Go home and slop the hogs: examples of anti-democratic efforts in North Dakota

By Curtis Stofferahn

curtis.stofferahn@email.und.edu

In1915, Arthur Townley, an organizer for North Dakota's Socialist Party, witnessed a session of the state legislature where legislators were poised to discuss the establishment of a state-owned terminal elevator aimed at granting the state's farmers a degree of control over the marketing of their wheat. Amidst the fervent debate surrounding the elevator, Treadwell Twitchell, a Representative from Cass County, reportedly admonished farmers in the balcony, asserting that "running the state was none of their business" and advising them to "go home and slop the hogs."

While not as blatantly offensive as Twitchell’s remark, similar patronizing and condescending attitudes have pervaded the discourse directed at rural citizens of North Dakota in recent years. Whether articulated by the governor, legislators, state agency heads, city council members, county water board managers, public service commissioners, or members of special-purpose committees established by the legislature, these comments have consistently served to dismiss rural concerns and discourage their active participation in the democratic process.

Here are a few examples that we’ve gathered from Dakota Resource Council’s experiences in the last few years:

1) The Public Service Commission determined that it had the authority to override county ordinances, despite the unclear legislative record regarding the extent of this authority in Senate Bill 2038-2019. An excerpt from SB 2038 referenced in the proceedings clarified it as a "technical correction bill" intended to streamline legislative changes from 2017. Despite assertions to the contrary, the legislative history reaffirms assurances that the law would not erode local control.

2) The public has had little say in the decisions of the Model Zoning Taskforce for Animal Agriculture, which will have impacts on the siting of CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations). The makeup of the committee is questionable because supporters of animal agriculture are being asked how to best site animal agriculture facilities. Those rural residents who might live downwind of a CAFO or who are opposed to overriding local zoning authority are given little or no opportunity to speak at meetings of the model task force. 

A particularly egregious example occurred on March 4, when the task force met to discuss citing regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) for the entire state. The task force declined to open the meeting by Zoom, but the Farm Bureau and the Pork Council were given a full opportunity to present their side of the issue uninterrupted from anyone unable to attend the meeting in Bismarck.

3) The North Dakota Industrial Commission allocated a $300,000 grant aimed at educating the public about carbon capture. While both the governor and the agriculture commissioner emphasized that the grant was unrelated to the Summit Carbon Solutions Pipeline and not an attempt to influence the pending Supreme Court decision, the timing of the grant's announcement raises questions. Notably, Bismarck, Burleigh County, and Emmons County — each located within a 50-mile radius of the state capitol — recently voiced opposition to the pipeline. It appears that the Industrial Commission may be unaware or indifferent to the concerns expressed by these localities regarding the safety and routing of the pipeline.

4) During the Dakota Access Pipeline Army Corps hearings, members of the public were unable to directly address the Army Corps in front of the press and other attendees. Instead, they were required to convey their comments to a court stenographer stationed in a booth. Despite this format, numerous individuals attending the hearings chose to abstain from having their comments recorded. Instead, they opted to express their concerns directly to the audience by utilizing the front of the room as an impromptu stage.

5) The Casselton City Council approved the construction of a soybean crushing plant, a collaborative effort between CGB Enterprises, Inc., a Japanese-owned company, and Minnesota Soybean Processors, a farmer-owned entity. A citizen group organized by DRC raised concerns that included potential noise, increased truck traffic, light pollution, proximity to residential areas, and the impact on property taxes due to a proposed 15-year property tax exemption. 

One council member, who had visited a soybean crushing plant in Brewster, Minnesota, dismissed these concerns, stating that she did not observe the issues mentioned by the group. In public presentations, representatives from North Dakota Soybean Processors attempted to address residents' concerns by outlining their traffic management plans, pledging to be good neighbors, and offering $100,000 annually to the city council as an incentive to forgo annexation of the plant (A bribe?)

6) Just over a year after city officials announced plans for a Chinese-owned wet corn mill in Grand Forks, city council members voted to halt the project. This decision followed remarks from the assistant secretary of the Air Force, who highlighted the project's potential threat to national security, with both short- and long-term risks impacting the Grand Forks Air Force Base. It was only after these concerns were raised that the council opted to abandon the controversial venture.

Throughout the process, members of a citizen group, which included DRC members, consistently attended city council meetings to advocate for the project's cancellation, often facing disparaging and patronizing comments from some council members. Following the council's decision to cancel the project, the citizen group called for the resignations of the mayor, city administrator, city attorney, and council members involved in the approval process.

7) A member of DRC reached out to members of the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee to express concerns about a senator's remarks regarding SB 2307, a bill concerning the evaluation of costs and benefits for assessment projects. Despite six individuals providing written testimony, the senator stated that only two testified in favor of the bill during its hearings. 

The DRC member emphasized the significance of the written testimonies, noting that although they weren't counted or given standing, those who submitted them did so with courage, fully aware of potential backlash from their water boards. Drawing from personal experience, the member confirmed instances of retribution from his own water board following a successful court challenge, with the board suggesting regrets for their actions. The member also highlighted similar experiences reported by landowners in four other counties over the past seven years. Moreover, within his county landowner group, five individuals requested anonymity in their court challenge against the water board due to fears of retaliation. 

