The conference committee on House Bill 1020 met to reconcile changes to the state's water-resources appropriation plan, with senators reporting a $93,000,000 reduction in the resource trust fund that prompted cuts, shifted financing and creation of a standing review role for large projects.

Senator Sorbach, speaking as the lead on the Senate amendment, told the committee that "there was a reduction in the resource trust fund of $93,000,000. That's really unprecedented," and that the Senate removed a $100,000,000 bonding authorization for the Southwest Pipeline while keeping a smaller line-of-credit approach. He said the Senate also reduced a planned $200,000,000 carryover-backed line to $100,000,000 and allocated a $50,000,000 line of credit specifically for the Southwest Pipeline's near-term needs.

Why it matters: The funding changes reshape how large, multiyear water projects will be financed and prioritized across the state. Lawmakers said the reductions reflect a sustained drop in resource-trust revenue and an effort to limit the state's near-term exposure.

Key changes and amounts: The Senate amendment keeps four additional staff positions (the House had added six and the Senate removed two). The amendment reduces some major project appropriations compared with the House proposal: Red River Water Supply from $260,000,000 to $150,000,000; Western Area from $46,500,000 to $35,000,000; Mouse River from $125,000,000 to $65,000,000; Valley City from $16,000,000 to $13,000,000. The Redwood Water Supply was reduced from $260,000,000 (House) to $150,000,000 (Senate). Senator Sorbach said Southwest Pipeline requests were cut by roughly $30,000,000 (House: ~$131,000,000; Senate: ~$101,000,000).

New review role for Water Topics Committee: The amendment creates a Water Topics Committee review requirement for any appropriation request of state funds over $10,000,000. Senator Sorbach described the proposal as modeling the committee after the employee benefits review process: items over $10,000,000 would be presented to Water Topics by May 31 for prioritization and a recommendation, and the committee would remain in place through the session. Representative Louser asked whether the committee or its chairs could cede jurisdiction; members noted the language requires the committee to review requests over $10,000,000 and make a prioritization recommendation.

Study of multiyear project cost growth: The amendment contains a legislative-management study directive to examine how large multiyear projects'costs escalate after initial commitments and whether the state should alter how it guarantees or shares long-term cost increases. Senator Sorbach said projects frequently grow well beyond original estimates and the Legislature needs options to avoid open-ended obligations.

Bismarck flood-control funding: The Senate amendment removes a funding line for Bismarck flood control that members of the House delegation defended. Representative Nathie said his district includes more than 1,000 homes in South Bismarck that would benefit from the work and that the city previously had engineering support from the commission. Senators and representatives discussed language in the amendment that would limit continued flood-control project expenditures to amounts under legislative approval thresholds; Senator Bechtel sought clarification whether the bill implied legislative intent to fund up to $73,000,000 ultimately for a project that had a $20,000,000 current ask.

Carryover and unobligated balances: Chris Katamus, director of administration for the Department of Water Resources, told the committee that the department currently estimates about $600,000,000 in carryover commitments. He estimated roughly $30,000,000 of that amount is unobligated and available in the flood-control bucket, with the remainder tied to existing contracts and projects.

Federal funds and transfers: The amendment preserves language that restricts moving certain federal allocations and keeps a reduced line-item transfer authority between operating expenses and capital assets (reduced to $5,000,000 in the Senate amendment). The Senate also restored a project-stabilization provision tied to excess oil-tax earnings that the House had removed.

No formal vote was recorded at the meeting; members said further conference sessions and discussions would follow. Senator Sorbach said he did not expect the committee to conclude the reconciliation at that session and that the Senate amendments were intended to start negotiations with the House on the funding configuration.

The committee adjourned with plans to reconvene for additional conference work on House Bill 1020.