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.
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 landowner or tenant has constructed a dike, dam, or other device in violation of state law or board rules, including structures capable of retaining 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 deadline for removal. The bill preserves the existing hearing process, allowing the affected landowner to demand a hearing within 15 days, and it retains the board’s ability to seek immediate court injunctions in emergencies.
The bill also clarifies the board’s authority to remove the unauthorized structure if it is not taken down within the required period and to assess removal costs against the responsible landowner’s property. It further allows costs to be allocated pro rata if more than one landowner or tenant is responsible, and it authorizes the board to charge the costs of a frivolous complaint to the complainant. After removal, whether performed by the board or by a party complying with a board order, the board may assess its costs against the responsible property owner. Overall, the bill reinforces enforcement tools for water resource boards while maintaining notice and hearing protections for affected property owners.
The bill appears to have been noncontroversial in the legislative process. It passed the House unanimously and the Senate with only two dissenting votes, indicating broad support for the Department of Water Resources’ request and for the enforcement framework it updates. The lack of committee transcript material suggests there was little recorded debate or public controversy around the measure.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between stronger enforcement and property-owner rights. Landowners and tenants affected by a complaint may be concerned about the board’s authority to order removal, assess costs, and act quickly in emergencies, while water resource boards and the Department of Water Resources are likely to support the bill as a practical tool for addressing unauthorized water-control structures and protecting drainage, flood control, and watershed management interests.
HB 1041 amends section 61-16.1-53 of the North Dakota Century Code, which governs the removal of unauthorized dikes, dams, and similar devices. The bill strengthens and clarifies the enforcement authority of water resource boards by specifying notice requirements, hearing timelines, emergency injunction authority, and the ability to assess removal costs and related expenses against responsible landowners’ property. It also adds express authority to allocate costs among multiple responsible parties and to charge frivolous complainants for costs, affecting both property owners and complainants who initiate enforcement proceedings.
The overall sentiment around HB 1041 was strongly favorable. The bill passed the House 90-0 and the Senate 43-2, suggesting broad bipartisan agreement that the measure was a reasonable update to existing water-management enforcement law. The absence of committee transcript discussion indicates there was little visible opposition or extended debate in the available record.
The primary area of contention is the enforcement power granted to water resource boards versus the rights of landowners and tenants. Supporters likely view the bill as necessary to address unauthorized water-control structures that can affect flood control, drainage, and watershed management, while critics may worry about cost assessments, removal orders, and emergency injunctions being imposed on property owners. The bill’s provision allowing costs from frivolous complaints to be assessed against complainants may also be seen as a safeguard against abuse, but it could raise concerns about discouraging legitimate complaints if applied too aggressively.