s proposed oil refinery near Theodore Roosevelt National Park. You probably read that the Dakota Resource Council and its legal ally, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, filed a complaint with the North Dakota Public Service Commission asking the PSC to assume jurisdiction over the siting of the refinery before construction can begin.

On Monday, the PSC accepted the two groups’ complaint and agreed to serve the complaint on Meridian. What that means is that Meridian will now have to respond to the request for a full site evaluation. I’m pretty sure it also means that it cannot start construction of the refinery (Meridian has its Permit to Construct for a month but have not started any work at the site yet) until the PSC hears both sides of the story. The PSC has heard the environmental group’s side in the 17-page complaint, and now it will l get to hear Meridian’s case, arguing that it is not subject to PSC review.

And then, the PSC will decide whether to accept jurisdiction over the plant and require Meridian to undergo a full site review to decide if this is a good place to put a refinery. If it does that (and I won’t be surprised if it does), expect Meridian to go to court and challenge the PSC’s ability to do that. If Meridian doesn’t, expect ELPC to go to court to try to get a judge to order it done.

ELPC’s complaint asks for a cease and desist order, keeping Meridian from going ahead. I’m not sure if Monday’s motion grants that order. I’m waiting for a call back from an attorney to answer that question, but I’m guessing it does. I’ll keep you posted.

THAT DAMN LITTLE MISSOURI BRIDGE

The second long document I have to read is the long-awaited 80-page Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Billings County’s proposed Little Missouri River Crossing north of Medora, which was released a couple of weeks ago.

I say long-awaited because public hearings on this project were held in the summer of 2012, and we’ve been waiting more than six years now to see this document. No one seems to know what the holdup was, but no one was complaining, except the Billings County Commission, which has shelled out millions of dollars to the engineering firm KLJ for it.

The EIS identifies the proposed location of the new bridge — about 12 miles north of Medora — and explains why this is the best location for a new Little Missouri River crossing. The location is on private land — the historic Short Ranch — in spite of the fact that Commission Chairman Jim Arthaud said unequivocally at the public hearings on the project in June 2012 that the bridge would be built on public land.

Apparently KLJ couldn’t find a place to put it on public land. It will be interesting to hear Arthaud try to explain what happened. It will also be interesting to hear him explain why no one has bothered to even contact the Short family to let them know what is going on. The bridge is proposed to cross the river just downstream from the Short’s home place, within eyesight of the ranch headquarters, and no one from the county or the engineering firm has even bothered to talk to them.

The release of the EIS also triggers a new round of public hearings, scheduled in Bismarck and Medora. The DOT ran some huge, 25-column-inch ads in the Bismarck and Medora papers a couple of weeks ago advertising the public meetings, scheduled for next week, in Bismarck and Medora. But then, with no public fanfare, DOT changed the dates to the following week with just a short notice buried deep on the Billings County website.

So here’s the deal. The Medora hearing is now scheduled for 5 p.m. (MDT) July 23, in the Medora Community Center. The Bismarck hearing is at the Courtyard by Marriot Hotel in North Bismarck at 5 p.m. July 26.

These hearings are to gather public input on the bridge project. If you don’t like the idea of another bridge across the Little Missouri, in the middle of no goddam place, you should go to one or both of these hearings and make your feelings known. You should probably read the EIS before you go. You can find links to it here.

THAT OTHER DAMN BRIDGE

The third thing in the news this week is a notice from Bureau of Land Management that it is “seeking public comments regarding an application to authorize an existing single-lane ranch bridge over the Little Missouri River, with an associated access road, in Dunn County.”

You read that right. An application to authorize an existing bridge.

This is the bridge I’ve written about before, built by rancher Wiley Bice, west of Killdeer, on BLM land without BLM permission. The BLM knew nothing about this bridge on its land until I told them about it last year, even though it had been there for a few years. Bice also planted alfalfa on BLM land without permission.

In February, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request to see the application Bice submitted for this bridge, but even though the government is compelled by law to give me that application, it refuses to do so. Now I’ve received a letter asking me to comment on an application I have not seen.

I’ve pretty much lost patience with the BLM. Noted author Ed Abbey called it the Bureau of Livestock and Mines. A friend of mine in Montana called it the Bureau of Leasing and Mining. Both were pretty accurate. I know the BLM has been busy with an oil boom in North Dakota, although it hasn’t been booming so much the last couple of years, but it is apparent to me that it doesn’t even go out and look at its land to see what is going on.

