House Bill 1020 is the State Water Commission appropriations bill. It’s a big deal for Minot because it’s the Water Commission that contributes money to flood protection. In other words, if the Water Commission is appropriated money for flood protection, then Minot has a chance at getting some of those dollars.
The bill was passed by the House last week and is now in the Senate’s hands. In it, there’s an appropriation of $150 million dollars for flood protection — most of which will be split between Fargo and Minot. But the other important piece is an option for the Water Commission to take out a loan for up to $110 million to fund the rest of the state’s 65% cost-share for phases 1-4 in Minot. It means our flood protection project can move forward if we can find our local share of the cost.
The bill passed the House by a vote of 78-13, but it’s notable because three of those ‘no’ votes were from Minot. Following the passage of the bill, I reached out to our local legislators to get their comments. Read them below.
Please your thoughts on House Bill 1020
Senator Oley Larsen – District 3
Senator Larsen did not respond to a request for comment.
Representative Andrew Maragos – District 3
Vote: Yes
Representative Maragos did not respond to a request for comment.
Representative Rosco Streyle – District 3
Vote: Yes
Representative Streyle did not provide written comments, but did call to provide a phone interview to share his thoughts. Listen below; apologies for the poor audio quality.
Senator Randy Burckhard – District 5
Senator Burckhard did not respond to a request for comment.
Representative Roger Brabandt – District 5
Vote – Yes
Representative Brabandt did not respond to a request for comment.
Representative Scott Louser – District 5
Vote – Yes
Representative Louser provided his comment via a Youtube video. Watch it below.
Senator David Hogue – District 38
I did get a chance to review the House’s amendments to HB 1020. It contains funding for the city of Minot to obtain the state’s share for funding phases I-IV with the $150, 000, 000 appropriation for flood control projects.. It also authorizes the Commission to borrow from BND to fund phases I-IV as well. As I’ve said in several community forums, it’s important to get the project done in short order. I emphatically support the notion of borrowing money to complete the project on an expedited basis because I think it will be cheaper in the long run. Look at how expensive NAWs has become because our Canadian friends have strung the project out over eight years. Construction costs always seems to go up, so a robust schedule contains implicit savings even if they are funded by borrowed money.
The bill contains some interesting concepts, including the notion that the state, not the private landowner, owns the water underground. It propose a tax on fresh water that I cannot support. It calls for a study to reform WAWs which I do support.
I serve on Senate Appropriations, which is where this bill is headed. I look forward to learning more about the House’s intent.
Representative Larry Bellew – District 38
Vote – No
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to comment on HB 1020.
HB 1020 is the State Water Commission budget bill. As the bill was introduced, there was almost 870 million dollars in it for water projects throughout the state. Because of the lower oil prices, the final bill has 736 million dollars for water projects. I supported the bill at this point.
Then came the amendments to the bill. Section 5 was added. This section is a repayment for the WAWS(Western Area Water Supply) loan. When WAWS was first introduced to the Legislature, we were told that the royalty income would pay the State back for its loan. This loan built WAWS. Now, again because of low oil prices and activity, WAWS cannot repay its loan responsibility. Thus, a state bailout, which I am opposed to. I feel the users should make the payments.
Section 19 of the bill creates a water tax on a privately owned water depot or water-dispensing point in the state. My understanding is the tax is 10 and ½ percent of the cost of the water, which I feel is totally unacceptable.
Section 9 of the bill is for the Minot flood project, which I support. However, because of Sections 5 and 19, I could not support the bill. The bill passed the House and is now in the Senate. This bill needs to be re-worked to do what is right for the people of this State.
Representative Dan Ruby – District 38
Vote – No
Representative Ruby did not respond to a request for comment.
Senator Karen Krebsbach – District 40
Senator Krebsbach did not respond to a request for comment.
Representative Matt Ruby – District 40
Vote – No
Representative Ruby did not respond to a request for a comment.
Representative Randy Schobinger – District 40
Vote – Yes
Representative Schobinger did not respond to a request for comment.
