[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6360053,"mediaKeyId","2175406-c69ff0c10fd0134566c7ec3ed831b5c3","parentId",2175406,"title","Lawmakers debate shifting septic permitting from local health units to plumbing board; installers warn of lost capacity","audioSeconds",4307,"startMs",9611000,"endMs",13918000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175406-c69ff0c10fd0134566c7ec3ed831b5c3&start=9611&end=13918","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175406-c69ff0c10fd0134566c7ec3ed831b5c3/thumbnail_9611000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6360053/North-Dakota/Lawmakers-debate-shifting-septic-permitting-from-local-health-units-to-plumbing-board-installers-warn-of-lost-capacity","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6360053-fcd51f0a8e8d1a42ce6c508be1fefdf7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771084259&Signature=QXTY-1Fp1JVL45U2rFShKQhMFMjnWji3zZta96nxKbkx7W1mBswTy3i7cQcx5GavbW2~rhJImHkLPNJjnkFPp3PjKcb9gbJNSKGvpbExF-kdFmhFixzPVWMGA-WD6qfE3OuJdhPJCrUQRICzfat24iLfXMYu6gMCI7xydopQGS0HGIdfJDoXJ5gFIGKNVCcZ8DmWAn2g8DNLrAf1Ylof3kdgNbJZnoksnNOvjTTodKTWHUfqAD8hZ34md25yTT00PP2m8x3T-bIB3PcTJaiLMZyah~bn~W7izQ8P-0s1JRJx8KSRwu9wgxjjtxXohf6Fwt0MAEEvalpQX9~PVvLctw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs, ND","date","2025-01-30T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 2267, which would change who oversees on‑site wastewater treatment (septic) permitting, licensing and inspections, drew lengthy testimony from installers, public health officials and the State Plumbing Board.

Sponsor and supporters

Senator Meerdahl introduced the bill as an effort to address inconsistent local practices and to create a uniform, state‑level structure of standards and appeals. Several licensed installers and industry representatives urged lawmakers to centralize standards, citing uneven county practices, delays and the loss of contractors.

Installer testimony

- Terry Novak, a licensed septic installer and pumper, said the industry is losing contractors because “we need an even playing field” and cited variance fees and inconsistent local responses as reasons some contractors stop offering septic work.

- Bruce Ellingson (Nodawra) said the prior technical committee that attempted a statewide uniform code did not finish its work and told senators the industry needs stable, timely inspections and common standards to preserve a skilled workforce. He said some public health units perform well but others do not, and that inconsistent local practices push contractors away.

Public health and plumbing board testimony (opposition/concern)

- Brenda Stallman (local public health) and Erin Arata (Western Plains Public Health) told the committee that removing local public‑health oversight would disrupt a functioning local inspection and permitting system and reduce protection for drinking water and public health. Arata said her unit covered multiple counties and performed 112 system inspections in 2024, a workload she estimated at roughly 950 hours of staff time.

- Scott Samuelson, plumbing inspector for the State Plumbing Board, opposed the bill on practical grounds: the plumbing board does not currently staff septic inspections, lacks inspectors trained in soil evaluation and drain‑field design, and the board’s current budgetary resources are limited. Samuelson said prior fiscal work estimated a biennial cost in the low millions to create a state inspection operation; he noted the plumbing board’s 2024–25 budget of $848,235 and said the board lacks trained septic inspectors.

Points of disagreement and clarifications

- Supporters argued for a single statewide code and licensure that would reduce local variation and provide consistent appeals/standards. Sponsors noted the plumbing code historically covered on‑site systems but administrative practice and local arrangements shifted responsibility to public health.

- Opponents said local public health units have local soil and watershed knowledge and that travel distances and immediate, timely inspections are best handled locally; they stressed the modest fee income from permitting does not fund a statewide program and that counties subsidize much of the work.

Committee context and next steps

Committee members asked about the plumbing board’s fiscal estimate (the board cited a fiscal note in the millions); supporters said many costs are already borne by county and local permit fees and argued the plumbing board could operate without general fund appropriation because some licensing fees already exist. Public health units urged any change be done via a cooperative, well‑resourced state plan, not a sudden transfer of duties.

