Appropriations: department of natural resources; appropriations for fiscal year 2026-2027; provide for. Creates appropriation act.
Summary
HB 5613 is a fiscal year 2026-2027 appropriations bill for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The bill provides a gross appropriation of $100 from the state general fund/general purpose for the department, and authorizes the expenditure of those funds for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027.
The bill is a standard appropriations measure and does not create new regulatory programs, amend substantive natural resources law, or change DNR authority beyond funding. It also includes general appropriations language stating that the spending is subject to the Management and Budget Act and that total state spending from state sources under the bill is $100, with no payments to local units of government.
Impact
HB 5613 would make a minimal direct change to state law by establishing a one-year appropriation for the Department of Natural Resources and setting the legal framework for how that money may be spent. Its practical effect is limited to budget authorization; it does not appear to alter environmental, conservation, parks, wildlife, forestry, or land management statutes. The bill’s impact on affected parties is therefore primarily administrative, affecting the DNR’s available operating funds and the state budget process rather than private rights or regulatory obligations.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to indicate support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears routine and noncontroversial, as it is a narrow appropriations measure with a very small general fund amount and no substantive policy changes. The available context suggests a neutral procedural posture rather than a contested policy proposal.
Contention
There are no identified points of contention in the provided materials because no committee discussion or vote record is available. If any concerns were raised, they are not reflected in the supplied context. The bill’s limited scope and nominal appropriation also suggest little room for substantive disagreement beyond ordinary budgetary review.