Position Statement: Garrison Diversion Conservancy District

Mar 22
3 min read

I will be adding resources and reference material to this post and will note those additions with date/time stamps.

My Position: Burleigh County should remain in the Conservancy District.

March 22, 2026

I support Burleigh County remaining in the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District.

I also support:

advocating for improvements where needed
making sure Burleigh County’s interests are clearly represented
having a transparent, informed discussion with the public

That doesn’t mean everything is perfect. There are valid concerns worth addressing, particularly around transparency, structure, and how benefits are communicated and shared across the state.

But those concerns are not a sound reason to take an aggressive approach toward exiting the District - especially without meaningful public input, education, or a clear understanding of what we would be walking away from.

If we’re still talking about recreation grants, we’re not even in the right conversation.

Where I Agree with the Commission

This conversation didn’t come out of nowhere.

There are legitimate questions:

Are benefits clearly understood and communicated?
Is the structure fair across counties?
Are there areas that need reform or better accountability?

Those are fair questions, and they should be asked.

Where the Conversation Is Going Wrong

The problem with how this is being discussed right now is the absence of the bigger picture. This issue isn’t just about water. It’s about how we make decisions, how we work with others, and whether we’re willing to look at the full picture. When everything starts to look like a problem somewhere else, it’s usually time to take a harder look at how we’re operating.

We are trying to evaluate a complex, long-term system using narrow, disconnected examples, and in some cases, emotional rhetoric instead of grounded, factual discussion.

One example that continues to surface is recreation funding.

That focus is misplaced.

Much of the recent discussion around the Burleigh County Commission table is based on discussions at a Recreation Committee meeting, not the full scope of the Conservancy District’s work. Treating that as representative of the entire District oversimplifies what the conversation is, and it leads to bad conclusions.

This is not a recreation program.

It is a regional system tied to:

water infrastructure
long-term supply planning
statewide coordination
access to state and federal funding
economic development

If we’re still talking about recreation grants, we’re not even in the right conversation.

What This Actually Costs…and What It Supports

For most Burleigh County households, participation in the Conservancy District amounts to less than $30 a year. That’s the easy number to find because it is clearly listed on everyone’s property tax statements.

What’s harder (but far more important) is understanding what that supports:

a voice in long-term water decisions
access to major infrastructure funding
coordination across regions of the state
influence over how Missouri River resources are used
the ability to support future economic growth across the state

This is not a line item you evaluate like a department expense.

What Concerns Me Most

What concerns me is not the discussion itself, it’s how it’s being handled.

We are seeing:

conclusions drawn without full context
comparisons that don’t align with how the system actually works
a tendency to assume bad actors instead of seeking understanding

And more broadly, this reflects a larger issue. Burleigh County continues to struggle with relationships - with partners, with other entities, and at times, with each other.

We cannot continue to approach complex, regional issues as if we are an island. Because we are not. Decisions like this have consequences far beyond our county lines.

What We Should Be Doing Instead

If there are concerns (and there are), then the path forward should be:

Engage collaboratively with the Conservancy District.
Ask better, more specific questions.
Push for transparency and measurable outcomes.
Have a real public conversation before making a decision of this scale.

And if reform is needed, then we should be part of shaping it, not removing ourselves from the table entirely.

Because once you walk away, you don’t just lose funding opportunities, you lose your voice. Exiting the District without a full understanding of the system, without a plan, and without the public fully engaged is not responsible leadership.