I’m pretty sure no one had looked at the parcel that Wiley Bice built his bridge on — and planted alfalfa on — and built a road on, for more than five years. They’re the Bureau of Land MANAGEMENT. How can it MANAGE our public lands if it never goes look at it to see who’s abusing it?

Anyway, according to this letter, if you go to this website you will find all you need to know — not really, just all they want you to know — about this project, and how to comment. You have until Aug. 13 to respond. I have no idea what will happen after that.

Well, actually, I kind of do. The BLM will conduct an Environmental Assessment (a little bit cheaper version of the document Billings County did for their bridge) on the project, and then tell Bice to go ahead and build his bridge. Oh, wait, it’s already built. Never mind.

In a separate letter I found a copy of Tuesday, North Dakota BLM manager Loren Wikstrom writes that the alternatives being considered in the EA are:

  1. Take no action (leave the bridge, road, pond, and alfalfa fields on the land as-is). This would not achieve the project purpose, but the BLM will analyze the effects to serve as a baseline;
  2. Remove the bridge, road, pond, and alfalfa fields and rehabilitate the public land to a condition similar to that of the surrounding public land.
  3. Sell or exchange the affected public land to the adjacent landowner;
  4. Authorize the bridge, road and pond through rights-of-way, and the alfalfa fields through a lease; and
  5. Authorize only the bridge and access road through a right-of-way, remove the pond and alfalfa fields and rehabilitate the public land. In the event a right-of-way for the bridge and road are granted by the BLM, the site would still remain inaccessible to the public, via road, due to the lack of public roads to the site.

Loren has already told me that No. 5 is their preferred alternative, and that they’re not looking to make Bice  tear down a bridge that cost a couple of million dollars. He’s also told me they are making Bice pay for the cost of the EA and the reclamation. No big deal to Bice. As I wrote here earlier, he sold his oilfield trucking company for about $100 million. This is small change for him.

So I wouldn’t waste time writing letters to the BLM about this. It’s a done deal. A rich guy builds a bridge on public land, gets his hands slapped and lives happily ever after. That’s how the Bureau of Land Management manages your land.

Anyway, those three things are a pretty good indicator that there are still plenty of threats to North Dakota’s Bad Lands. So many it’s hard to keep track. I’ll try to write about each of them as things progress. Somebody has to keep an eye on these bastards.

JIM FUGLIE: View From The Prairie — The Little Missouri Crossing: How To Take A Bad Idea And Make It Worse

A thousand trucks a day. That’s what Billings County Commission Chairman Jim Arthaud bragged to the Dickinson Press one day, a number of years ago, when he was asked how many vehicles would use a new bridge over the Little Missouri River north of Medora, N.D.

A lot of water has flowed beneath that proposed bridge since 2012, the last time the public was invited to consider a draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project. He might lower that estimate by a few hundred today.

As I wrote here a few days ago, a new draft of that EIS is ready to go, and we’ll get a look at it in the next couple of months. KLJ Engineering has caught everyone by surprise, including, I think, the Billings County Commission, by its proposed suggested location of the new river crossing on the Short Ranch, just 15 miles or so north of Medora.

Everyone’s asking, “Why there?”

We’ll find out when we actually read the document, but it’s important to remember that what is driving the suggested location is an Environmental Impact Statement. And that means just what it says. What will be the impact on the environment of a new bridge across the Little Missouri River desired by the Billings County Commission? (You can see a map of the proposed location here. The Preferred Alternative at the Short Ranch is Alternative K, Option 1)

The Environmental Impact Statement is required by the National Environmental Policy Act because Billings County is requesting the federal government pay a significant portion of the cost of the project and because the construction of the bridge may impact a federal waterway, the Little Missouri River.

The NEPA was signed by President Richard Nixon in 1970. It also created one of the biggest bogeymen in federal government, the Environmental Protection Agency, a much despised agency in western North Dakota. I’m going to share a story in the next few days about how valuable the EPA has been for western North Dakota. Search back in your memory and see if you remember the name Halek. I’ll get to that in a day or two.

But back to NEPA. My friend, Dave Pieper, retired Dakota Prairie Grassland supervisor, points out that it was oil that brought this law into existence. Congress and President Nixon acted to begin protecting our environment in part in response to the public outcry after the 1969 Santa Barbara, Calif., oil spill.