Ending

No final committee action was taken. Committee members indicated they would continue to weigh options, including a statewide code overseen by DEQ with inspections done locally under memoranda of understanding, or other hybrid solutions that preserve local inspector capacity while providing consistent statewide standards.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Jan 30, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 2267 would shift oversight for on‑site wastewater systems (septic) from local public health units to state regulators and create a single licensing/standards structure; installers urged the change while public health officials and the plumbing board warned of lost inspection capacity and fiscal costs.","taxTitle","Agriculture and Veterans Affairs, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28898,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6360063,"NDSU research, extension staff brief House and Senate agriculture panels on ag tech, field work and local programs",3279,493000,3772000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175406-c69ff0c10fd0134566c7ec3ed831b5c3&start=493&end=3772","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175406-c69ff0c10fd0134566c7ec3ed831b5c3/thumbnail_493000.jpg","/articles/6360063/North-Dakota/NDSU-research-extension-staff-brief-House-and-Senate-agriculture-panels-on-ag-tech-field-work-and-local-programs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6360063-f1f0ca79893eb3cbbee451414f4db734/orig.mp4?Expires=1771084259&Signature=P-owcwBg4eNPfyIEzGC7WeO7vfiD8mxHaKdve60GolN5rkWvwsv1iB4Y4VFMscIADkj-nVSF0Ih66iXRNk2Frh5Ie-yEiDWLvlcgDdFsW8Q3d8PTP87KxO~STjdNkao7F2P1A~mSNNiQc4BnzQasluqYHcoROpE-XvG-8wqgTxgkGUFdXnrjFu2nuA8DrMzgjq2tpStskE9BNpQITg6JEHglyZ-vjioDKbiSdeg2zleVu9crT6fLJuwb8OUfhMErn9Ir30Vxl046xz1TsBATC0BPwiLKAFPuNOtDnr1xvLc~FcHCCgWFzgdj9HGR7rxZLxPUbMfaxHOorJ5tLUPxBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sarah Hall Lovas, chair of the State Board of Agricultural Research and Extension (SBARE), and Greg Lardy, director of the North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station and NDSU Extension, told a joint meeting of the House and Senate agriculture committees that state investment in ag research and extension is showing measurable returns.

Lovas said the legislature’s funding has produced “significant and positive impacts for North Dakota agriculture” and emphasized SBARE’s role in budgeting and policy for the experiment station and extension programs.

The message to lawmakers was practical: NDSU researchers and extension specialists described specific projects now in the field — from genomic-assisted crop breeding to robotic and drone sensing to microbial products aimed at replacing nitrogen fertilizer — and explained how those projects are transferred to producers through county extension offices.

Why it matters: lawmakers heard that agriculture contributes billions to the state economy and that research and extension are linked to productivity, environmental outcomes and the next generation of producers. Committee members pressed presenters on costs, effectiveness in non‑flat terrain and oversight of new precision tools.

Key details from presenters

- Greg Lardy described the North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station as “a research and development arm for the state's agricultural sector,” and said researchers are using artificial intelligence, data analytics and genomic information to speed crop‑breeding and variety development.

- Researchers described an AI‑driven weed‑identification system integrated with sprayers that in field studies cut herbicide use by roughly half. A field scientist said the system is still in testing and “not quite ready for the step of commercialization at this point.”

- Drone‑based scouting and prescription maps were described as reducing herbicide application by 50% or more in field trials, and extension specialists said their role is to evaluate whether those systems provide a cost benefit to farmers in time‑sensitive operations.

- NDSU researchers described active work on microbial products that can fix atmospheric nitrogen or suppress plant disease; a microbiologist said the first commercial‑scale products could appear within a few years.

- On livestock technologies, presenters described virtual‑fence collars that use GPS and audio cues and that kept animals inside grazing allotments “greater than 90% of the time” in trials, reducing labor and enabling flexible grazing management.

- Extension emphasized statewide reach: NDSU Extension programs operate in all 53 counties, train thousands on pesticide safety (7,200 cited in testimony), and involve more than 40,000 youth through 4‑H.

Research–extension network and field stations

Lardy and committee members reviewed the network of Research Extension Centers (RECs) across the state and the functions of the agronomy seed farm at Castleton (growing foundation seed from breeder seed produced by NDSU breeders). Presenters noted collaboration with national and international nurseries to accelerate variety development.

Lawmakers’ questions and concerns

Committee members asked about costs and business models for drone spraying, whether virtual fencing works in uneven western terrain and how local extension offices support adoption. On virtual fencing, Lardy said the technology has been tested at multiple locations statewide and “would certainly have applications on some of the, more traditional native grazing pastures” in western North Dakota.

Presenters and extension staff urged continued legislative support, saying investments yield high returns in producer income, environmental outcomes and workforce development.

