AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 61-04-05.1, 61-16.1-53.1, and 61-32-08 of North Dakota Century Code, relating to hearing and appeals processes of the department of water resources.
SB2059 revises several North Dakota water-law procedures governing the Department of Water Resources and related local boards. The bill primarily updates notice, hearing, and appeal processes for water appropriation comments, and for complaints involving noncomplying dams, dikes, drains, lateral drains, and ditches. It requires written comments to include the filer’s name and mailing address, and it adds a requirement that electronically submitted comments be signed to be valid. It also clarifies how and when hearings may be requested, how notices must be served, and when the department must hold hearings or issue recommended and final decisions.
The bill also strengthens and standardizes the department’s review authority over local board decisions in drainage and water-construction enforcement matters. It sets timelines for board action, appeal deadlines, independent departmental investigation, and possible outcomes such as notifying the landowner, returning the matter to the board, or referring it to the state’s attorney. It further spells out procedures for hearings, cost assessments, property-tax collection of removal or closure costs, and subsequent district court appeals, while making a departmental hearing a prerequisite to judicial review.
SB2059 amends sections 61-04-05.1, 61-16.1-53.1, and 61-32-08 of the North Dakota Century Code, affecting administrative procedure in water appropriation and drainage enforcement cases. The bill does not create new substantive water-rights standards so much as it refines the process for public participation, agency review, enforcement, and appeals. Its practical effect is to make Department of Water Resources proceedings more formalized, to clarify notice and hearing requirements, and to preserve the department’s ability to investigate, order remediation, and recover costs through property assessments when landowners do not comply.
The bill appears to have been broadly noncontroversial and received strong support. It passed the Senate unanimously, 47-0, and the House overwhelmingly, 91-1, with only two members absent. The absence of recorded committee debate or amendments in the provided materials suggests the measure was viewed as a technical or procedural cleanup bill rather than a major policy change.
No major points of contention are reflected in the available record. The only likely areas of concern are procedural: the requirement that electronic comments be signed, the department’s authority to conduct independent investigations and impose or certify cost assessments, and the rule that a departmental hearing is required before a district court appeal. These provisions could matter most to landowners, permit applicants, local boards, and other parties involved in water appropriation or drainage disputes, but the voting record indicates little opposition overall.