House committee hears bill to ban "natural asset companies" from doing business in North Dakota

The House Agriculture Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 1453 on Oct. 12, a proposal to prohibit ‘‘natural asset companies’’ from doing business in North Dakota. Sponsor Representative Haug told the committee the bill is meant to protect private property and working lands by preventing entities that monetize ecosystem services from acquiring management authority over land, water or air in the state.

Why it matters: proponents said the bill would block an investment vehicle they contend could take economic control of working land and limit traditional uses such as farming, grazing, hunting and timbering. Opponents — including two state commodity organizations and the North Dakota Association of Counties — said the bill as written could unintentionally prohibit farmer‑led conservation programs already operating in the state.

Representative Haug told the committee the concept of natural asset companies (NACs) rose from federal and private actions, citing Executive Order 14008 (‘‘America the Beautiful’’) and Executive Order 14072 and warning that some investment groups had proposed securities tied to ecosystem valuation. She said the state should act to prevent companies that ‘‘actively manage, maintain, restore, or grow the value of natural assets’’ from registering to do business in North Dakota. "House bill 14 53 prohibits natural asset companies from doing business in North Dakota," she said during testimony.

Representatives of North Dakota Corn Growers Association and the farmer‑led North Dakota Ag Mitigation Bank (NDAM) said the bill could sweep in voluntary mitigation and banking services the producers established. Drew Courtney, vice president of the NDAM board, told the committee the mitigation bank helps farmers meet wetland compliance by matching voluntary wetland projects with farmers who need mitigation. "North Dakota Corn Growers Association opposes House Bill 14 53 as written," Courtney told the panel, adding that the association and NDAM support the principle of protecting private property but were concerned the bill’s definitions and Section 7 could prevent the mitigation bank from operating.

Lance Gabe of the North Dakota Farmers Union and Peril Grossman of the North Dakota Soybean Growers Association raised similar concerns about unintended consequences. Jenny Dietzmann of the North Dakota Association of Counties said county road projects sometimes rely on wetland credits and asked that the bill explicitly exclude those credits. Testimony from committee members and the proponents noted the bill’s language was modeled in part on measures introduced in other states, and Representative Haug said she planned to work with the Department of Agriculture and the Secretary of State to refine the text.

Committee discussion focused on Section 7 and the bill’s definitions. Members noted the fiscal note language that "they did not appear to be organized for the primary purpose of generating financial return and as such would likely already be prohibited from investment in North Dakota under the prudent investor rule," while opponents asked for an explicit carve‑out to preserve NDAM and other locally controlled programs. No formal committee vote was taken; the sponsor asked for time to work with state agencies on amendments and the committee closed the hearing.

The hearing record includes multiple references to federal actions, including the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and cited federal guidance early last decade; witnesses also referenced letters and SEC/NYSE activity in 2024. Committee members pressed for clarity on whether the bill would apply to conservation easements, corporate farm law, and farmer‑led mitigation banks.