AN ACT to amend and reenact section 61-04-15.4 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a change in the purpose of use of a conditional or perfected water permit.
SB 2141 amends North Dakota law governing changes in the purpose of use for conditional or perfected water permits. Under current law, a permit holder may change the purpose of use with approval from the Department of Water Resources without losing the permit’s priority date. The bill keeps that basic framework but clarifies the standards for when such a change may be approved and how the application must be reviewed.
The bill requires applications for a change in purpose of use to be processed and evaluated in the same manner as a conditional water permit application. It also specifies that the Department of Water Resources may approve a proposed change only if it will not adversely affect the rights of other appropriators and if the new use fits within the bill’s allowed categories. Those categories include a superior use under the state’s water-priority order, or a change to livestock use or to fish, wildlife, and recreation use for a reservoir that does not authorize water withdrawal.
SB 2141 narrows and clarifies the circumstances under which a water permit’s purpose of use may be changed while preserving the original priority date. It affects section 61-04-15.4 of the North Dakota Century Code and directs the Department of Water Resources to apply a conditional-permit-style review process to these applications. The bill is likely to affect water permit holders, other water appropriators, and the department’s permitting and administrative review practices, especially in cases involving agricultural, livestock, reservoir, and recreation-related water uses.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and passed with strong bipartisan margins in both chambers, suggesting general agreement with the policy change. The Senate approved it 41-6 and the House approved it 91-1, indicating little organized opposition. The available record does not include committee testimony or debate, but the vote totals suggest the measure was viewed as a technical or clarifying water-law update rather than a highly controversial change.
The main policy issue is the balance between flexibility for permit holders and protection of existing water rights. Supporters likely favored allowing changes in use without losing priority dates, while opponents or skeptics may have been concerned about whether expanded or clarified changes could affect other appropriators’ rights or alter the priority system. The bill’s limitation to superior uses, livestock use, and certain reservoir-related fish, wildlife, and recreation uses suggests an effort to constrain that discretion and reduce conflict over water allocation.