[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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",6119146,"mediaKeyId","2714046-2b6573d3a986082fa2769aa5779400df","parentId",2714046,"title","Department of Water Resources, DOT and utilities oppose bill requiring wetland high‑water determinations; farm groups support talks","audioSeconds",1820,"startMs",8071000,"endMs",9891000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2714046-2b6573d3a986082fa2769aa5779400df&start=8071&end=9891","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2714046-2b6573d3a986082fa2769aa5779400df/thumbnail_8071000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6119146/North-Dakota/Department-of-Water-Resources-DOT-and-utilities-oppose-bill-requiring-wetland-highwater-determinations-farm-groups-support-talks","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119146-e32233886e9d916fcb849bbbdf920df1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770827704&Signature=KczfkENiS0zCZ9g6vzRJ0JhcWrpZSeL5LnzdHzTOqnmTLK29WpUS1hdZ26SL9arjXLpsivwZvNQMg3I7VRuyqf1NonxVc7LmFaFnU5k7CN88FV729onVRfC1gfNrnqQk5hTHEJDyPLuIUeU6BSVZZpkTwOCF-dL15nsP7ezthOKAY3jBDKTf95Lbk-b6jODgvl8u8G0Xohh8WNsMq~-GNwXZJo6fleXdQ~TjTpEzV1b7CVfrYPWeZgN8rHEY~xFb9BEMXyKHHflx8MW3-6vlJJJkuOZwf0ge5HpJdi-y6aZUQN-iqBSZGc0zQrbQt4KdpCNwCkUlXW1hMzfTga5VnA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-03-20T00:00:00Z","article","Senator Larry Lueck introduced Senate Bill 23‑25, a proposal to require easement holders for non‑federal wetland areas to obtain determinations of each wetland’s ordinary high‑water mark and to manage water levels to that elevation. Sponsor remarks framed the bill as a tool to address persistent damage from standing water at roads, culverts and private property and to provide greater clarity for local infrastructure decisions.

Supporters from agricultural groups said the bill would create uniformity in wetland management and help resolve local disputes. Rachel Gross of the North Dakota Farm Bureau said modern aerial mapping and other tools could help establish high‑water marks and that the bureau was open to working through language and implementation concerns.

State agencies and other stakeholders opposed the bill as written. Aaron Carranza, director of the Department of Water Resources, said the department lacks staff, scientific expertise and statutory authority to make ordinary high‑water determinations for wetlands, warned the change would be an unfunded regulatory expansion and urged a fiscal note. He also said retroactive application to previously granted easements is ambiguous and legally risky and that directing easement holders to manage surface water when they do not control an outlet could produce complex downstream impacts.

The Department of Transportation told the committee the proposed retroactive determinations would complicate DOT mitigation banking and wetlands restoration work because ordinary high‑water mark methodology does not translate directly to the maximum pool or design elevations used in mitigation banks. The DOT also warned retroactive liability and the administrative burden could deter landowners from participating in mitigation easements.

Opposition also included utilities and electric cooperatives, which argued the language could create unintended liabilities and interfere with long‑established mitigation programs. North Dakota Farmers Union and North Dakota Agricultural Mitigation (NDAM) representatives said wetland mitigation banking already addresses many of the water‑management concerns and urged technical alignment rather than a statutory mandate.

Why it matters: SB 23‑25 would change who must determine and manage wetland elevations and could assign new liabilities and costs; state agencies said the bill, as drafted, would impose significant, unfunded administrative burdens and legal uncertainty that deserve further study.

Committee action: The Department of Water Resources recommended against passage as written and suggested the issue be worked through with stakeholders; no committee vote is recorded in the transcript.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Energy and Natural Resources Thursday, Mar 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 23‑25 would require easement holders to secure ordinary high‑water determinations for non‑federal wetlands; farm groups supported the concept but state agencies, DOT and utilities warned the bill would create unfunded work and legal ambiguity.","taxTitle","Energy and Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28890,"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},6119149,"PSC urges removal of outdated renewable objective cited in RTO cost allocations",878,7129000,8007000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2714046-2b6573d3a986082fa2769aa5779400df&start=7129&end=8007","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2714046-2b6573d3a986082fa2769aa5779400df/thumbnail_7129000.jpg","/articles/6119149/North-Dakota/PSC-urges-removal-of-outdated-renewable-objective-cited-in-RTO-cost-allocations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119149-cff21c1fe7d61dc29ee1facbc14087fb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770827704&Signature=PORdbXg~~Ie9JuaUbN8FlTC6qIO8Fa77GlZqI-Tjt~tS3f4NUeJmKvSa6myDVfEKrks9C31VrHdxOFJS3homEqO-C47DwS24YorVRlza2Uk4DnGTHopRwEPKQLftD7B~pxxG3SqrVuDBoesWHzdWAs~vOF4Se69ukN7QL2xfoTdstkO-vzJaorowEvBBvyL2PsfbIpny4EzZ0CKNDDuciKYSRV6QQU~jkxkzx7Y7byoKOkBPmziAEPCtXV0PP6JPSjkq4M5SBXAMIo2C9nVGFrN5ue-wowUcIv-hakdy3h8k2zxDB-rb~uifPE0aBy9k-bF~vXK4fRAyytMmGClBnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Dale Patton introduced Senate Bill 23‑59, described as cleanup language repealing a statutory renewable energy objective that North Dakota set in 2007 and exceeded years ago. Commissioner Randy Christman of the Public Service Commission (PSC) testified in support of the bill, telling the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the objective has been used in tariff proceedings and court cases to justify shifting high‑voltage transmission costs to North Dakota ratepayers.

