# ND AG Opinion on use of section lines



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

This is a very well done opinion on Section lines

I am posting a link because it is 10 pages long. Very Informative!!

http://www.ag.nd.gov/documents/2009-L-01.pdf


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

After reading through this legal opinion a brief synopsis can be taken from this excerpt from page 3...

While this state law has been amended a few times
since 1899, its substance has remained unchanged. Presently it states: "ection lines
are considered public roads open for public travel to the width of thirty-three feet . . . on
each side of the section lines."20 On its face, this state statute provides the public with an
unconditioned 66-foot easement, and the statute has been so interpreted. There is "no
doubt that section lines are public roads;"21 "'they are roads which every citizen has a right
to use.'


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

What about those who farm them?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Most of the farmers I know who farm to the middle of the section line do it for weed control and to keep it smooth for driving. Sure they get a couple acres extra, but we do pay taxes to the middle of the section line so maybe it's OK if they farm what they bought and paid for. Right of Way doesn't mean ownership.


----------



## Riich (Nov 22, 2008)

I've seen section lines fenced off, and a gate that is padlocked.

Can I cut it?


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Actually, ROW means public ownership, and no landowner alive ever bought land not knowing that. You can say a section is so many acres, but in essense, it really isn't. It is the number of acres minus the public ROW.

Those extra couple of acres probably pay for the taxes on the whole section itself especially when you are talking 150+ buschel corn.

The laws differ from state to state, but are pretty clear, and farming the ROW is *against the law *in most states.

It is also a safety issue in many areas where no fences are, landowners continually encroach on roadways with their crops, making intersections more and more hazardous. I'm sure it won't be long before a landowner is sued for an accident, or the county get sued for not enforcing the ROW laws in some state.

And I am not talking every single section line, I'm talking the ones with roads or established prarie roads on them.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Actually, ROW means public ownership


I don't think so, it means you have the right of ingress and egress on the allotted footage.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

So can I still drive on the section lines in a farmer farms the roads?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

blhunter3 said:


> So can I still drive on the section lines in a farmer farms the roads?


Legally yes you can. In farming the section line the farmer takes on the responsibility of any damage to the crop. As to right of way it depends on the state and what type of right of way it is. It can be Fee right of way which is ownership, easement right of way as in the right to ingress and egress (to also build roads along) only, and Trust (entrusted with the use of the land) with no ownership or easement.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

buckseye said:


> > Actually, ROW means public ownership
> 
> 
> I don't think so, it means you have the right of ingress and egress on the allotted footage.


Probably depends on where you are at, but most of the roads here have been fee purchased and platted ROW. Not easements.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Probably depends on where you are at, but most of the roads here have been fee purchased and platted ROW. Not easements.


Yep more than likely. In ND we have State, County and Township roads. I believe most State and some county roads are fee ROW but the township roads and section lines are easement.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

In certain areas here, the counties have began mowing the crops off the ROW's and billing for reseeding also.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

The instance of those that farm them was addressed in the opinion statement.

Page 9
Landowners may
even plant crops within the 66-foot easement; the public may still travel over the section
line and destroy the crops, though it must restrict travel to only what is needed.

Also from Page 9

"Fences can be built on section lines, though they are
subject to removal if the public needs the full 66 feet"

Local governments may permit construction of a fence parallel to a
section line provided the fence does not "effectively deprive" the public of its ability to travel
the section line. Similarly, wells and water lines on a section line right-of-way are not
necessarily illegal; they require removal "only if and to the extent they effectively deprive
the pubic of the ability to travel on the section line."

This sums up the fence question as well. I would not want anyone to take a vigilante stance and rip down fences on section lines. But there is no reason you could not open a gate then close it and travel on that section line. Failure to close a gate while hunting is punishable by loss of license.


----------



## Riich (Nov 22, 2008)

swift said:


> But there is no reason you could not open a gate then close it and travel on that section line.


But what about the padlocked gate???


----------



## goose blaster (Jan 24, 2006)

North Dakota Century Code 24-07-03 : A landowner can petition the board of county commissioners to close a section line.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Goose they can and some have done so. But most times unless the section line is impassable all the time it does not happen often at least in the eastern part of the state.

I know of several who have attempted to do so that where rejected even though they owned the land on both sides and had wetlands limiting travel at times. The two I do know of dead ended into deep creeks. Even so they had a hard time getting approval without anyone objecting!


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

Hmm very interesting and imformative. My question is, how does this answer the trespassing issue? How would this go over in court if you opened a gate on posted land, drove along the fence? If I was the landowner, thatd set me off pretty good.

Also, in the proclamations handed out, it states that most landowners own to the middle of the road and the subsequent land is under the control of the landowner..... This is kind of contradicting isn't it?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

USSnapper it really is not confusing at all. Section lines can be farmed grazed, etc.. It states clearly that if planted the farmer assumes the risk for lost grain due to use. It also clearly states that anyone who does enter a section line under cultivation needs to minimize the foot print they leave.

Hence what it says is that even though you have 66ft to travel you cannot simply drive up and down in the standing crop intentionally knocking it down. You may make a trail through it and others who follow should use the same trail.

There is no issue of trespass on an open section line. Public travel has been granted both at the Fed and State levels on them. You may have a land owner get upset, but if he is breaking up a section line and getting mad because someone is on it, then most likely you are not offending anyone who is not already offended.

For a clarification on that read some of the referenced court cases the AG used. The one from Lamoure County a number of years back is a prime example. Farmer A plowed up the section line, Farmer B had access to his land from the other side but chose to drive through the planted crop and then made a number of passes through the crop while staying on the right of way. Court ruled that Farmer B was not trespassing,but was liable for the damage to the crop that he knocked down that where outside of the first trail he made.

So Framer A was able to plant the crop but also when doing so accepts losses that result in reasonable travel on the trail. Farmer B driving down more crop than he needed to travel it now was being malicious in his action and as a result was responsible for losses that it caused.

I dealt with a plowed and farmed section line this fall going into public hunting area by first contacting the sheriff about my intent and also the landowner. Situation is now resolved and my bet is that no crop will be planted there next fall. His intent the whole time was to keep people out of the public ground. Which I knew was the case!


----------



## Osprey (Jul 6, 2004)

What about section lines that aren't marked? I know of a few spots in an area I used to hunt where the ranches were big enough that there were no fences along the section lines. GPS coordinates enough to just take off in a straight line?


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Ron , you nailed it 100 % , perfect answer to the section line issue


----------



## KRAKMT (Oct 24, 2005)

Most section lines should still have the federal surveyed corner markers.
And as for cutting the padlock you should check to see if the section line was closed by the county and if notthen it could be a fun battle.
K


----------



## Uncle Omar (Jul 8, 2008)

Well, I wouldn't quite say "perfect" on Ron's summation, but I'd go along with "damn fine" ... (nobuddy is perfect ... except my grandkids!)

The other answering posts to earlier questions seem to have also adequately explained how it works in Nodak ... other states have their systems, but we're in Nodak, so we use our rules ...

BTW, _Rutten v. Wood_, NDSC, 1953 is probably the Landmark case in this area, as to definitive interpretations of section-line access and landowner rights.

And ... that paragraph in the proclamations that describes the landowner rights, and section-line stuff?

Depending upon your POV, I'll take the blame/credit for that one ...

A long time ago, I asked the right (wrong?) question at the right (wrong?) time, and someone in G&F actually listened, and they started putting that notice before the hunters and anglers ... merely ... owning up to what I've done ... not seeking praise, and hoping to avoid bodily harm ...


----------

