Shelley Lenz

“I support an all-of-the-above energy strategy that allows North Dakota to remain a major energy-producing state while continuing to strengthen our agricultural economy and responsibly manage our land and natural resources.

Increasingly, competitiveness in global markets includes the ability to measure and document the emissions intensity of the products we produce. Senator Kevin Cramer’s bipartisan PROVE IT Act provides a useful mechanism for doing exactly that by measuring the emissions intensity of U.S. products and comparing them with foreign competitors. North Dakota should not be afraid of good measurements. If our agricultural, energy, and manufactured products can demonstrate that they are produced efficiently and responsibly, that information can become an economic advantage rather than a liability.

Conservation and economic development do not have to be competing goals. Good land stewardship, productive agriculture, responsible energy development, and careful measurement of environmental impacts can help keep North Dakota competitive while protecting the resources on which those industries depend.

Any policies affecting land-based resources also need meaningful involvement from the people directly affected—including landowners, farmers, ranchers, energy producers, local communities, tribal nations, and the public. Long-term policy works best when the people who live and work on the land have a meaningful role in developing it.”

KEYWORDS: All-of-the-above energy; Global competitiveness; Land stewardship; Emissions intensity; Stakeholder involvement

“I would place a higher priority on state investment in research and incentives for increasing soil carbon through practices such as managed grazing, where there may be opportunities to improve soil health, water retention, and agricultural productivity while also increasing carbon storage.

Geologic CO₂ storage is a different and much more controversial issue in North Dakota. I am not opposed to the technology, but landowner rights, property interests, groundwater protection, and community concerns need to be addressed before substantial public resources are committed to expanding it. Public acceptance cannot be an afterthought.

If geologic storage projects move forward, however, I believe the state has an important responsibility to ensure that good, independent science accompanies them. That includes monitoring underground CO₂ movement, groundwater, seismic activity, and long-term storage integrity, with the resulting data made transparent and accessible to the public. Research and monitoring are particularly important with technologies whose effects may need to be evaluated over decades.

A more targeted approach, including projects associated with existing coal operations, may also provide opportunities to evaluate the technology and its long-term reliability before committing to broader state investment.”

KEYWORDS: Soil carbon; Landowner rights; Independent monitoring; Groundwater protection; Public transparency

“Local communities should have a meaningful voice when large infrastructure or technology projects are proposed in their area. Like any major industry project, there needs to be transparency, accountability, and public input from the beginning—not after the major decisions have already been made.

I support policies that require clear information about a project’s expected benefits and impacts, including jobs, infrastructure needs, water and energy use, tax incentives, and long-term costs to the community. Local governments and residents should have the information they need to ask questions and help shape decisions that will affect them for years.

North Dakota has always welcomed industry, but being a good neighbor matters. Companies that communicate openly, hire locally when possible, invest in the communities where they operate, and address legitimate local concerns are more likely to build the trust needed for long-term success.

Economic development should benefit both the project and the community that hosts it.”

KEYWORDS: Local input; Transparency; Accountability; Community benefit; Economic development

“North Dakota agriculture has always depended on producers adapting to changing conditions. I would support investments that help farmers and ranchers remain productive while reducing input costs, improving soil and water resilience, and creating new sources of farm income.

For our grasslands and ranching operations, regenerative and managed grazing research should be high on that list. If research on working North Dakota ranches can scientifically demonstrate that managed grazing increases net ecosystem carbon uptake, improves soil health, and increases water-use efficiency, those measurable benefits could potentially support stronger conservation incentives or new carbon-related revenue streams for producers. That could make conservation practices economically valuable rather than simply another cost of doing business.

I also support research into technologies that make sense specifically for North Dakota agriculture. Geothermal energy, for example, may have applications in grain and corn-drying systems that could reduce producers’ energy costs. Our universities and research institutions should be working directly with producers to test ideas like these under real North Dakota conditions.

Science and innovation are most valuable when they result in practical tools that producers can use to lower costs, improve productivity, manage risk, and keep their operations economically viable for the next generation.”

KEYWORDS: Agricultural research; Managed grazing; Soil and water resilience; Innovation; Producer profitability

“As a trained scientist as well as a veterinarian, my career has been built around taking complex, evidence-based information, evaluating its strengths and limitations, and translating it for clients so they can make the best decisions for their animals. I would bring those same skills to policymaking.

Scientific evidence and technical expertise should be an important part of developing good public policy. That means seeking out qualified experts, asking whether the evidence actually supports the conclusions being drawn, and being willing to adjust when better information becomes available.

Science also involves uncertainty. Evidence evolves, studies can disagree, and sometimes we simply do not have enough information yet. Policymakers should be willing to say that clearly rather than presenting uncertainty as certainty. I believe people are capable of understanding complexity when we communicate it honestly and in plain language.

I would use a combination of social media and other evolving communication tools, regular in-person town halls, and meetings with stakeholders to explain both the evidence behind policy decisions and the uncertainties that remain.”

KEYWORDS: Evidence-based policy; Scientific expertise; Transparency; Scientific uncertainty; Public communication

“North Dakota’s tribal nations should be included as partners in environmental policymaking, particularly when decisions involve land, water, and natural resources that cross jurisdictional boundaries.

Tribal nations are sovereign governments, and building productive relationships requires recognizing that sovereignty as well as respecting cultural differences, traditional knowledge, and the priorities of individual tribal communities. I would support state partnerships that improve access to environmental science, technical expertise, water monitoring, and land-management resources when tribal governments identify those as priorities.

The state and tribal nations will not always approach an issue from exactly the same perspective, but we often share important goals: protecting water and land, maintaining productive natural resources, and leaving them in good condition for future generations. Finding those shared goals—and building relationships based on respect, good science, and open communication—is how we can move policy forward together.”

KEYWORDS: Tribal sovereignty; Environmental stewardship; Partnership; Water and land; Shared goals