Christman said regional transmission organizations (RTOs) such as MISO and SPP are planning unprecedented transmission buildouts—each tranche of projects can add billions in costs—and North Dakota customers are being allocated portions of those costs. He said removing the outdated state objective from the Century Code would give the PSC stronger footing in arguing against cost allocations that primarily benefit other states’ renewable mandates or corporate decarbonization goals.

“North Dakota values reliable, affordable, and on‑demand energy for our customers,” Christman told the committee, and he urged passage of SB 23‑59 to prevent North Dakota ratepayers from bearing the costs of projects driven primarily by other jurisdictions’ policies. Todd Cranda, representing Missouri River Energy Services, said his group worked with sponsors and the PSC and did not view SB 23‑59 as conflicting with other legislation passed this session.

Why it matters: The item concerns how multi‑state transmission project costs are allocated by RTOs and whether state statutory language is used in arguments to socialize those costs. PSC testimony framed the repeal as a defensive measure to protect local ratepayers from paying for transmission that primarily serves other states’ policy goals.

Committee action: The hearing was held; the transcript does not show a committee vote during the recorded session.","The Public Service Commission told the committee that removing a long-exceeded renewable energy objective from state law (SB 23‑59) would strengthen North Dakota's position in opposing regional transmission cost allocations driven by other states' clean‑energy mandates.",{"_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},6119154,"Lawmakers hear utility-backed wildfire mitigation plan bill and insurer objections to liability limits",360,2146000,2506000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2714046-2b6573d3a986082fa2769aa5779400df&start=2146&end=2506","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2714046-2b6573d3a986082fa2769aa5779400df/thumbnail_2146000.jpg","/articles/6119154/North-Dakota/Lawmakers-hear-utility-backed-wildfire-mitigation-plan-bill-and-insurer-objections-to-liability-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119154-401ed0964cc50825df58c62d4aa092fa/orig.mp4?Expires=1770827704&Signature=bcne1EY2PcCJNfjqhDI90siiTT3vVXgeomLgrmQfS4i~a9IPjmxrQffaax18OJrGkxQ11SIVp0kVybyTrD9JOhnf0-cSXYUF5ejpuYjIxSyqH06~828XZaCaXlETsiWQP7-~R2lY2zzbyVlZPe89RTRrtOuh7yooTpp8ENzNgggKQTXlJTfpo~KqBTObNeJkUIFWaOwvPcmAPobAPrJiHbaiIM0QPXIvLLECnYcNl7soDSCXKFvcVvIBBWdjmSalsgxWPSyi1CJaQJ2E3g4m56riIdwfezoVSFngIoaYY6q8W-XFb5NSGKcYwbWS0oFFcry~CmI7C0dVbHEL1Z5Psg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Greg Kessel introduced Senate Bill 23‑39 to the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee as part of a two‑bill wildfire package. The measure would (1) limit strict liability in wildfire‑related civil litigation involving qualified utilities so plaintiffs must prove negligence and (2) allow utilities to prepare voluntary wildfire mitigation plans (WMPs) that, if followed, would constitute prima facie evidence that the utility exercised a reasonable standard of care.

“Senate Bill 23‑39 focuses on two key areas,” Kessel said: limiting strict liability and creating service‑level mitigation planning. He framed the bill as a preventive approach that would keep utilities solvent and able to invest in fire‑risk reduction, citing high‑profile bankruptcies in other states as a cautionary example.

