AN ACT to create and enact a new section to chapter 24-01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to designating the bridge on state highway 18 as the Specialist 4 Richard W. Orsund Vietnam bridge; to provide a continuing appropriation; and to declare an emergency.
Summary
HB 1090 designates the bridge on state highway 18, located between 69th Street Northeast and 70th Street Northeast, as the “Specialist 4 Richard W. Orsund Vietnam bridge.” The bill directs the North Dakota Department of Transportation to place signage recognizing that name and allows the department to accept donated signs or funds for the signage.
The measure also creates a continuing appropriation for any donated funds so they can be used without further legislative action to pay for the bridge signs. In addition, the bill is declared an emergency measure, meaning it takes effect immediately upon enactment rather than waiting for the normal effective date.
Impact
The bill amends chapter 24-01 of the North Dakota Century Code by adding a new section for a memorial highway designation. Its practical legal effect is limited to the Department of Transportation’s authority and responsibility to install and maintain signage for the named bridge, while also authorizing the receipt and use of donated funds on a continuing basis for that purpose. It does not create a broader regulatory program or alter private rights, but it does establish an official state-recognized memorial designation on state highway 18.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly and strongly supported. It passed the House overwhelmingly and the Senate unanimously, with no recorded opposition in the Senate and only one nay in the House committee report. The voting pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a noncontroversial honorary designation, likely reflecting respect for Specialist 4 Richard W. Orsund and support for commemorating a Vietnam veteran.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention around HB 1090. The only recorded dissent was a single negative vote in the House committee process, but no committee transcript is available to explain the objection. Because the bill is a memorial bridge naming measure with a continuing appropriation for signage, any potential concerns would likely have centered on the use of state resources, the appropriateness of the designation, or the emergency clause, though none of these issues appear to have generated significant opposition.