Lawmakers meeting to review water-resources priorities discussed changes prompted by Senate Bill 2276 and a multi‑year funding plan that would accelerate projects statewide. Chairman Swiatek and members said they will seek an additional attorney FTE for water disputes, propose $14 million for flood protection in Bismarck with a possible $3 million supplement, and plan for a $200 million line of credit to backstop the Resources Trust Fund.

The conversation focused on two near‑term items and a long‑range financing plan. Senator Sorvaug said the addition of bill language in SB 2276 — which directs joint water boards to seek mediation and, if needed, work with the State Water Commission — increased the need for legal expertise. "We both felt that we want to bring this to the attention of everyone," Sorvaug said, and legislators agreed they should pursue an attorney position that would focus on water matters.

Lawmakers said they plan to propose $14 million in state funding for flood protection work in south Bismarck and to hold a possible additional $3 million for later consideration. Senator Sorvaug told the committee the $14 million "fits well" with current priorities, while the extra $3 million could be discussed during the interim.

Reese Haas, director of the Department of Water Resources, described the proposed $200 million line of credit as an overdraft or "backstop" for the Resources Trust Fund. "The line of credit, we visualize that as our overdraft privilege similar to a checking account," Haas said. He said the line would not necessarily be tapped but would allow the State Water Commission to authorize and accelerate a higher volume of projects across biennia so they can bid and start construction sooner.

Haas also explained that the State Water Commission meets every other month and that, with an emergency clause, the June meeting could be used to approve projects and preserve the construction season. "We just had our April meeting. So the next meeting would be June," he said.

Lawmakers pressed on risks and priorities. Several members, including Senator Bechdel, asked whether accelerating large projects with a line of credit might crowd out smaller rural or municipal projects if revenues fall. Committee members acknowledged that cash‑flow scenarios depend on oil and extraction tax receipts and that smaller projects could face pressure in low‑revenue scenarios; they said the Legislature would retain authority over allocations and could act to protect smaller buckets.

The group reviewed a 14‑year template showing $3.4 billion in projected water needs categorized as high, medium and low priorities. Members discussed creating a Water Topics review committee (section 10 of the draft language) to oversee qualifying projects and to consider exemption and legislative‑intent language for earlier appropriations. The committee asked staff (Alex) to draft specific language for the next meeting so Water Topics can take up qualification and exemption questions.

No formal votes were recorded in the discussion excerpt. Legislators agreed to draft language and return to the items at a future meeting; staff and the Department of Water Resources provided technical context during the session.