In a letter to the editor a few years ago, Dave summed it up nicely:

NEPA has two primary goals: 1) It obligates federal agencies to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of an action before proceeding with it, and 2) It ensures that the agency responsible for the action will inform the public what the action is, and that it has considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process. It is a law of public disclosure.”

The Federal Highway Administration, which gets final sign-off on this project, is requiring Billings County to prove that there are sufficient environmental safeguards built into this project to satisfy the requirements of NEPA before it starts signing checks, which could run as high as $15 million. Higher if new roads have to be built to accommodate the traffic the bridge will enable to cross through the Badlands.

We’ll know more when we read the document, but it appears as if KLJ, hired by Billings County to clear the way for federal funds, is proposing what they believe is the least environmentally damaging location to put the bridge. I’m told the cost to the county, which must pay for the EIS, is now approaching $2 million, about double what I cited in my story the other day. Luckily, Billings County can afford it. Thanks to oil tax revenue over the past 40 years, it is perhaps the richest county, per capita, in the state. It’s a cash cow KLJ has found convenient and desirable to milk for all it is worth. By just doing the job they were hired to do.

There are no such things as federal “earmarks” for projects such as this anymore, so federal money for the project will have to come from North Dakota’s annual allocation of federal highway funds. So when, or if, the project gets the green light as a result of the EIS , the acceptance of the proposed location by Billings County, and approval by the FHWA, then officials at North Dakota’s DOT will have to decide if the money should be spent there, or on other more needed or worthy projects elsewhere in the state. Ultimately, I suppose, Gov. Doug Burgum will have the final say in when, or if, the project gets built. His agency holds the purse strings.

From what I’ve been told, KLJ told the commission at its January meeting that the Short Ranch is the preferred alternative, but there has been no discussion  by the commissioners yet. So to speculate on what will happen next is probably fruitless.

What we know is, there will be a series of public meetings, testimony will be taken, both written and oral, and then the final EIS will be written and will need to be accepted by the County Commission, which will present it to the FHWA, along with the request for funding.

From what I can tell, if, in the end, a bridge is built at the Short Ranch, the biggest beneficiaries will be a few local ranchers. Because of its proximity to Interstate 94, it’s not likely to become a big truck route. To get to the bridge from U.S. Highway 85 is a circuitous route, through some pretty rough Badlands terrain. We’ve been told that the anticipated speed limit on the roads approaching the bridge is 35 miles per hour. When those big old trucks, loaded with oil or water, start up some of those hills at 35 mph, they’re gonna be going backward by the time they get halfway up. The next time, they’ll take I-94.

But there will be some shortcuts created for the locals. A few of the ranchers who live on the west side of the river will be able to get to Medora faster than by going down to the freeway as they do now. And they’ll be able to go see their friends across the river more easily at times of the year when they can’t use their own low-water crossings.

Speaking of low water crossings, I’m guessing the EIS will also recommend the type of crossing — a solid concrete bed with culverts through it, or a bridge. Each, I suppose, has its strong points. We’ll see what comes out of that. I can tell you which canoeists prefer.

The ability to get back and forth to Medora might have also played a key role in the rejection of the only other alternative still under consideration, at the Goldsberry Ranch, about 10 miles farther north. There’s no access to Medora on the east side of the river from the Goldsberry Crossing. The big Whitetail Creek drainage is so steep and rugged that it is unlikely a north-south road would ever be built through it to connect to a road south of it to Medora. So if someone were coming from the west and crossed the bridge, they’d have to go all the way to Highway 85, then south to Belfield, then back west 15 miles to get to Medora.

Most of the talk about the Short Ranch recommended location, I suspect, will be about the convoluted access to the bridge from both state Highway 16 on the west and 85 on the east. While the Goldsberry ranch location offered pretty direct access to both highways, that’s not true of the southern crossing. There’s some speculation that the commission could decide to build a more direct route to Highway 85 by improving and extending Mike’s Creek Road. It runs pretty much straight east (well, as straight as Badlands roads can run)  from near the Short place, but it’s a pretty small road and would require major improvements, and it dead-ends short of Highway 85. An extension would have to be built to get cars and trucks to the highway.

