Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Department of Mineral Resources outlines budget changes, staffing needs and potential impacts of reclamation bill
Loading...
Summary
DMR officials told the Appropriations subcommittee about small net changes between governor budgets, requested optional positions including reclamation inspectors, and warned that proposed legislation requiring on-site pre-disturbance meetings could substantially increase inspection workload.
The Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) presented budget comparisons and outlined staffing priorities to an Appropriations - Education and Environment Division subcommittee, identifying an added FTE in one governor recommendation and several optional requests that were partially funded by the prior governor.
Nathan Anderson, DMR director, told the committee that a recent analysis of total compensation shows state benefits lagging private-sector packages when pay is factored in, and he said flexibility in an approved budget would help the agency recruit and retain staff. Finance manager Robin Lumer walked the panel through the long-sheet comparisons showing that the Armstrong recommended budget reduced total funds slightly (about $35,000) compared with the Burgum recommendation while adding one FTE and shifting funding sources for certain projects.
DMR described several optional requests; the department requested three reclamation technician positions (one for each district office) but said both governor recommendations included only a single position from that request. Robin said a number of other optional requests — including a paleontology technician, Class 6 programmer and a professional land legal assistant — were not included in the governor budgets.
Assistant director Mark Boren explained a smaller optional request: $15,000 to compile and market enhanced recovery potential for legacy wells, aimed at attracting small companies that lack research capacity. Geologic survey staff (Ed Murphy) described a paleontology excavation where mammoth bones dated to roughly 13,500 years were recovered and said further work could clarify whether the site is an archaeological kill site; the department requested $300,000 in optional funds to support paleontology work.
DMR staff also alerted the committee to Senate Bill 2313, which would require a pre-disturbance, on-site meeting between the commission and the operator proposing land disturbance to document preservation of suitable plant growth material. Mark Boren said the department had 706 sites constructed in 2024, which averages to about 2.8 sites per workday; he said DMR currently has one reclamation inspector for the entire state and that the three reclamation inspectors requested in the optional list were intended to address current workload. If SB 2313 becomes law, Boren said, the department may need additional field inspectors because on-site meetings would increase travel and inspection time.
Committee members asked for clarification on an earlier ordinary high-water mark litigation matter; DMR officials said most litigation is settled but a remaining chance exists that expert-witness expenses or related costs could arise and that a small reserve was being considered in planning. The committee did not take votes on the DMR optional requests at this meeting but was advised the department will return for deeper review in subsequent sessions.
