North Dakota Senate Bill SB2024

North Dakota 2026 1st Special Session

Caption

AN ACT to provide an appropriation for defraying the expenses of the department of environmental quality; and to amend and reenact section 23.1-13-16 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to inspection fees.

Summary

SB2024 is the Department of Environmental Quality appropriations bill for the 2025-27 biennium. It provides a total appropriation of $132.0 million from all funds, including $18.9 million from the general fund, to cover salaries and wages, operating costs, capital assets, grants, and a small increase in full-time equivalent positions. The bill also identifies several one-time funding items, including relocation to a new chemistry laboratory, laboratory capital and operating costs, emerging contaminants equipment, a petroleum tank database, state fuel inspection program capital assets, and a water and wastewater operator certification item. In addition to funding the agency, the bill amends the state’s inspection-fee statute for motor vehicle fuel and special fuels dealers. The amendment redirects inspection fee revenues from the general fund into the Department of Environmental Quality operating fund, while keeping the money subject to legislative appropriations and dedicated to the state fuel inspection program. The bill also specifies how certain other-fund sources are used, including money from the environment and rangeland protection fund, the petroleum tank release compensation fund, and the strategic investment and improvements fund. The bill’s impact on state law is primarily fiscal and administrative. It changes the deposit location for inspection fee collections and reinforces that those revenues support fuel inspection activities rather than flowing into the general fund. It also authorizes the department’s biennial operating budget and establishes reporting requirements for one-time funding so lawmakers can track how those funds are used in the next biennium. The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and the House with a clear majority, indicating broad legislative agreement on funding the department’s core operations and environmental programs. There is no committee transcript in the record, and no recorded opposition in the Senate, suggesting limited public or legislative dispute over the measure’s main appropriations provisions. Any contention appears to be limited to the policy mechanics of the funding structure rather than the department’s mission. The most notable issue is the redirection of inspection fee revenue from the general fund to the department’s operating fund, which changes how those dollars are accounted for and used. The bill also relies on a mix of special funds and one-time appropriations for specific projects, which may draw attention from lawmakers concerned about ongoing costs, fund balances, or future budget base effects.

Impact

SB2024 appropriates funds to the Department of Environmental Quality for the 2025-27 biennium and amends North Dakota Century Code section 23.1-13-16 to redirect motor fuel and special fuels inspection fee revenue into the department’s operating fund for use on the state fuel inspection program. It affects the department, fuel dealers subject to inspection fees, and the state’s special fund structure, while also setting reporting and one-time funding conditions for several environmental and laboratory-related projects.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little visible controversy. It passed the Senate 46-0 and the House 77-16, indicating strong overall approval of the department’s budget and related fee changes. The absence of committee transcript discussion in the provided record suggests no major public debate was captured in the materials.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the fiscal redirection of inspection fee revenue from the general fund to the Department of Environmental Quality operating fund, which changes the flow and earmarking of those dollars. A secondary area of concern could be the use of one-time funding for laboratory relocation, equipment, and program startup costs, since those items do not become part of the base budget and may require future funding decisions. No specific opposing arguments or named opponents are included in the record.