Utility witnesses described current and planned mitigation measures. Riaz Mohammed of Xcel Energy summarized the company’s voluntary wildfire mitigation and public safety power‑shutoff planning, including situational awareness tools, system hardening and customer outreach. Darrell Anderson of Montana‑Dakota Utilities (MDU) outlined MDU’s operational steps: distribution SCADA deployment, a distribution operations center, pole‑testing programs and a wildfire risk model to prioritize maintenance and capital work.

Investor‑owned utilities, generation and distribution cooperatives, and trade groups uniformly urged committee support. They said WMPs would formalize practices that many utilities already pursue and provide regulatory certainty needed to secure financing and insurance.

Opposition testimony came from insurance industry representatives. Philip Arndzen of NAMIC and John Ward for State Farm said the bill would shift financial responsibility to insured customers and private citizens by making it harder to recover damages from utilities. Arndzen offered an amendment to require utilities to file WMPs (change “may” to “shall”), require annual approval and align plan standards with the National Electric Safety Code; he also recommended replacing “prima facie” language with a “rebuttable presumption.” State Farm’s attorney urged adopting NAMIC’s amendment, saying it would better balance public and private interests.

Dennis Pathroff, representing the power companies, described the bill as codifying existing North Dakota case law that strict liability does not apply to electrical infrastructure; he said the statutory change would provide certainty for creditors, insurers and rating agencies. Several lawmakers pressed witnesses on precise legal effects and whether the bill would change utilities’ behavior if the strict liability language were removed; witnesses said many utilities are proceeding with mitigation regardless of the bill but sought statutory assurance.

Why it matters: The bill addresses legal liability and operational practices related to wildfire risk from utility infrastructure. Insurers and consumer advocates warned that the proposed liability shift could make it harder for injured parties to recover and could raise insurance costs, while utilities said the change is necessary to avoid insolvency risks seen in other states.

Committee action: The committee received multiple supporting and opposing testimonies; the transcript records that the chair assigned a subcommittee to consider proposed amendments.","Senate Bill 23‑39 would encourage utilities to adopt wildfire mitigation plans and codify limits on strict liability for utilities; utilities testified in support and insurers and consumer advocates raised concerns about shifting costs and legal standards.",{"_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},6119159,"Committee hears proposal for statewide study to bolster fire service after October wildfires",1338,378000,1716000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2714046-2b6573d3a986082fa2769aa5779400df&start=378&end=1716","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2714046-2b6573d3a986082fa2769aa5779400df/thumbnail_378000.jpg","/articles/6119159/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-proposal-for-statewide-study-to-bolster-fire-service-after-October-wildfires","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119159-89fad2c203ff7633af528fc9d3a0adf1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770827704&Signature=kmgQ1L7RXhzPHqVi3xM1oG5AXAD6k2QwHpCsV-YAVTVGp67bIpPCNbmqa9YvwW9ZRvBEHII3bTonyEnnWCoHCalKMglvocg5K9i95cSjwyY27Hfl~Zm63OpzuZlo2CIf4lIhn7AEcRXDKy0tUgp1gI2Mn8dFXIKdW1uRPa79AFbGZfX2877Rwf9eVMYeLIP64Eq2i0ieYzRjZnITM8HiiI05Kmrp-~sFsi1AFjAVu335EDw21xKmV2O~YxCBpKoD5iILQ-YiVfa8fEgLdn6k~7bAMlG4m-Y8rLG4zGVDau-~qW0b3Y6U4HMIQEy4NZBHfielqcMyhIejxC3nEsN~jg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Greg Kessel, sponsor of Senate Bill 23‑40, told the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee the October wildfires “highlighted critical shortcomings in our state's emergency response capabilities.” He asked the committee to authorize a legislative management study to identify gaps in training, equipment, command structure and resource replenishment.

The bill would fund a study to assess current fire-response capabilities, identify resource shortfalls and produce recommendations to strengthen local and statewide response. “This study will assess current capabilities and identify gaps,” Kessel said, adding it would “develop a roadmap for enhancing state fire service preparedness and response capabilities.”

State Fire Marshal Doug Nelson said he supports the study and described on-the-ground strain observed during the October incidents. “When the state declares a long-lasting, multi-jurisdiction emergency and we are taxing our volunteer firefighter system, is there more that we can do?” Nelson asked rhetorically, then urged the committee to back a coordinated approach. He told lawmakers his office and local agencies can contribute expertise but lack capacity to address every emergent shortfall without a broader, funded planning effort.

Williston assistant fire chief Corey Johnson described working mutual‑aid responses during the Ray/Tioga fires and said the bill would help standardize staffing, training and regional planning. He said Williston and Williams County have improved local after‑action review processes but that statewide mechanisms would be needed to coordinate resources when multiple counties are taxed simultaneously.