An interesting and ironic aside is that I think the road dead-ends at the ranch of Commissioner Jim Arthaud. They’d have to go through his place to complete the road to the highway. I’m not sure how he’d feel about that. And as I mentioned the other day, getting out to Highway 16 on the west site involves going south almost to I-94 before heading west to the highway. Makes no sense at all. I called if goofy, and since I wrote that, I’ve found several other people using the same word.

The stated goal for this project at the outset was to move traffic from Highway 85 to Highway 16 without going all the way to the interstate. It’s my opinion that this proposal does not meet that goal. We need to remember that originally, the County Commissioners proposed to build the crossing right beside the Elkhorn Ranch, which was about halfway between the two existing bridges, and which, with good outlets to both highways, did accomplish the goal. But the firestorm of opposition to putting it beside the historic Roosevelt ranch stopped that idea dead in its tracks. That’s what sent KLJ and the county scrambling, and this new EIS is the result.

I hope this is a deal killer. We don’t need a thoroughfare for trucks through the Little Missouri River Valley, and no one other than the oil industry, fronted by Arthaud, was asking for one. Until he sold his trucking business a few months ago, Arthaud would have been one of the major beneficiaries of the bridge. Of course, there was an oil boom going on then, and there were a lot more trucks on the road. With Arthaud out of the picture, and the oil boom gone bust, we’ll see how much enthusiasm there still is for this project. I, and many, many other people concerned about the Little Missouri River Valley, hope the enthusiasm is gone, and that this really bad idea gets thrown into the shitpile of equally bad busted dreams and scorched-earth plans somewhere in a pit beside a back road in oil country, never to be seen or heard from again.

Footnote: Let’s give credit, or put the blame, where it is due. From the beginning, when the proposal was to put the new bridge hard up against the Elkhorn Ranch, this was Jim Arthaud’s project. He owned the big trucking company MBI, what he bragged was the biggest oilfield service company in the state, and he wanted a shortcut through the Badlands. He had managed to get himself elected as chairman of the Billings County Commission, found a couple of old ranchers to serve as “yes men” for him and has run roughshod over the Badlands environment ever since. His county’s road crew, for example, is the crew excavating gravel from a pit directly across from the Elkorn. He absolutely rejects giving any special significance to what its supporters call the “cradle of conservation.” Until public pressure forced him to back away from the crossing beside the Elkhorn, he had gotten his way whenever he wanted to. To show you his attitude, let me just share with you a quote from Arthaud in a radio interview with NPR’s John McChesney a few years ago. McChesney asked him about the impact on the Elkhorn, and Arthaud argued that the new bridge would be good for the Elkhorn. He said:

“The whole public would be able to use that place, not just the elitist environmentalists. That lousy 50, however many acres it is, 200 acres or whatever, where Teddy sat there and rested his head and found himself.”

And here’s one more look back at an earlier article I posted about this project and other threats to the Elkhorn Ranch.

JIM FUGLIE: View From The Prairie — New Little Missouri Bridge Site Selected — And No One’s Going To Be Happy

The engineering firm drafting the Environmental Impact Statement for Billings County’s request to put a new bridge across the Little Missouri River north of Medora, N.D., has determined the best place to put the bridge is just 17 miles north of Medora, about a third of the way — as the crow flies — between the two current bridges near Medora and Watford City.

Billings County wants to build the bridge “to provide the public with a centrally accessible, safe, efficient and reliable link between state Highway 16 and U.S. Highway 85,” according to the county’s website.

To set the scene, Highway 16 is a narrow two-lane road running along the extreme western edge of North Dakota, going north of Interstate 94 from Beach to well, almost nowhere, except the oilfields of McKenzie County, southwest of Watford City. Highway 85 goes north from Belfield to Williston and is soon to be a four-lane divided highway.

The county argues that the 70-mile distance — by highway — between existing bridges at Medora and south of Watford City justifies a new bridge. The new bridge, and one has to assume some new or improved roads leading to the two highways, would in theory make life easier for the oil industry. Here’s a link to a blog I wrote almost five years ago, explaining the project and its problems.

