WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 2174

AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 11-33-02.1 and 58-03-11.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the regulation of odors in an animal feeding operation and zoning authority over animal feeding operations in counties and townships; and to provide an effective date.

69th Legislative Assembly (2025-26)

SB 2174 limits local zoning on animal feeding operations, sets statewide odor-based setbacks using an odor tool, and preempts restrictive rules to protect farming.

Filed with Secretary Of State 04/03
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 2174

Summary — SB 2174 (North Dakota, 2025)

Status: Filed (Introduced March 10, 2025; filed with Secretary of State April 3, 2025). Companion: HB 4233.

Purpose

SB 2174 revises state law governing animal feeding operations (AFOs) to (1) limit and standardize county and township zoning authority over AFOs, and (2) set statewide boundaries for odor-based setbacks and related requirements. The bill seeks to protect farming and ranching uses from local regulations that would effectively prohibit or substantially restrict AFO development while providing a state‑level methodology (including an odor tool) for siting decisions.

Key provisions and changes

  • Definitions: Clarifies “animal feeding operation,” “farming or ranching,” “livestock,” and “location” (setback distance to nearest occupied residence, non-farm buildings, or land zoned residential/recreational/commercial). AFO defined as confinement of animals (excl. aquatic) for ≥45 days/year and lacking sustained vegetation.

  • County zoning limits:

    • Boards of county commissioners may not prohibit normal farming/ranching incidents, preclude AFO development, or prohibit reasonable diversification/expansion of operations.
    • Counties may adopt different location/setback standards based on AFO size, species and type.
    • Any county regulation that would impose a substantial economic burden on an AFO in existence before the regulation’s effective date must be declared ineffective as to those preexisting operations.
    • Counties may create high‑density agricultural production districts (smaller setbacks) and low‑density agricultural production districts (larger setbacks) around areas zoned residential/recreational/nonagricultural commercial — low‑density districts may not extend more than 1.5 miles from the edge of such zoned areas.

  • State-set setback ceiling and odor tool:

    • Counties may not adopt setbacks for AFOs that exceed the setback distances in subsection 7 of NDCC §23.1‑06‑15, except they may adjust setbacks using results from an “odor footprint” tool developed by the Agriculture Commissioner.
    • Counties may not use an “odor annoyance free” percentage greater than 94% when applying the odor tool.

  • Pre‑approval and procedural timelines:

    • A person proposing an AFO may petition the county for a zoning determination; the petition must include a site map and project details.
    • If the county does not validly object within 60 days, the proposed AFO is deemed in compliance with county zoning. Counties must make determinations on conditional use applications within 60 days of a complete submittal.
    • If a county determines compliance or fails to object, the county may not later impose additional zoning restrictions on the project provided the applicant promptly seeks and obtains final state permits and begins construction within three years after final state permit issuance (and appeals are exhausted). The procedural timeline stays in effect during appeals.

  • Fee and regulatory limits:

    • Counties are restricted from imposing certain regulatory requirements on AFOs (language in the bill limits county imposition of water‑quality, closure, site security, lagoon, or nutrient plan requirements and caps aggregate fees for permits/petitions at $500 — source text is partially truncated in places).

  • Townships: The bill also amends NDCC §58‑03‑11.1 to align township zoning authority over AFOs with the county provisions (text in document indicates restructuring of township powers consistent with the county limits).

Who is affected

  • AFO operators and agricultural producers (gains: clearer preemption and protective timelines; ability to use odor tool to adjust setbacks).
  • County and township governments (loss of some zoning powers and new procedural constraints).
  • Nearby residents/communities (affects siting, setbacks, and odor‑related protections).
  • State agencies: Department of Environmental Quality (permit timing interplay) and Agriculture Commissioner (development/authority over odor footprint tool).

Procedural / effective date

  • Introduced March 10, 2025; filed with Secretary of State April 3, 2025. The enrollment text indicates the bill “provides an effective date,” but the specific effective date language was not included in the supplied excerpts.

Note: The provided legislative text excerpts are extensive but partially truncated in places (particularly the later enumerated limits on county powers). This summary highlights the main, explicit changes visible in the text.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.