North Dakota House Bill HB1201

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/10/25
• Refer: 1/10/25
• Report Pass: 2/21/25
• Engrossed: 2/25/25
• Refer: 3/7/25
• Report Pass: 3/24/25
• Enrolled: 3/27/25
• Passed: 4/4/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend and reenact section 61-04-03.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a limitation on the amount of water not applied to beneficial use.

Summary

HB 1201 amends North Dakota law governing irrigation water permits by limiting how much water a person may hold in conditional permits for water that has not yet been applied to beneficial use. Under the bill, an applicant may not seek permits that would allow a person to hold more than 720 acre-feet from a single surface water or groundwater source at one time. If an application violates this cap, the Department of Water Resources must return it and may not assign it a priority date. The bill preserves existing exceptions for applications from the Missouri River and for irrigation districts organized under state law. It also clarifies that, for purposes of the limit, a “person” includes an individual’s spouse and dependents, which broadens the cap to prevent circumvention through family members. The measure amends section 61-04-03.1 of the North Dakota Century Code and is focused on managing speculative or unused water holdings in the irrigation permitting system.

Impact

HB 1201 changes state water law by tightening the rules on conditional irrigation permits and reinforcing the state’s beneficial-use framework. It affects applicants for irrigation water permits, the Department of Water Resources, and potentially large agricultural water users by limiting the amount of undeveloped water rights that can be held from a single source. The bill does not alter the Missouri River exemption or the exemption for irrigation districts, but it does expand the statutory definition of who counts as one holder for purposes of the cap.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the House unanimously and the Senate with only one no vote, suggesting general agreement with the policy goal of preventing excessive accumulation of unused water permits. The lack of committee transcript material also suggests the measure was not especially controversial in public discussion.

Contention

The main policy issue is the balance between limiting speculative or excessive permit holdings and preserving flexibility for agricultural water development. Any concern would likely come from irrigators or permit holders who may view the 720 acre-foot cap as restrictive, though the bill’s exemptions for Missouri River applications and irrigation districts reduce that burden. The inclusion of spouses and dependents in the definition of “person” may also be a point of concern for those worried about family-based workarounds being curtailed.