Committee members asked practical questions about air resources, mutual aid and the role of the National Guard. Nelson and Johnson said National Guard aircraft and out‑of‑state “super scooper” airtankers were used in some incidents, but aircraft availability is constrained by weather and seasonality; both witnesses stressed the primacy of ground coordination and replenishment of volunteer crews.

Dennis Pathroff, representing investor‑owned utilities, said power companies support the study and offered to help coordinate infrastructure protection and utility input. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing; the bill’s formal next step was not decided during the session recorded in the transcript.

Why it matters: Lawmakers and first responders described a pattern of fast‑moving, recurrent wildfire incidents that stretched volunteer and local professional fire resources. Supporters said a focused legislative study could produce actionable recommendations to improve statewide coordination and reduce reliance on out‑of‑state federal assets.

Committee action: The hearing on SB 23‑40 was opened and closed; the transcript does not record a committee vote or formal referral.","Lawmakers and fire officials urged the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee to approve a legislative management study to evaluate and strengthen North Dakota’s fire service preparedness, training and interagency coordination following large wildfires last fall.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6119141,"Bill would require joint project boards for cross‑county water projects; water districts and farm groups back mandate",1382,9718000,11100000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2714046-2b6573d3a986082fa2769aa5779400df&start=9718&end=11100","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2714046-2b6573d3a986082fa2769aa5779400df/thumbnail_9718000.jpg","/articles/6119141/North-Dakota/Bill-would-require-joint-project-boards-for-crosscounty-water-projects-water-districts-and-farm-groups-back-mandate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119141-968db48f23b6ea0d420971cc7b0d4945/orig.mp4?Expires=1770827704&Signature=kMQnv-hQw1yKk0zYMROdfBWJlzsaSSI7ca-H~hOYyjpU08yLT3GPdunnaOfnl85mnViKB3c7YjagOp-MelTRmTwn5YLCqyyR~ibALfJZp9WXdLSuwkb1KRqi-8DUPz-FCdzIK6WuGEezskjwS8W-HaQiv34kBvFslzi1ysp7YbSeYHGSTBPtMaJmhlpgD2tw1OL8yfXKi3PgsAJdOPW62F70vUr-FTv-wdfyN8PTkHDH5R~ubNCwBEr9HBsEm5OCEo4joSpIty99umxxA3HedTKwn96uNTaj7sylFmA3gtNB4cyDvzpEAkXtBnzcd3xFCpSw8RPs9INJNFlPuPHi8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Larry Lueck told the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee that Senate Bill 22‑76 aims to reduce inter‑county conflict over drainage and water projects by requiring counties to form joint project boards for projects that affect more than one county. He argued the mandate would reduce litigation and stalled projects that currently leave infrastructure in poor condition.

Danny Quistel, representing the North Dakota Water Resource Districts Association, described an amendment negotiated with the sponsor that narrows the bill to specific cross‑county situations and adds enforcement language. Quistel said the revised text clarifies the project board process, outlines benefit assessment procedures, provides landowner appeal rights, and gives courts discretion to order enforcement when a county refuses to process assessments associated with a board’s approved project.

Supporters including the North Dakota Farm Bureau, North Dakota Farmers Union and North Dakota Soybean Growers testified in favor of the bill with the proposed amendment. They said required participation would force counties to come together to negotiate benefits and assessments, avoiding stalemate.

Committee members questioned operational details: how often the joint boards would meet (left to local control), whether a county could opt out if it claimed lack of benefit, and whether county auditors had been consulted about the proposal to require them to process assessments originating from a project board. Witnesses acknowledged those operational questions and recommended further local coordination and follow‑up with county officials.

Why it matters: The measure addresses recurring disputes over drainage and water projects that cross county lines, attempting to create a statutory process to compel local coordination and provide enforcement options when counties refuse to participate.

Committee action: Supporters and water‑district representatives urged passage with the negotiated amendment; the transcript records committee discussion but no final vote.","Senate Bill 22‑76 would mandate formation of joint project boards when a water project affects more than one county; proponents said mandatory joint boards will reduce disputes and accelerate projects, while some members asked for clarity on auditor roles and enforcement mechanics.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Department of Water Resources, DOT and utilities oppose bill requiring wetland high‑water determinations; farm groups support talks

PSC urges removal of outdated renewable objective cited in RTO cost allocations

Lawmakers hear utility-backed wildfire mitigation plan bill and insurer objections to liability limits

Committee hears proposal for statewide study to bolster fire service after October wildfires

Bill would require joint project boards for cross‑county water projects; water districts and farm groups back mandate