House Ag panel hears testimony on drainage-notice bill after downstream landowners describe crop and property damage

The House Agriculture Committee on Monday heard extended testimony on House Bill 1544, a measure that would require landowners who install drainage systems of 80 acres or less that discharge onto neighboring property to notify downstream landowners and, if objections are raised, submit to the regular permitting process.

Supporters told the committee that current law allows upstream landowners to tile and pump water onto neighbors’ land without meaningful prior notice, sometimes causing lost hay, reduced pasture productivity and surface salinization. Rory Gable of Valley City described repeated, year-round discharge from a neighbor’s tile pump that he said has rendered hay ground too wet to harvest and forced him to buy replacement feed. "Since the pump was turned on, the water has been continuously flowing onto our property even through this winter," Gable said.

Gable and other supporters urged adding a mediation step, similar to language in Senate Bill 2283, so disputes could be addressed before litigation. An online witness identified as Sam, testifying on behalf of DRC, described a notification-plus-mitigation sequence: notify the local water board, mail notice to downstream landowners, allow a response period (Senate draft uses 30 days; HB 1544 uses 60), then offer mediated mitigation if concerns are raised.

Opponents—including the North Dakota Farm Bureau and the North Dakota Grain Growers Association—warned that HB 1544 would add red tape, increase litigation, and impose undue burdens on producers. Pete Hanover of the Farm Bureau said tiling is an important conservation and flood-mitigation tool and that the bill could complicate routine farm drainage. Dan Wagsland of the Grain Growers said the bill risks "unintended consequences" for producers and the agricultural economy.

Contractors and engineers who build drainage also testified. Levi Otis, director of government affairs for Ellings and Companies, described how tile systems are designed to move relatively modest flow (he cited a maximum design discharge figure commonly used by contractors) and argued that the 80-acre threshold has long been part of North Dakota practice. Otis and other industry witnesses described engineering checks—such as size of mains and permitting triggers—that can flag attempts to circumvent permitting by later tying small systems into larger networks.

Water administrators and legal counsel offered mixed perspective on what statutory change would accomplish. Jack Dwyer, executive secretary of the North Dakota Water Resource Districts Association and an attorney who handles drainage disputes, told the committee that state law and North Dakota Supreme Court precedent follow a "reasonable use" doctrine: upstream landowners may increase drainage unless their use causes unreasonable damage to downstream owners. Tile permitting, he said, does not routinely address private property damage and a downstream owner often still must seek a civil remedy in court even if permitting is tightened. Matt Lindsay, engineering and permitting section manager at the Department of Water Resources, testified neutrally that the bill would expand the department’s regulatory responsibilities under North Dakota Century Code and likely produce a material increase in permit applications and administrative workload; he said a fiscal note and at least one additional staff position would likely be required to handle the added permitting work.

Committee members asked detailed questions about when permits are required now, how county water boards and the department handle applications for surface drains and tile, and whether notice and mediation would reduce the need for litigation. Several members emphasized the difference between surface drainage (which the department may handle) and subsurface tile (handled at the county water resource board level), and multiple witnesses noted that permit processes, when invoked, can include engineering review, conditions and, in some cases, operational controls.

The committee did not take a vote on HB 1544 at Monday's hearing. Chairman Belz closed the bill's public testimony and moved on to other agenda items.