County Freedom Index

Comparison

Clearwater County vs Marshall County

Side-by-side discovery metrics for alternative housing research.

Comparison boundary

Compare Counties, Then Verify Parcels

Side-by-side scores can narrow your search, but parcel feasibility still depends on zoning, access, water, septic, covenants, permits, and current county review.

Read disclaimer
Freedom Score8282
Population8,6308,771
Density8.6 / sq mi4.9 / sq mi
Tiny Homes4/54/5
RV Living4/54/5
Off Grid5/55/5
Solar Potential2/102/10
Broadband7/108/10
Public Land78,071 acres253,772 acres
Recreation Access3/54/5

Source confidence

Comparison Confidence Strip

Fast trust signals for this county pair: citation depth, land snapshot date, and whether both profiles include the major sourced layers used in comparisons.

full coverage
Northern Minnesota and Lake Country

Clearwater County

Partially sourced
Citations
23
Land snapshot
Jun 12, 2026
Source coverage
5/5

Major comparison layers are present for county-level discovery.

Northern Minnesota and Lake Country

Marshall County

Partially sourced
Citations
23
Land snapshot
Jun 12, 2026
Source coverage
5/5

Major comparison layers are present for county-level discovery.

SourcesSource glossaryDisclaimer

Quick answers

Which County Looks Better?

Overall

Clearwater County and Marshall County are close on Freedom Score

Clearwater County and Marshall County are close overall, so the better choice depends on the specific parcel, use case, and local code path.

Tiny homes

Clearwater County and Marshall County are close on tiny home signal

Both counties have similar tiny home discovery scores. Compare zoning district, dwelling classification, utilities, and building-code requirements before choosing.

RV living

Clearwater County and Marshall County are close on RV living signal

RV living looks similar at the county level. The deciding factor will usually be duration limits, sanitation, water, septic, campground rules, and parcel zoning.

Off-grid living

Clearwater County and Marshall County are close on off-grid signal

Both counties are close for off-grid research. Solar, access, winter conditions, water rights, well feasibility, and septic will likely decide the better parcel.

Land cost

Marshall County has the stronger land affordability score

Marshall County has the lower county-level price-per-acre snapshot at $1,503. Treat this as a market signal, not a parcel appraisal.

source-discovery

Partially sourced

Clearwater County

Open profile

Best For

  • Northern Minnesota and Lake Country screening
  • county, township, and city zoning research
  • northern Minnesota rural access, winter maintenance, and snow-load research
  • buyers comparing Minnesota counties before narrowing to a local jurisdiction and parcel

Pros

  • Minnesota statewide county-planning, municipal-planning, building-code, septic, well, shoreland, wetlands, floodplain, and public-waters sources support a consistent first-pass review
  • northern, west-central, and prairie counties may offer stronger rural-land screening signals than the Twin Cities metro and dense lakefront markets
  • this record can be compared against climate, solar, broadband, public-land, tax, and land-market layers already collected
  • Minnesota source route now separates county planning/zoning authority from MPCA septic, DLI building-code, county planning, or local SSTS follow-up.

Cons

  • this is a source-discovery pass, not a county, township, city, septic, DNR, BWSR, MDH, or building-code confirmation
  • county-level screening is limited because local zoning, shoreland rules, septic, wells, wetlands, floodplain, access, private restrictions, and parcel conditions often control the final answer
  • lake-country shoreland rules, wetlands, winter maintenance, snow load, private roads, lake associations, and local ordinances can materially change rural land feasibility

Red Flags

  • do not treat this Minnesota source pass as parcel approval
  • verify county and local zoning, building permits, septic, well or public-water availability, DNR public-waters permits, wetlands, shoreland zoning, floodplain zoning, legal access, covenants, easements, lake-association rules, and subdivision restrictions before buying land

RV Living

Long-term RV occupancy should be confirmed with the county or local jurisdiction because zoning, sanitation, camping, nuisance, floodplain, utility, and subdivision rules can differ by parcel.

Off Grid

Off-grid feasibility should be checked against Minnesota SSTS rules, well or water access, road access, floodplain exposure, fire response, electric service choices, and any county, township, or municipal permitting rules.

Water and Septic

Water availability in Clearwater County is parcel-specific. Buyers should verify public-water service, private-well feasibility, water quality testing, well-construction rules, lake or river setbacks, wetlands, floodplain, and shoreland zoning constraints.

