Senate committee hears experts and industry on bill to require radon disclosure in property sales

Senate Industry and Business Committee members on Friday heard more than an hour of testimony on Senate Bill 2204, a measure to require residential property sellers to disclose what they know about radon testing and mitigation to prospective buyers.

The bill’s sponsor and committee chair, Senator Barta, opened the hearing and framed the bill as an information and education measure rather than a testing or mitigation mandate. He said the draft amendment under consideration would limit the disclosure requirement to residential transactions and clarify that sellers must disclose results in their possession or those reasonably available to them.

The issue matters because radon is a recognized carcinogen that is difficult to detect without testing. “Two out of three homes in North Dakota have high radon,” said Gary Schwartz, professor and chair of the Department of Population Health at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine, citing his research and state surveys. Dr. Schwartz told the committee the state’s county averages exceed the Environmental Protection Agency mitigation level of 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), and said the average home in Grand Forks measured about 11.7 pCi/L.

Why it matters: supporters said mandatory disclosure at the point of sale is a timely opportunity to prompt testing and remediation because buyers commonly get inspection-related tests during real estate transactions. “This legislation is really a critical step toward protecting North Dakotans and giving them information about radon exposure,” said Shane Gettle of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. Stephanie Dahl, president of the North Dakota Medical Association and a physician, described the health stakes in personal terms and urged a “do pass.” Dahl and other medical witnesses emphasized radon’s role as the second-leading cause of lung cancer and its disproportionate impact on non‑smokers.

Supporters’ evidence and points: testimony came from physicians, public‑health researchers and cancer advocates. Dr. Schwartz summarized statewide measurements, compared radon exposure to cigarette equivalents (multiplying pCi/L by two for an approximate cigarette-per-day equivalence), and noted mitigation systems can substantially reduce indoor radon. Dahl described her own family’s testing and mitigation experience and said mitigation installation costs discussed in testimony were roughly $1,500 in the cases cited.

Real‑estate industry and practical concerns: witnesses from the North Dakota Association of Realtors and broker Trisha Schlosser said the industry already includes radon on standard disclosure and inspection checklists, and they supported the bill with technical amendments to preserve normal purchase-agreement practices. Lisa Feldman of the association said enforcement of disclosure would be handled by the North Dakota Real Estate Commission and asked for a limited change to the draft language to say the requirement applies “except as otherwise provided in an offer to purchase agreement,” a commonly used clause in purchase contracts. Trisha Schlosser explained that clause preserves customary timing when buyers submit contingent offers before receiving a seller’s disclosure.

Committee questions and concerns: senators asked whether the measure would create a de facto testing mandate or discourage voluntary testing. Supporters repeatedly said the bill does not require testing or mitigation; it requires sellers to disclose any knowledge or documents they possess. Shane Gettle summarized: the bill “doesn’t impose any requirement that [sellers] test for it or anything like that. Just simply pass on the knowledge that you have.” Senators also raised concerns about market effects and whether disclosure might prompt sellers to avoid testing; industry witnesses said disclosure is already part of typical transaction checklists and that buyers—especially those working with agents—commonly consider radon testing under inspection contingencies.

Outcome and next steps: the hearing closed without a committee vote. Senators and witnesses agreed to refine language discussed at the hearing—most notably the insertion to exclude commercial transactions and to add the phrase that disclosures apply to information “in the possession of the seller or reasonably available to the seller.” The committee chair said members will circulate agreed wording and resume committee work next week; the committee did not take a formal vote during the hearing.

Ending: supporters urged the committee to act on SB 2204 to increase public awareness at a point in time—real estate transactions—when testing is most likely to occur and remediation can be pursued if needed. The hearing record shows bipartisan interest in tailoring the bill’s language to address real‑world transaction practices while keeping the measure limited to disclosure and education.