Good and valuable state that it is, and the place of my birth, North Dakota today is a poster child for a future many people fear, one in which finite natural resources — including those valuable to people nationwide — are controlled by powerful political factions whose sole intent is to maximize the resources' extractive values.
Case in point: The fight that has simmered the past year in the Flickertail state over a proposed constitutional amendment that would have boosted conservation spending in North Dakota by tens of millions of dollars a year — much like the Legacy Act has done in Minnesota since being approved by voters in 2008.
The plan (Measure 5) was necessary, conservationists believed, because spending on the environment has long lagged in North Dakota — the nation's last, best duck-breeding state — a problem made exponentially worse in recent years by the oil boom in the northwest part of the state.
Had the idea been approved, 5 percent of the state's oil extraction tax revenue would have been directed to clean water, wildlife and parks. The plan was supported by a who's-who of conservation, wildlife, clean water and environment groups, including The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever.
In opposition was a lineup that seemed to galvanize nearly everyone and everything North Dakotan, including, almost, mom and apple pie: the Farmers Union, Farm Bureau, Stockmen's Association, Grain Growers Association, Corn Growers Association, and a host of chambers of commerce, including the Greater North Dakota Chamber and those from Bismarck-Mandan, Fargo-Moorhead-West Fargo, Grand Forks and Minot.
The campaign leading up to the Nov. 4 vote was bruising, with the crop-producing groups and their allies claiming the initiative was the skulduggery of "out-of-state'' organizations intent on controlling North Dakota and North Dakotans. Particularly targeted was Memphis-based Ducks Unlimited, in large part because its regional director, Steve Adair, headquartered in Bismarck, headed up the effort.
Another lightning rod for farm groups was the proposal's constitutionally mandated funding. Additionally, a consortium of special interests argued their needs were greater than the environment's, and that money should be spent first on education, social programs, property tax relief and/or the state's seniors.
Given that 80 percent of North Dakotans who voted on the measure opposed it, it's reasonable to conclude conservation advocates miscalculated in one or more ways. That said, political successes, and in particular conservation political successes, are often measured in fractional increments, and maybe the idea will arise again, and gain more support.
