House Bill 1017 is the North Dakota Game and Fish Department appropriation bill for the 2025-27 biennium. It provides $114.9 million in other funds, an increase of about $10.1 million from base level, to cover salaries and wages, operating expenses, capital assets, grants, habitat and deer depredation work, aquatic nuisance species efforts, and other department programs. The bill also authorizes 170 full-time equivalent positions and includes several one-time funding items such as information technology projects, dam repairs, hatchery improvements, and wildlife habitat and access on private lands.
Beyond the core appropriation, the bill places limits and conditions on how certain funds may be used. It prohibits spending from the new and vacant FTE pool directly, instead allowing transfers to salary-related lines under procedures tied to House Bill 1015. It also specifies that up to $100,000 in grants, gifts, and donations may come from mineral exploration or extraction-related surface damage, easement, or reclamation payments. In addition, it authorizes up to $2.78 million for midterm conservation agreements with private landowners, caps those agreements at 30 years, and requires buyback options at specified intervals if landowners want to withdraw acreage.
The bill’s impact on state law is primarily fiscal and administrative: it appropriates special and federal funds to the Game and Fish Department and creates exceptions to normal line-item transfer rules. It also directs the Office of Management and Budget to allow up to $2 million in transfers among operating expenses, capital assets, and game-and-fish grants during the biennium, with notice to the Legislative Council. The bill does not create a new regulatory program so much as it sets spending authority, reporting requirements, and flexibility for department operations and conservation contracting.
The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive. The bill passed the House 77-14 and the Senate 45-1, indicating broad bipartisan approval for funding wildlife management, habitat work, hatchery infrastructure, and related department operations. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to suggest major opposition themes beyond the recorded floor votes.
The main points of contention likely centered on spending levels, the use of one-time funding, and the department’s flexibility to move money between line items. The conservation agreement provisions and the large habitat/private land funding item may also have drawn scrutiny from members concerned about long-term commitments to private landowners or the balance between habitat spending and other department priorities. However, the overwhelming vote margins suggest those concerns did not prevent passage.
HB 1017 appropriates $114,864,690 in other funds to the North Dakota Game and Fish Department for the 2025-27 biennium and authorizes 170 FTEs. It amends budget execution by allowing limited transfers among certain line items, restricting use of the new and vacant FTE pool, and establishing reporting requirements for one-time funding and conservation agreement spending. The bill affects the department, the Office of Management and Budget, private landowners participating in conservation agreements, and recipients of grants and habitat-related funding.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support in both chambers, reflected in the 77-14 House vote and 45-1 Senate vote. That level of approval suggests general agreement on the need to fund the Game and Fish Department’s operations, habitat programs, and infrastructure needs. No committee discussion was provided, so the available record shows little visible opposition beyond a small minority of dissenting votes.
The most likely areas of disagreement were the size and allocation of the appropriation, especially the substantial habitat and deer depredation funding, one-time capital and IT expenditures, and the department’s authority to shift funds between line items. The long-term midterm conservation agreements with private landowners, including the 30-year cap and buyback provisions, may also have raised policy concerns about land-use commitments and program design. Still, the strong vote margins indicate these issues were not major obstacles to enactment.