Septic feasibility in Clearwater County requires parcel-level review through county or local septic officials, including soils, setbacks, replacement area, water-source separation, shoreland setbacks, wetlands, floodplain, slope, and seasonal high-water constraints.

census.govcensus.govrevisor.mn.govrevisor.mn.govdli.mn.govpca.state.mn.ushealth.state.mn.usdnr.state.mn.usbwsr.state.mn.usdnr.state.mn.usdnr.state.mn.uslandwatch.compropertytaxexplorer.comservices.arcgis.comdata.rcc-acis.orgdata.rcc-acis.orgapi.censusreporter.orgpower.larc.nasa.govrevisor.mn.govpca.state.mn.uspca.state.mn.usdli.mn.govworkplace.doli.state.mn.us

source-discovery

Partially sourced

Marshall County

Open profile

Best For

  • Northern Minnesota and Lake Country screening
  • county, township, and city zoning research
  • buyers comparing Minnesota counties before narrowing to a local jurisdiction and parcel

Pros

  • Minnesota statewide county-planning, municipal-planning, building-code, septic, well, shoreland, wetlands, floodplain, and public-waters sources support a consistent first-pass review
  • northern, west-central, and prairie counties may offer stronger rural-land screening signals than the Twin Cities metro and dense lakefront markets
  • this record can be compared against climate, solar, broadband, public-land, tax, and land-market layers already collected
  • Minnesota source route now separates county planning/zoning authority from MPCA septic, DLI building-code, county planning, or local SSTS follow-up.

Cons

  • this is a source-discovery pass, not a county, township, city, septic, DNR, BWSR, MDH, or building-code confirmation
  • county-level screening is limited because local zoning, shoreland rules, septic, wells, wetlands, floodplain, access, private restrictions, and parcel conditions often control the final answer
  • lake-country shoreland rules, wetlands, winter maintenance, snow load, private roads, lake associations, and local ordinances can materially change rural land feasibility

Red Flags

  • do not treat this Minnesota source pass as parcel approval
  • verify county and local zoning, building permits, septic, well or public-water availability, DNR public-waters permits, wetlands, shoreland zoning, floodplain zoning, legal access, covenants, easements, lake-association rules, and subdivision restrictions before buying land

RV Living

Long-term RV occupancy should be confirmed with the county or local jurisdiction because zoning, sanitation, camping, nuisance, floodplain, utility, and subdivision rules can differ by parcel.

Off Grid

Off-grid feasibility should be checked against Minnesota SSTS rules, well or water access, road access, floodplain exposure, fire response, electric service choices, and any county, township, or municipal permitting rules.

Water and Septic

Water availability in Marshall County is parcel-specific. Buyers should verify public-water service, private-well feasibility, water quality testing, well-construction rules, lake or river setbacks, wetlands, floodplain, and shoreland zoning constraints.

Septic feasibility in Marshall County requires parcel-level review through county or local septic officials, including soils, setbacks, replacement area, water-source separation, shoreland setbacks, wetlands, floodplain, slope, and seasonal high-water constraints.

census.govcensus.govrevisor.mn.govrevisor.mn.govdli.mn.govpca.state.mn.ushealth.state.mn.usdnr.state.mn.usbwsr.state.mn.usdnr.state.mn.usdnr.state.mn.uslandwatch.compropertytaxexplorer.comservices.arcgis.comdata.rcc-acis.orgdata.rcc-acis.orgapi.censusreporter.orgpower.larc.nasa.govrevisor.mn.govpca.state.mn.uspca.state.mn.usdli.mn.govworkplace.doli.state.mn.us

Source context

Comparison Source Trail

This comparison uses verified county profile research plus sourced land, population, broadband, solar, public land, and scoring layers. Treat it as a county-level shortlist before parcel-level review.

Source glossary

Infrastructure and Access

Clearwater County broadbandCensus Reporter ACS 2024 5-year table B28002 snapshot from 2024Clearwater County solarNASA POWER 2001-2020 solar irradiance climatology for 2001-2020Clearwater County public landUSGS PAD-US Manager Type GIS layer snapshot from 2026Marshall County broadbandCensus Reporter ACS 2024 5-year table B28002 snapshot from 2024Marshall County solarNASA POWER 2001-2020 solar irradiance climatology for 2001-2020Marshall County public landUSGS PAD-US Manager Type GIS layer snapshot from 2026
Freedom Score methodologySource notesResearch disclaimer

Compare next

Related County Comparisons

Highest Freedom Score countiesFreedom Score methodology