KLJ Engineering of Bismarck, hired by Billings County to conduct the Environmental Impact Statement for the project, required because the county wants federal funds to build it, and because it is crossing a navigable river under the jurisdiction of  the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is recommending that the new river crossing be located where the Little Missouri passes through the historic Short Ranch — as the crow flies, about five miles south of the Elkhorn  Ranch Unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

Jennifer Turnbow, spokesperson for KLJ, said the draft of the final EIS itself will be released in the next two or three months, and public hearings on it will be held at that time. A long-awaited draft, and long-awaited public hearings. Long-awaited, as in nine years.

The first public hearings on the project were held in July 2008. At that time, the idea was to put the bridge within spitting distance of the Elkhorn. After getting the crap beat out of them at the public meetings, and after outrage expressed in the news media by almost everyone for encroachment on Theodore Roosevelt’s home, “the cradle of conservation,” Billings County Commissioners retrenched and went looking for a new location for the bridge.

A second round of public hearings were held in 2012, and not long after that, the engineering firm narrowed the choices to the Short Ranch, five miles south of the Elkhorn, and the Goldsberry Ranch, five miles north of the Elknorn. This map shows the locations.

And then, the project went dark for more than four years. Although KLJ claimed it was collecting data on the two locations, and promised an early 2015 arrival of a new EIS, the 2015 date kept getting set back with no explanation from the engineering firm. Finally, KLJ set a “Summer 2016” release date for the EIS. That came and went as well. Finally, rumors began trickling out to the public, likely from some of the cooperating federal agencies, and last week, on Feb. 27 and 28, I had the following e-mail exchange with KLJ’s project spokesperson, Jennifer Turnbow:

Hello, Jennifer,

I am hearing talk that you have selected a site for the Little Missouri Crossing. What’s up? Have you chosen a site for the Little Missouri Crossing? What is the status of the project? Will there be any public announcements on the project in the near future?

Thanks.

Jim

 Jim,

 We are working with the lead agencies on the review of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS has identified a preferred alternative, along with analyzing all the build and no-build alternatives. We will be sending out a notice of availability for the Draft EIS and public hearing within two to three months.

Thank you,

Jen

 Dear Jen,

Well, thanks. I’ve been told that Alternative K, Option 1, is the preferred alternative. And that you have shared that with other people. Can you confirm that? That would be easier than me sending FOIA requests to everyone.

Thank you.

Jim

 Jim,

The preferred alternative is Alternative K, Option 1.

Jen

Well, OK then. Alternative K is the Short Ranch. KLJ was actually studying three different options on the Short Ranch. Option 1 puts the bridge about half a mile from the Shorts’ ranch headquarters.

To be honest, that news surprised almost everyone who has been following the project. I really thought the spot that made the most sense — from the perspective of those who wanted a bridge — was the crossing north of the Elkhorn, which would have been about halfway between the bridges on I-94 at Medora and U.S. 85 south of Watford City. Besides, there were pretty direct routes out to Highway 16 on the west and Highway 85 on the east from that spot.

The crossing at the Short Ranch is just about 15 miles north of Medora, and there is no direct route to either Highway 16 or 85 from there. To get to Highway 85 involves going northeast and then back southeast in a big, 12-mile loop, before heading east to the highway. To get to Highway 16 from the crossing, you have to go south within seven miles of I-94 before going west. In my opinion, the whole idea is just goofy.

I’m not the only one to point that out. As far back as 2008, members of the Short family were making that point and expressing their opposition to the crossing and high-traffic road in the middle of their ranch — or anywhere, for that matter.

A bit about the Short family. They’ve been on the ranch for more than 100 years and have been one of the most respected families in the Bad Lands. The scion of the family, Don Short, served as a U.S. Congressman in the 1950s and ’60s. His son, Con, took over the ranch and was active in the operation until his passing last summer. His son, David, now operates the ranch.

Con was a straight-shootin’, plain-talkin’ Bad Lands cowboy. Billings County Commissioners are lucky he’s gone. His battered old cowboy hat would have gone through the roof when he heard this news. Still, he got in his shots. He registered his opposition to the project early and often during previous rounds of discussion. Here he is at a public meeting held by KLJ in 2008:

“I want to register my opinion of being against the whole damn thing. I just think North Dakota will benefit, and Medora and the Badlands will benefit, if we didn’t do it.

“The river bottom that they’re crossing is pristine. In my lifetime, there has been no roads on it, it has never been farmed, there’s never been a cottonwood tree cut down. I consider this one of the best mule deer country — or the best mule deer country in the Badlands. My family and I are a hundred percent against this project. We will use all of our resources in fighting this. Thank you.”

