AN ACT to amend and reenact section 61-16.1-53 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to removal of a noncomplying dike, dam, or other device.
Summary
HB 1041 amends North Dakota law governing the removal of unauthorized or noncomplying dikes, dams, and similar water-control devices. The bill applies when a water resource board receives a complaint and determines that a structure has been built contrary to law or board rules and is capable of retaining, obstructing, or diverting specified amounts of water. It requires the board to notify the landowner by certified mail, send notice to any tenant, and describe the noncompliance and the time allowed for removal.
The bill preserves the existing hearing and emergency injunction process, but clarifies the board’s authority to order removal and recover costs. If the owner does not remove the structure within the period set by the board, the board may remove it and assess the costs against the responsible property. The bill also allows costs to be allocated pro rata if more than one landowner or tenant is responsible, and it authorizes the board to assess the costs of a frivolous complaint against the complainant. After removal, the board may also recover its costs from the responsible landowner’s property.
Impact
HB 1041 updates section 61-16.1-53 of the North Dakota Century Code and strengthens the enforcement tools available to water resource boards. It affects landowners and tenants who construct or maintain unauthorized dikes, dams, or other water-retention or diversion devices, and it gives boards clearer authority to remove noncomplying structures, seek injunctions in emergencies, and collect removal costs as assessments against property. The bill also addresses cost allocation when responsibility is shared and adds a deterrent against frivolous complaints.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad legislative support and little visible opposition. It passed the House unanimously, 90-0, and the Senate by a strong margin, 43-2, suggesting general agreement that the measure is a practical enforcement update for water management and flood-control regulation. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote totals indicate a largely favorable view of the bill’s approach.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the enforcement powers given to water resource boards and the financial consequences for affected property owners. Landowners and tenants may be concerned about notice periods, board discretion in determining noncompliance, emergency injunctions, and the ability to assess removal costs against property. Another possible issue is the board’s authority to penalize frivolous complaints, which could discourage complaints in close cases. Despite these concerns, the recorded votes show little organized opposition.