Sponsor seeks to narrow 'oil‑producing county' definition to channel funds to impacted rural roads

Senate Bill 23‑97 would redefine the term "oil‑producing county" for purposes of several state infrastructure funds so that only the state’s largest oil producers qualify under the label. Sponsor Mark Ingham said the current definition groups smaller producing counties with the largest producers, excluding some counties from targeted infrastructure funding despite experiencing heavy oil‑field traffic.

"There is a significant inequity in the current definition of oil producing county in our Century Code," Ingham told the Finance and Taxation Committee. He said Dunn, McKenzie, Mountrail and Williams counties account for more than 90% of statewide oil production and that other counties designated as "oil‑producing" do not generate comparable volumes but still suffer heavy truck traffic and road damage.

Witnesses from regional energy associations and industry groups — including Jeff Simon, executive director of the Western Dakota Energy Association, and Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council — supported the change. They said the current statutory test (a $5 million gross production tax revenue threshold was cited in testimony) can exclude counties that face oil‑field impacts but do not meet the revenue threshold, and that production‑based measures or a rolling average would better reflect local impacts.

Simon and others described freight volumes and oversized‑permit activity in affected counties and noted that much early production in those counties relies on trucks rather than pipelines, increasing wear on rural roads and creating a maintenance burden for counties and townships.

No committee vote was recorded in the transcript. The hearing closed after supportive testimony; sponsors and witnesses said they would continue to provide data and discuss threshold options such as a production‑based test or a three‑year rolling average.