A BILL for an Act to provide an appropriation to the parks and recreation department for a Lake Metigoshe state park sewer infrastructure replacement grant project.
SB 2185 is a one-time appropriation bill that would allocate $1 million from the state general fund to the North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department for a grant to a local water resource district. The grant would be used to replace the water and sewer infrastructure serving Lake Metigoshe State Park and nearby surrounding areas during the 2025-2027 biennium.
The bill does not create a new regulatory program or change ongoing policy; instead, it authorizes a specific capital funding item for a targeted infrastructure project. Its practical effect would be to direct state money toward repairing or replacing aging utility systems associated with a state park and adjacent service area, likely supporting park operations, public health, and local infrastructure reliability.
If enacted, SB 2185 would amend state spending for the 2025-2027 biennium by appropriating $1 million from the general fund to the Parks and Recreation Department for a pass-through grant. The bill would affect the department, the local water resource district receiving the grant, and users of Lake Metigoshe State Park and surrounding areas by funding sewer and water infrastructure replacement. Because it is a one-time appropriation, it would not permanently alter the state code or establish an ongoing funding obligation.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote details, so there is no documented debate to indicate support or opposition. The bill’s subject matter suggests a practical infrastructure investment focused on a specific state park, but the official outcome was that it failed on February 14, 2025. With no discussion record provided, the overall sentiment cannot be characterized beyond the fact that it did not advance.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. In general, bills like this can raise questions about the use of general fund dollars for a geographically limited project, the role of the state versus local entities in infrastructure replacement, and whether the project should be prioritized over other statewide needs. However, the record here does not identify any named opponents, supporters, or disputed issues.