AN ACT to provide an appropriation for defraying the expenses of various state departments and institutions; to provide a statement of legislative intent; and to declare an emergency.
HB 1024 is an emergency appropriations bill that provides funding to several North Dakota state departments and institutions for the period beginning on the bill’s effective date and ending June 30, 2025. The bill appropriates a total of $60.9 million from multiple funding sources, including $20.7 million from the general fund, $40.2 million from other funds, and $30 million in federal funds. The largest appropriations include $11.5 million for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for adult services excess population costs, $10 million for the Department of Water Resources to repay a line of credit for the water infrastructure revolving loan fund, and $3.05 million for the Attorney General’s office for statewide litigation funding and prosecution witness fees.
The bill also includes appropriations for the Governor’s office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Public Instruction, and the Adjutant General. In addition to the spending authority, the bill contains legislative intent directing the Attorney General to seek federal reimbursement for costs tied to unlawful activity associated with construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, with those reimbursements intended to repay Bank of North Dakota loans used to cover those response costs. It also states that the normal loan provisions in section 54-16-13 apply, except that Emergency Commission approval is not required.
HB 1024’s impact on state law is primarily fiscal and administrative: it authorizes short-term spending from designated funds, establishes intent for how certain reimbursements should be handled, and declares the measure an emergency so it takes effect immediately. It does not create a broad new regulatory program, but it does affect budget authority for several agencies and directs the use of future reimbursement funds toward repayment of specific state loans.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s passage appears strongly favorable, as it received the supermajority votes required for an emergency measure in both chambers. The House passed it 75-16 and the Senate passed it 45-1, indicating broad bipartisan support overall. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote margins suggest the appropriations and repayment provisions were largely accepted.
The main point of potential contention is the Dakota Access Pipeline-related reimbursement language, which ties state loan repayment to federal reimbursement for costs associated with responding to unlawful activity during pipeline construction. That provision may be politically sensitive because it connects state finances to a controversial infrastructure and protest-related issue. Another possible area of concern is the size and purpose of the corrections and water-related appropriations, though the vote totals suggest any disagreements were limited.
HB 1024 authorizes a one-time emergency appropriation for multiple state agencies and institutions, increasing spending authority for the 2025 budget period and directing funds from the general fund, special funds, federal funds, and the resources trust fund. It also creates legislative intent regarding repayment of Bank of North Dakota loans from federal reimbursements related to Dakota Access Pipeline response costs, and it waives Emergency Commission approval for those loan provisions while otherwise referencing existing loan law. The bill primarily affects budget administration, agency operations, and repayment of specific state obligations rather than amending broad substantive statutes.
The bill appears to have enjoyed strong overall support, as reflected in the supermajority votes in both chambers required for an emergency measure. The House vote of 75-16 and Senate vote of 45-1 indicate that most legislators supported the appropriations package and the emergency designation. Because no committee discussion transcript is available, the record does not reveal detailed arguments, but the final votes suggest the bill was viewed as necessary and broadly acceptable despite some dissent.
The most notable area of contention is the bill’s Dakota Access Pipeline reimbursement provision, which directs the Attorney General to seek federal reimbursement for costs tied to unlawful activity during pipeline construction and to use those funds to repay state loans. That language may be controversial because it links state fiscal policy to a politically charged protest and infrastructure dispute. Secondary points of possible debate include the large appropriations for corrections excess population costs and water infrastructure repayment, though the strong vote margins suggest these issues did not generate major opposition in the final vote.