As he summarized in his email to the committee members: “There isn’t a ‘ND Water Board Abuse Landowner Association’ that we can alert landowners when their property rights are being infringed on and dump 50 emails into your email boxes with little warning. The coordination just isn’t there to do that.”

8) My communication with a member of the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee regarding its hearing on HB 1371, which pertained to animal agriculture exemptions to the corporate farming law, highlighted a concerning trend regarding the consideration of written testimony. Despite submitting my testimony along with supporting documentation opposing the amendments, a fellow DRC member expressed discouragement and suggested emailing the testimony directly to committee members. This suggestion arose from the observation that committee members were seemingly overlooking written testimony and only giving attention to testimony presented in person at hearings. 

Upon receiving a response to my email from a committee member, it was indicated that I was the sole individual who had expressed opposition to the amendments. In response, I had to remind the committee member that, in addition to the two DRC members who provided testimony against the bill, eight citizens had submitted written testimony in opposition. The committee member then admitted that they did not have sufficient time to review all written testimony.

9) A DRC member recounted his ordeal with the water board in southeastern North Dakota. The Sargent County Water Board suffered a significant setback in April 2016 when its Drain #8 landowner votes resulted in unanimous rejection of an improvement project, except for the vote from one county commissioner. Following this outcome, the water board swiftly moved to circumvent landowners' statutory protections, ensuring that the Drain #11 Improvement Project proceeded without their participation. This was achieved by dividing the project into phases compatible with a 5–6-year maintenance bond, effectively denying landowners their legal right to a hearing and vote. 

In response, landowners sought legal representation to demand the open debate and vote they were entitled to by law. However, due to a legal technicality whereby 30 days had elapsed, the courts declined to intervene. Subsequently, a memorandum dated March 14, 2019, from the legal counsel for the Sargent County Water Resource District came to light, asserting that the district had no obligation to hold a vote or even discuss the project with the public. Because of efforts by several DRC members, the case was appealed, leading to a decisive ruling by the Supreme Court on December 15, 2023. 

The Court unequivocally declared that the water board lacked authority, without a statutory vote of landowners, to impose a multi-million-dollar drainage project on the special assessment drain district. Over the course of eight arduous years, landowners endured personal attacks, including accusations of defamation, obstruction, bullying, threats of condemnation, and retaliation, all aimed at suppressing their participation in water board decisions.

When I taught theories of social change, my students delved into the elite theory of power and the growth machine theory of power. The former posits the existence of a power elite — a relatively small, loosely connected group of individuals — who wield significant influence over American policymaking (as articulated by C.W. Mills and W. Domhoff). This elite cadre comprises bureaucratic, corporate, intellectual, military, media, and government figures, who control key institutions and whose opinions and actions shape policymakers' decisions. Conversely, the growth machine theory posits that local economic development decisions made by city governments are swayed by specific commercial interests poised to benefit from economic expansion (as proposed by H. Molotch). Analyzing the examples, my students would have likely uncovered evidence supporting both theories.

Undeterred by Twitchell's dismissive remark, Arthur Townley, alongside discontented farmers from McHenry County, responded to their frustration with the prevailing machine politics controlled by the grain trade and railroads. Recognizing the need for change, they formed the Nonpartisan League (NPL), opting not to create a separate third party but instead endorsing candidates sympathetic to their cause. Leveraging the state's open primaries, they crafted a "nonpartisan" ticket for the November election.

The NPL enjoyed sweeping success in the June 1916 primary, winning all but one state office, and further solidified their position in the November 1916 general election, gaining control of the governorship, cabinet, and state house of representatives. Although they fell short in capturing the senate, resulting in an incomplete implementation of their agenda, the legislature still enacted significant progressive reforms advocated by NPL members. By the 1918 general election, the NPL secured a decisive victory, aided by constitutional amendments, paving the way for the 1919 legislature to enact much of their platform into law.

There are growing indications that citizens in North Dakota are pushing back against perceived encroachments by legislative, administrative, and corporate entities seeking to undermine local autonomy. Resolutions opposing amendments to the corporate farming law, advocating for the preservation of local zoning control, and resisting eminent domain for private interests were introduced at state political party conventions.

Notably, a citizen of Grand Forks spearheaded an unsuccessful recall effort against a city council member. Moreover, cities and counties are resorting to legal action to challenge the Public Service Commission's assertion of supremacy over local zoning regulations. Ordinary citizens are resorting to costly legal battles to contest decisions made by locally appointed boards. In response, citizen groups are demanding the resignations of elected officials who have disregarded their concerns; in cases where resignation is not forthcoming, these groups are preparing to field candidates to challenge them in the next election cycle.

Rather than heeding Twitchell’s patronizing advice to “go home and slop the hogs”, we should rather heed Joe Hill’s advice: “Don’t mourn. Organize.”

Curtis Stofferahn is Chair of the Dakota Resource Council.