AN ACT to amend and reenact section 61-34-04 of North Dakota Century Code, relating to eligibility for the drought disaster livestock water assistance program.
Summary
HB 1040 amends North Dakota’s drought disaster livestock water assistance program eligibility rules. The bill keeps the existing requirement that an applicant first seek water cost-share assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency, and if that request is denied, the applicant may submit the application to the state commission for review along with documentation explaining the denial.
The bill also clarifies that a water supply project started after an application for funding is submitted, but before prior approval from the Department of Water Resources, may still be considered for funding. In addition, it expressly states that drought disaster livestock water assistance projects located on Indian land are eligible for the program, subject to available funding and the department’s rules and criteria.
Impact
HB 1040 amends section 61-34-04 of the North Dakota Century Code governing the drought disaster livestock water assistance program. It affects the Department of Water Resources’ review process, expands clarity around eligibility for projects begun before approval, and confirms that projects on Indian land may qualify. The bill does not create a new program, but it changes how existing assistance is administered and who may be considered for funding.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received broad support and little opposition. It passed the House unanimously and the Senate with only one dissenting vote, suggesting general agreement that the changes were practical clarifications to an existing drought relief program. The available record does not include committee testimony, but the voting history indicates a largely favorable view of the measure.
Contention
There is little visible contention in the record. The only notable policy issues are the allowance of funding consideration for projects begun after application but before prior approval, and the explicit inclusion of projects on Indian land. Those provisions may have been intended to broaden access and reduce administrative barriers, but the near-unanimous votes suggest they were not strongly disputed in the legislative process.