Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dark Sky Week topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee votes not to advance Dark Sky Week resolution after safety, zoning concerns
Summary
Senate Concurrent Resolution 4004, which would declare April 1–28, 2025, North Dakota Dark Sky Week and urge reduced light pollution, drew testimony on bird migration, human health and tourism value. The committee voted 6–1 for a do‑not‑pass recommendation.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 4004, which would declare April 1 through April 28, 2025, as North Dakota Dark Sky Week and urge residents and political subdivisions to observe and reduce light pollution, drew testimony from environmental and dark‑sky advocates and from committee members who expressed safety and zoning concerns. After committee discussion the resolution received a do‑not‑pass recommendation, 6‑1.
Sponsor Senator Tim Mathern said the resolution is intended to raise awareness about light pollution and its effects on birds, plant and human health, and to encourage municipalities to consider ordinances and building designs that reduce light pollution. “Taking part encourages residents of North Dakota to observe, ponder, and support the natural dark‑sky resources of this state,” Mathern said when introducing the resolution.
Patrick Sommer, a volunteer delegate for Dark Sky International, testified in support and cited wildlife impacts and public‑health research linking artificial light at night—particularly short‑wavelength (blue/white) LEDs—to sleep disorders and other health risks. Sommer also highlighted economic opportunities from astrotourism and noted national dark‑sky designations for parks in other states.
Committee members raised concerns about practical implications. Several senators noted the resolution could encourage local ordinances to limit street and infrastructure lighting, and they questioned tradeoffs with public safety, traffic and crime prevention. One senator pointed out that many bird collisions occur at tall buildings and wind turbines and asked whether the resolution would imply broader regulatory changes.
After discussion, a committee motion for a do‑not‑pass recommendation carried on a roll‑call vote, 6 in favor of do‑not‑pass and 1 opposed. The roll call recorded: Senators Babb (Aye), Beard (Aye), Inghitt (Aye), Gearhart (Nay), Kessel (Aye), Van Eusting (Aye) and Chairman Patton (Aye).
Supporters said the resolution is educational and nonbinding; opponents and some members said it raised too many downstream implementation questions, including potential local zoning and safety tradeoffs. The committee’s do‑not‑pass recommendation will be included in the record and the resolution will not proceed from this committee at this time.
