A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 47-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to nonfederal easements granted on wetland areas.
SB 2325 would add a new section to North Dakota property law governing easements granted by private parties in wetland areas. Before granting a nonfederal easement within a wetland, the property owner would have to request an ordinary high water mark determination from the Department of Water Resources or the appropriate federal agency. For easements already obtained before August 1, 2025, the easement holder would also be required to secure that determination.
After the water mark is determined, the easement holder would have to record the easement, the determination, and a map of the easement area with the county recorder. The bill also creates liability if water levels exceed the ordinary high water mark within the easement area: the easement holder could be liable for civil damages to persons harmed by resulting damage to crops, county and township roads, railroad infrastructure, or private property.
The bill would amend Chapter 47-05 of the North Dakota Century Code by imposing new procedural and liability requirements on nonfederal wetland easements. It would affect landowners, easement holders, county recorders, and potentially state and federal water-resource agencies by requiring official ordinary high water mark determinations and public recording of easement documents and maps. It would also expand potential civil exposure for easement holders when water exceeds the determined high water mark and causes damage to nearby property or infrastructure.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no detailed public debate to assess. The bill ultimately failed on April 11, 2025, which suggests it did not secure enough support to advance. Based on the text alone, the measure appears aimed at clarifying wetland easement boundaries and assigning responsibility for water-related damages, but the failure indicates it may have faced concerns about regulatory burden, liability exposure, or implementation complexity.
The main points of contention likely centered on who should bear the cost and responsibility for obtaining ordinary high water mark determinations and for recording the required documents, as well as whether easement holders should be liable for damages caused by water exceeding the mark. Landowners and easement holders may have viewed the bill as adding administrative burdens and legal risk, while supporters likely saw it as a way to protect neighboring property owners, roads, rail infrastructure, and crops by clarifying wetland easement limits and accountability.