A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 38-08-04.12 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to reclamation of land disturbed by oil and gas activity.
SB 2313 would revise North Dakota’s reclamation requirements for land disturbed by oil and gas activity. The bill keeps the existing rule that disturbed land must be reclaimed as close as practicable to its pre-disturbance condition, but it adds more detailed requirements for preserving and documenting suitable plant growth material (topsoil) before disturbance. It would require the volume and location of that material to be documented, require that it be used only for final reclamation on the same site, and tie the amount and depth preserved to soil classifications.
The bill also requires a pre-disturbance meeting between the North Dakota Industrial Commission and the party proposing the disturbance to discuss and document the topsoil preservation plan. The landowner must receive at least 10 days’ written notice of that meeting, though the landowner does not have to attend. The commission would have to approve the plan before work begins. In addition, the bill allows the commission, with consent from the appropriate government land manager or surface owner, to waive reclamation of a site and access road after a well is plugged or a facility is decommissioned, and it clarifies that the section does not require removal of properly reclaimed reserve pits or properly abandoned underground gathering pipelines. It also bars a legal proceeding under this section unless administrative remedies have been exhausted.
SB 2313 would amend Section 38-08-04.12 of the North Dakota Century Code, tightening administrative procedures around reclamation for oil and gas operations and adding more explicit documentation and approval steps for topsoil preservation. It would affect operators, surface owners, the Industrial Commission, and government land managers by formalizing pre-disturbance planning and by creating a recorded waiver process for certain post-closure reclamation obligations. The bill would also limit direct court actions by requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies first.
There is limited recorded discussion in the available materials, but the bill’s structure suggests a regulatory and land-reclamation focus rather than a broad policy overhaul. The proposal appears to reflect concern for protecting soil resources and ensuring reclamation planning is documented before disturbance, while also preserving flexibility through waiver authority when landowners or managers consent. The bill ultimately failed, indicating it did not advance despite the underlying reclamation and land stewardship goals.
The main points of potential contention are the added compliance burden on oil and gas operators and the new pre-disturbance approval process versus the benefits of stronger reclamation oversight. Surface owners and land managers may favor the notice, documentation, and preservation requirements, while industry stakeholders may object to the added procedural steps, soil handling mandates, and limits on litigation. The waiver provision could also be debated, because it gives the commission discretion to waive reclamation after closure only with consent, which may raise questions about consistency and enforcement.