Ending

Presenters closed by inviting committee members to visit RECs and field days in July; committee chairs thanked the SBARE and NDSU teams and recessed the joint session. The overview provided lawmakers with current examples of how state‑funded research is moving into practice and produced a series of follow‑up questions for staff and researchers.

","Sarah Hall Lovas, chair of the State Board of Agricultural Research and Extension, and Greg Lardy, director of the North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station and NDSU Extension, told a joint House and Senate agriculture hearing that state investments in agricultural research and extension are producing measurable economic and on‑farm results.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6360048,"Votes at a glance: Senate Agriculture committee moves two bills to ‘do not pass’ and leaves others pending",4709,3957000,8666000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175406-c69ff0c10fd0134566c7ec3ed831b5c3&start=3957&end=8666","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175406-c69ff0c10fd0134566c7ec3ed831b5c3/thumbnail_3957000.jpg","/articles/6360048/North-Dakota/Votes-at-a-glance-Senate-Agriculture-committee-moves-two-bills-to-do-not-pass-and-leaves-others-pending","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6360048-4ff5b76f5de8b7e79e6163b1d50dd040/orig.mp4?Expires=1771084259&Signature=KLa24Hb4ZFd9u4WxseyiC4yw2PDWfM-jseH7sH4SOkrrZQtedjXcnY9813ESaWxlBpM~z3z9cqEYJMyRIVAlIEER5jiAe46l0Oz9BUsz6P2yo-hYw7413LxP37bhYlOsUJBVKeHZGJOOiAK~JFRaXf1PNDWDXhJ8vp4YB4u0WbqOfJTJjYJc0VPITGOh-TDJTJJLCz8CufYrtKPYC1m-I2cgTg68UsPUiVH1or0Ov9--fEVdI~qNtafVqlsvr9G0Y1dJFc-GiiTjs76IlZsEoX8n~Tx9gQzPzjR5yvEEk5nSmY32IlYIkMWMJdxcINk2QAOe~VoyyYI4V0MLiqAlJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee — quick vote summary from this session:

Senate Bill 2202 (first hearing; committee motion \"do not pass\")
- Motion: Do not pass (motion placed on the floor during committee discussion)
- Mover: Senator Meerdahl (as recorded during committee) — second: Senator Lam
- Vote (roll call as recorded): Senator Marsolais — Yes; Senator Weston — Yes; Senator Weber — Yes; Chairman Lewick — Yes; Vice Chair Meerdahl — Aye; Senator Lam — Aye
- Outcome: Do not pass (motion carried)
- Notes: Committee discussion preceding the vote included objections that the proposed change ‘‘looks like another solution looking for a problem’’ and that the current selection process was functioning.

Senate Bill 2174 (zoning authority over animal feeding operations)
- Motion: Do not pass (motion moved by Senator Lam; seconded by Senator Westin)
- Vote (roll call as recorded): Senator Marsolais — Yes; Senator Westin — Yes; Senator Weber — Yes; Chairman Lewick — Yes; Vice Chair Meerdahl — Aye; Senator Lam — Aye
- Outcome: Do not pass (motion carried)
- Notes: Committee members cited recent work on setbacks and odor modeling tools and urged caution before further legislative change; committee left the item as \"do not pass\" for this hearing.

Other bills heard — no committee vote recorded in this session
- SB 2283 (subsurface water management notice/mediation for under‑80‑acre projects): extensive testimony for and against; committee left matter open for further work and possible amendments.
- SB 2267 (on‑site wastewater treatment systems oversight): lengthy testimony from installers, public health units and the plumbing board; committee requested additional fiscal and implementation details before action.

Provenance: roll‑call excerpts and motions are recorded in committee transcript and used to verify the outcomes above.

