AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 11-33-02.1 and 58-03-11.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the regulation of odors in an animal feeding operation and zoning authority over animal feeding operations in counties and townships; and to provide an effective date.
SB 2174 revises North Dakota law governing county and township regulation of animal feeding operations (AFOs), with a focus on odor-related setbacks and local zoning limits. The bill amends two Century Code sections to define what counts as an AFO, farming or ranching, livestock, and “location” for setback purposes, and then sharply limits how far counties and townships may go in regulating where AFOs can be built or expanded.
Under the bill, local governments may not prohibit farming or ranching, may not block the development or reasonable expansion/diversification of an AFO except as expressly allowed, and may only adopt setback standards within the bill’s framework. It allows different setback standards by operation size and species, authorizes high-density and low-density agricultural production districts, caps local setback distances at the state standards in section 23.1-06-15 subject to the agriculture commissioner’s odor footprint tool, and limits odor-annoyance-free assumptions to 94 percent. It also creates a petition process for proposed AFOs, requires local action within 60 days, restricts later zoning changes after compliance is determined, caps related fees at $500, bars certain water-quality and lagoon requirements, and awards attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in challenges to local AFO decisions. The effective date is August 1, 2026.
The bill would preempt and narrow county and township zoning authority over animal feeding operations, shifting more control to state law and the permitting framework administered through the Department of Environmental Quality and the agriculture commissioner. It would amend sections 11-33-02.1 and 58-03-11.1 of the North Dakota Century Code to standardize local regulation of AFO setbacks, limit local fees and permit conditions, and constrain local governments from imposing additional requirements on existing or approved operations. The practical effect is to make it harder for counties and townships to use zoning to restrict AFO siting, odor impacts, or expansion beyond the bill’s specific allowances.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable support in both chambers, passing the Senate 42-5 and the House 66-25. Those vote margins suggest broad backing for the measure, likely reflecting support for agricultural development and uniform statewide rules for livestock operations. At the same time, the non-unanimous votes indicate meaningful opposition, especially in the House, consistent with concerns about local control and neighborhood impacts.
The main point of contention is the balance between agricultural expansion and local land-use authority. Supporters likely view the bill as protecting farmers and ranchers from restrictive county and township zoning, reducing regulatory uncertainty, and preventing local governments from effectively blocking AFOs. Opponents are likely concerned that the bill limits counties and townships’ ability to respond to odor, siting, water-quality, and compatibility issues near homes, recreational areas, and commercial development. The bill’s caps on setbacks, fee limits, attorney-fee shifting, and restrictions on later zoning changes are especially significant because they reduce local discretion and may be seen as favoring AFO operators over nearby residents and local governments.