AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 7 of section 49-23-01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the one-call excavation notice system.
HB 1153 amends North Dakota’s definition of “excavation” in the one-call excavation notice system law. The bill keeps the general definition broad, covering activities such as grading, trenching, digging, drilling, boring, and similar earth-moving work, but it updates and clarifies several exclusions from that definition.
Under the bill, certain routine activities remain outside the excavation notice requirements unless they disturb soil beyond specified depths. Agricultural activities such as plowing, cultivating, planting, and harvesting are excluded unless they disturb soil to a depth of 18 inches or more. Gardening and landscaping are excluded unless they disturb soil to a depth of 12 inches or more. The bill also clarifies exclusions for normal maintenance of paved roads and streets, gravel roads and streets, and railroad track and track bed maintenance on a railroad’s own right of way.
The bill narrows and clarifies when the one-call excavation notice system applies under section 49-23-01 of the North Dakota Century Code. Its practical effect is to reduce uncertainty for farmers, landscapers, road maintenance crews, and railroads by specifying depth thresholds and maintenance activities that do not count as excavation. It also preserves the notice requirement for deeper or more disruptive soil disturbance, which helps protect underground utilities and other buried infrastructure.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 87-0 and the Senate 47-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. The absence of committee transcripts or recorded debate suggests there was little visible opposition or public dispute over the measure.
No notable contention is reflected in the available record. The main policy issue is the balance between utility protection and exempting routine agricultural, landscaping, roadway, and railroad maintenance from notice requirements. Any potential concern would likely come from utility safety interests favoring broader notice coverage versus affected industries seeking clearer exemptions and less regulatory burden, but the votes suggest those concerns were resolved without conflict.