Bill would authorize grants for Sargent County landowners' legal fees; agencies warn of precedent

House Bill 1557, introduced by Representative Mike Schatz, would appropriate funds to the Department of Water Resources to provide legal-fee reimbursement grants for Sargent County landowners who litigated a waterboard dispute. Representative Schatz and a Sargent County landowner, Leon Malberg, described lengthy litigation and out-of-pocket legal costs they said remain unpaid despite a favorable North Dakota Supreme Court decision.

Sponsor and landowner testimony: Representative Mike Schatz described a decade-long struggle in which residents paid legal bills to preserve property rights and asserted the Supreme Court ruling supported the landowners' claims. Leon Malberg, a landowner who testified remotely, told lawmakers he and others spent roughly $480,993.16 on litigation; he said $259,000 was reimbursed via eminent domain proceedings and asked the legislature to reimburse the remaining $221,993.16. "Landowners should not be forced to be the sheriff," Malberg said, describing legal, emotional and financial costs to individuals who challenged waterboard actions.

Agency opposition and constitutional concerns: Patrick Frygian, planning and education division director for the Department of Water Resources, told the committee the department opposes HB1557. Frygian said the bill appears to appropriate state funds to reimburse private litigation costs even though the state was not a party to the cited litigation. "The award of legal fees and litigation is a function of the court system," Frygian said, adding that statute provides courts authority to award attorney fees in eminent-domain actions. He said if the State Water Commission were to make grants to private residents where courts have not ordered payment, the payments could raise constitutional questions.

Local waterboard response: Members of the Sargent County Water Resource District testified in opposition to the bill and sought to clarify context. Board members said they had paid roughly $260,000 in eminent-domain legal fees as part of the process and that many local residents supported the watershed work undertaken by the district. One waterboard member said some characterizations in testimony were partial or lacked context and offered a petition of local support for the project.

What was not decided: No committee vote was taken. Committee members debated scheduling for the landowner to testify in person and accepted remote testimony because of the witness's health. Lawmakers asked about the status of district-court proceedings on fee awards and suggested the committee would invite the landowner to testify in person if necessary.

Ending: The hearing closed with no formal committee action. DEQ and DWR asked that individual court remedies be respected and raised concerns about establishing a legislative precedent for reimbursing private litigation costs where the state was not a party.