Again in 2012, at a public meeting in Medora, Con, hunched over by either arthritis or too many years breaking broncs, or both, got to his feet in front of a crowd of about 100 at a public meeting and said:

“I’m sorry, I don’t stand up very well. I’m Con Short. Some of this family is mine. To be really honest, we’re proud of being ranchers in Billings County. We’re proud of the friends we have here. We love the Badlands. I have been involved before on stopping more bridges and more roads up through the Badlands, and I’m amazed at how much help we have getting them stopped, and we will get this project stopped, too. Mr. Arthaud (Jim Arthaud, Billings County Commission chairman and champion of the bridge project) might not know that. But I’m telling him now we’ll get it stopped. We’ll take it to the courts or whatever we have to do.

“I am amazed — I am amazed that a county commissioner from Billings County wants this to happen in this county. All you have to do is take one look at that map up there. The roads are already in place. Improve them. You do not need a bridge across the Little Missouri River except for your own ego. You don’t need it. The tourists and everything else. We appreciate your time. I appreciate my family coming here. We’ve been here since 1902. Some of them obviously haven’t been here as long as I have. Billings County is the prettiest place in North Dakota or within a few inches of being the prettiest place. Why ruin it with more roads and more bridges? Thank you.”

When Billings County Sheriff Pat Rummel got up to argue that the county needed this bridge for ambulance and fire emergencies, Con challenged him. This is from the transcript of the meeting:

CON SHORT: You surely haven’t crossed our place with a fire truck, ever, physically.

RUMMEL: Probably not. That’s what I say.

CON SHORT: And you never needed to.

RUMMEL: That’s what I’m saying, I don’t remember ever a life-threatening situation. But there’s going to be someday.

CON SHORT: Do you know who I am?

RUMMEL: Yes, I know who you are.

CON SHORT: I started the Beach ambulance squad. We never needed to.

RUMMEL: I’m saying someday there’s going to be a need for a life-threatening –

CON SHORT: Japan might go to war again, too.

Well, Con’s gone, but the family stands united against the project — not just on their place, but anywhere. And they’ve got a pretty big hammer. The proposal puts the bridge and accompanying road, with a 500-foot easement, on their private property. And they’re not likely to give permission to do that. So, the county is going to have to use eminent domain. That will be a court fight for the ages.

In addition, since the day this project started being discussed, Commission Chairman Arthaud has said it would be done on public property — Forest Service land, not private land. Now, his engineering firm is telling him it should be on private land. I’m not sure how that’s going to sit with him, or with the other commissioners.

Arthaud told National Public Radio reporter John McChesney in an interview a few years ago, “We know damn well where that bridge belongs,” says Jim Arthaud, chairman of the Billings County Board of Commissioners. “On federal ground, about three miles north (of the Elkhorn).”

And at the public meeting in Medora in 2012, Arthaud, sensing Con Short had the crowd with him, did this little dance:

“Yeah, we think we probably have a better handle on it than most people, but to sit there and say we want it to go across the Shorts’ place, we didn’t pick that crossing. This is part of the process. We didn’t pick the crossing up at Magpie Creek, either. We don’t think that that’s a place for a crossing for Billings County, either. So don’t — don’t sit here and think that Billings County commissioners have decided to do that. And we have never been able to answer that question until — if you get chosen as that spot to be, then it’s a question that we’re going to have to sit down and answer amongst ourselves, and we’ll definitely take the input of the people that are there. But we think it should be on public land where all the public owns the land. I hope that helps.”

On public land. Arthaud’s been pretty consistent in saying, the last few years, almost guaranteeing, that the bridge will go on public land. So how’s he going to react to the recommendation of the engineering firm to put it on private land — an engineering firm that’s billed his county somewhere around a million dollars so far on this project?

David Short said it best in 2012, at the very end of the very last public meeting on the bridge: “We’re against every river crossing because we love the Bad Lands and we love the Little Missouri River.”

David Short’s got a lot of people who agree with him.

Now, there will be more public meetings. In “two or three months.” Almost exactly five years after the last one. Con Short’s gone, but he left a big family. With a lot of supporters. I guess we’ll find out just how badly Billings County’s commissioners really want a bridge.

Footnote: You can learn more about the project at Billings County’s website, or a couple of earlier blog posts, here and here.