","During the hearing the committee recorded ‘do not pass’ motions for Senate Bill 2202 and Senate Bill 2174. Both motions were carried by roll call. Other bills (including SB2283 and SB2267) received extended testimony but no final committee votes during the hearing.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6360058,"Lawmakers hear competing views on bill to require downstream notice, mediation for small drainage projects",2783,6827000,9610000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175406-c69ff0c10fd0134566c7ec3ed831b5c3&start=6827&end=9610","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175406-c69ff0c10fd0134566c7ec3ed831b5c3/thumbnail_6827000.jpg","/articles/6360058/North-Dakota/Lawmakers-hear-competing-views-on-bill-to-require-downstream-notice-mediation-for-small-drainage-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6360058-f1d7afdc4150e22849c3dacf49458c71/orig.mp4?Expires=1771084259&Signature=GNv88Wxb9LbYbw6uFt1ShxyP9GykG8ADHx~w85fjUo~SvT~UgB-YKThyPp8mEkU~ugnfaYz7mb7Dr~i9pgNeDHklAoU~~WDnjeKVUiql19MM5t923NW3pQics5E1wXG-7cmJOOh5MrsP6TRuCPVnRZmWB4QT1QmJFRk1d847udgyoGmAVoqDJjl8-uZBLC0lGgNcHUq4-UA64se7ZuceJobBeLA58IKaED6Yc7uBMxZAyLfpBltQJWJludRBehZsznvBB7~EELTGBFQ3b2WfM9EVw4bYHqg3DRgBw4a0SbYw~AwiK8mQRKUdZcPxlD9nEF4eqAk1alRAt~oeMwjLyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee heard extended testimony on Senate Bill 2283, a proposal to require owners of subsurface water‑management projects on parcels smaller than 80 acres to notify downstream landowners and engage in a mediation process if objections are raised.

The bill would add a downstream‑notification step and a mediation window to the existing water‑board notice for under‑80‑acre projects. Proponents said the change would give downstream landowners a chance to resolve disputes before costly litigation; opponents said it duplicates existing remedies, imposes delays and could be used tactically to block projects.

What the bill would do (sponsor/advocate summary)

Sam Wagner of Dakota Resource Council explained the sponsors’ approach: landowners would still notify the local water board, but would also send letters to downstream owners and allow a 30‑day comment window; if objections remained, the parties would attempt mitigation through a mediation meeting before a permit application was required. Wagner said the process gives downstream owners “a chance to settle a dispute or receive compensation before lengthy court battles are needed.”

Supporters’ testimony

- Rural residents and farmers said unannounced nearby tile projects have caused crop loss, wet pastures and long‑term changes in drainage patterns. Roy Gable, Randy Kuhn and Madeline Luke described personal losses of hay or pasture productivity after neighbors installed tile and pumps that routed water onto their land.

- Dakota Resource Council and other proponents urged a 30‑day notification window (the companion House bill uses 60 days). Proponents suggested mediation language would substantially reduce suit filings.

Opposition and technical concerns

- Opponents (including the North Dakota Grain Growers Association and the North Dakota Water Resource Districts Association) said the bill imposes burdensome regulation on landowners and risks frivolous complaints intended to stall projects. Steve Hansen, Dan Wogsland (NDGGA) and Jack Dwyer (NDWRDA) argued existing water‑board complaint processes remain available and that cost and delay are real harms.

- Levi Otis of Ellingson Drainage (contractor) told the committee the 80‑acre threshold, as written in statute, typically produces limited flows (he cited an engineering figure of 560 gallons per minute as an upper bound in one calculation). He and other contractors said routine communication among neighbors and water boards is a preferable remedy to additional statewide mandates.

Administrative clarification

Aaron Curranz of the Department of Water Resources told the committee that, due to statutory changes, certain administrative remedies around subsurface systems were altered: he said the administrative complaint remedy for determining whether a permit was required “is no longer available to drain tile systems” under the law as it now reads, a point some proponents raised as justification for new notice language.

Committee outcome and context

Committee members said the subject is complex and noted earlier legislation on drainage and recent court cases. No final committee vote on SB 2283 was recorded during the hearing; Chairman Lewick closed testimony and moved to the next item. Several members said the topic would return in future discussions to refine technical parts of any statutory change (notice timing, mediation language, watershed exceptions).

Ending

Proponents urged combining SB 2283 with similar House language (House Bill 1544) to refine notification windows and add mediation; opponents urged caution and reliance on existing water‑board complaint processes. The committee left the matter open for possible amendment and further study.

","Senate Agriculture committee heard hours of testimony for and against Senate Bill 2283, which would require downstream notice and an optional mediation step for subsurface drainage projects under 80 acres; proponents said notice and mediation would prevent lawsuits, opponents said it would add delay and cost.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers debate shifting septic permitting from local health units to plumbing board; installers warn of lost capacity

NDSU research, extension staff brief House and Senate agriculture panels on ag tech, field work and local programs

Votes at a glance: Senate Agriculture committee moves two bills to ‘do not pass’ and leaves others pending

Lawmakers hear competing views on bill to require downstream notice, mediation for small drainage projects