Student Post: Man Camp Dilemma: Local Control vs. Statewide Uniformity

The Glen Ullin, ND City Council recently voted to ban so called “man camps” that the oil industry has been using to house its workers. There has been significant oil activity in the western half of North Dakota, helping to create a massive budget surplus via direct taxation of extracted oil as well as receipts resulting from the economic boom in oil country. This puts North Dakota fiscal situation in sharp contrast to most other states in the union which are struggling to balance their budgets. Although the “man camp” issue is but one problem among many other infrastructure related problems in oil country, it 

provides a useful analysis of the competing interests often found in energy development.

While North Dakota’s oil production has continued to grow rapidly the last several years, the infrastructure (roads, housing, sewage, electricity, healthcare, etc.) has been stretched to the limits in many parts of western North Dakota. The sheer number of oil workers has overwhelmed many small communities and many homes are being bought up by oil companies looking to provide housing to their employees.  Those homes and apartments not sold are now being rented at rates three or four times the price they went for only a few years earlier.  People in many of the oil related industries are making significant salaries through their work, but due to the lack of housing, are left sleeping in their vehicles, campers, or “man camps” (small camps providing basic necessities and shelter to oil workers).

There are strong arguments both for and against the use of “man camps” by oil companies. Because of the lack of available housing, and the tendency of such a shortage to increase the going rate for available housing, it seems intuitive that allowing oil companies to build “man camps” could help alleviate some of the problems associated with the oil boom. However, some people in western communities would prefer that the oil industry “riff raff” keep out of their cities. This generalized opposition to “man camps” might be a result of higher incidents of crime and substance abuse by oil workers, or might just be an emotional response to the rapidly changing conditions that the oil boom has created. Either way, there certainly is strong public sentiment in certain areas that is strongly opposed to the growing number of oil workers in their cities.

Fixed income individuals who rent a home or apartment have been hit the hardest by the housing shortage. Senior citizens on Social Security, governmental employees, and students struggle to pay the higher rental rates and are left with very few housing options.

City Councils are concerned that allowing “man camps” near city limits could be a drain on city resources requiring the creation of numerous investments into sewage, water, electrical, and other necessary infrastructure.

Some have called for the state to take a more active role in regulating the creation and maintenance of such “man camps”. A state regulation pre-empting municipal ordinances could be used to require cities to accommodate oil companies looking to build “man camps”. Such a regulation would provide uniformity and predictability for oil companies looking to expand; however, it also poses certain philosophical questions on the role of government.

The use of state regulatory power to allow “man camps” within municipalities would certainly be a constitutional exercise of the state’s police powers.  However, it is less than clear whether such a regulation is sound policy. Advocates for limited government are generally in favor of local, rather than centralized control. As such, it would seem that limited government proponents would prefer to leave the power in the hands of municipalities. On the other hand, a statewide regulation may be a much more effective and efficient way to alleviate the housing problems resulting from the oil boom. Whether such a regulation will be promulgated still remains to be seen.

Furthermore, regulation or not, oil companies need to better work directly with those communities affected and find workable solutions that are both economical as well as respectful of communities that are struggling to adjust to the rapid oil boom. No matter the regulation (or lack thereof); it is in the best interest of these companies to find mutually beneficial solutions within our state. Failure to find such solutions will only create more hostility to the oil industry and its workers.

So what do you think? Should a statewide regulation pre-empt local ordinances regarding “man camps”? Or is this issue better left to municipalities?