Citizen Portal
Sign In

Committee presses DNR on transfers to proposed Department of Agriculture amid pending court challenge

Department of Natural Resources Finance Subcommittee · March 10, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senators asked whether positions and funds the governor sought to transfer to a new Department of Agriculture should be moved now while a Superior Court ruling found the reorganization unlawful and the case awaits the state Supreme Court; DNR said it is following the governor's submitted budget and awaiting the Supreme Court outcome.

Senator Wilikowski pressed Department of Natural Resources officials over several budget items that would transfer positions and funding to a proposed Department of Agriculture created by executive order 1 37. The senator cited a Superior Court ruling that declared the governor's reorganization unlawful and asked whether DNR still advocated making the transfers while litigation continued.

Deputy Commissioner Brent Goodrum replied that the governor's budget, filed December 11, still reflects those transfers and that the administration is awaiting the Supreme Court's decision. Goodrum also noted that legislative operating budgets have already removed the proposed Department of Agriculture structure and that how the Legislature chooses to act on those transfers is a legislative matter.

Specific items discussed included the transfer of two long‑vacant fire suppression positions (carved out earlier to help establish the new department), the North Latitude Plant Material Center (about $3.9 million authority and 15 permanent full‑time positions and 5 permanent part‑time positions flagged for transfer), and a larger transfer described as ~ $5.8 million and 17 positions tied to agricultural development under the executive order. Goodrum said the two fire positions had been vacant for more than two years (one was undergoing reclassification) and that keeping them vacant had been part of an administrative posture pending litigation outcome.

Why it matters: the transfers overlap with an ongoing court process. If the Supreme Court upholds the Superior Court ruling, the requested transfers would be inconsistent with that judicial determination; if the court reverses, the transfers would align with the governor's submission. The subcommittee requested clarification and follow‑up materials; no formal appropriation action occurred during the hearing.