[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6308909,"mediaKeyId","2415978-5d89fc62191832280e209a7897242cbb","parentId",2415978,"title","Bill would expand public notice and comment for open‑cut gravel permits; industry warns of delays (SB 391)","audioSeconds",2713,"startMs",2742830,"endMs",5456052,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2415978-5d89fc62191832280e209a7897242cbb&start=2742&end=5456","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2415978-5d89fc62191832280e209a7897242cbb/thumbnail_2742830.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6308909/Montana/Bill-would-expand-public-notice-and-comment-for-opencut-gravel-permits-industry-warns-of-delays-SB-391","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6308909-7ffe494f7e1e94fadb3d82cd9c37f672/orig.mp4?Expires=1775135191&Signature=Hf~AeS3FrXkTWBiNFe5OmY7YNeeA8OMa67q1eh0fMRkJIUChXpyiHkYKX6nAENTczKyOW1ij3RMHmlriCdnClTJBkX4DwmNgQ6WYqDzOSpG75RsjCy7AlB1au~uLWkST24XsPDSpRlKSwjOxqUUuEsg2gcNwC6FpOfpDI1Ydfc0ZPsP03pqC9IHEDW53njBSa7~DWHV-dGfD1g5spDO2934cvAKPLuwkhk9535S7SSP67dJOXrhXbF5R~HU98oHtw6fpbIm0jUhDSPKDxz7ipAXwamnqMf~i3FUHH62HeOPMdl-tXyJTEk5yFy5XL8TfbjLPOUrNgdNlIeblsL7XQA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana State Legislature","date","2025-02-26T00:00:00Z","article","Senator Shane Morgeau introduced Senate Bill 391 as a response to changes made in 2021 to Montana’s open‑cut mining law that, sponsors said, curtailed public participation when local communities face applications for gravel pits and asphalt plants.

\"This bill simply tries to make the law match the constitutional rights of my constituents,\" Morgeau said, framing SB 391 as a measure to restore meaningful notice and opportunity to comment when a proposed mine could affect neighbors’ property, water or community life.

Proponents—largely nearby residents and community organizations—described cases where notice arrived late, where meetings were hard to schedule and where they were told a permit would be issued regardless of public comment. Kristen Corbin, a Manhattan resident, said her neighborhood received notice of a proposed pit on Thanksgiving and faced an abbreviated timeline for response: \"We were ambushed by an application for a gravel mine next to our home,\" she said. Several other residents from Gallatin Gateway and Elbow Lake gave similar accounts and asked the committee to restore a longer, clearer public process.

SB 391 would make several specific changes to the permitting process as presented in the draft discussed at the hearing:

- Remove the ambiguous statutory phrase \"occupied dwelling unit\" and instead define notification and thresholds by residence and property ownership to reduce confusion about who must be informed.
- Restore a larger notification radius (from one‑half mile to one mile) for surrounding property owners and require operators to provide DEQ with a list of owners within that radius.
- Lower the threshold of those within the notification area needed to trigger a DEQ public meeting from 51% to 30% of households, using a clarified definition of \"residence.\"
- For \"high and dry\" (dry‑land) permits that currently have a 15‑day comment window, require a 30‑day public comment period and require DEQ to respond in writing to comments and make a decision within five days after the comment period closes.

Supporters said the changes are aimed at giving communities time to consult experts, present technical concerns about water and traffic, and avoid litigation by improving agency decision making.

Industry representatives and contractors opposed the bill. David Smith, executive director of the Montana Contractors Association, said the 2021 changes established an expedited path for rural, dry sites and that the public may comment at any time through DEQ’s posted documents: \"The current public notice requirements are adequate,\" Smith said, and he urged a do‑not‑pass recommendation.

Contractors including Riverside Contracting and TMC Sand and Gravel warned that expanding notice, increasing the radius and requiring written responses to comments would slow permitting and raise costs for projects that supply material for roads and housing. Cal Fisher of Riverside Contracting said the proposed changes would eliminate the dry‑land expedited pathway and could lengthen the minimum permit timeframes so that a dry‑land permit could take longer than the standard application; he warned that contractors often have short windows between winning a bid and needing a permitted site.

Others opposed on economic grounds argued expanded procedure would increase administration for an agency already under staffing pressure and could translate to higher gravel prices and higher costs for infrastructure and housing.

Proponents countered that the present approach gives operators pre‑application site visits and technical support from DEQ that neighbors do not receive and that the law should require comparable opportunity for public input. Multiple residents described site postings they said were inadequate and argued that the proposed text would reduce disputed permits and litigation by forcing DEQ to consider and respond to substantive concerns before issuing a permit.

The committee heard both extensive personal testimony from neighbors and technical opposition from industry representatives. No vote was taken at the hearing; proponents said they would pursue amendments to address drafting questions raised by DEQ and members of the committee.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Natural Resources - Feb 26, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 391 would overhaul public notice and comment rules for open‑cut (gravel) mining permits by restoring a longer comment period for certain dry‑land permits, expanding the notification radius and lowering the threshold for DEQ public meetings.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MT, Montana","taxId",77694,"location","Montana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6308915,"Committee hears bill to extend water‑reservation perfection deadlines for municipalities (SB 357)",842,1884105,2727035,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2415978-5d89fc62191832280e209a7897242cbb&start=1884&end=2727","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2415978-5d89fc62191832280e209a7897242cbb/thumbnail_1884105.jpg","/articles/6308915/Montana/Committee-hears-bill-to-extend-waterreservation-perfection-deadlines-for-municipalities-SB-357","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6308915-95a9d19e9b140839b81a0693c1a833fc/orig.mp4?Expires=1775135191&Signature=IOEXsqP4zz8b-s8KvZimjIH9Z1dJTxx1g0aiN7gTilphbRUjT3Nh1PZqW3Ob603C-YtJPsL5tLDzqga8~PShVXSLvFPI6EDA1DPw5qGYY44axLfsEkpdJw7IWGgHrajahLoWF88jz4NA9IE7jnm--0J~-sp7tIhkCG~~z66CuJk6mobJQPT99jeNzE-VO5UObOZx~WB14blLu6CWdUBF7pRerDIl4WFHO8rBPFBH8PZjrC~~bDwOgm0b19q~epnF46SLMWlHTv1DYv~0Sezj3FOUG8Ehn0v1Wpyi-4sI0rrqgprayvrwPZVCNyGKLQL7p5w9KDf2qckINcvqVhKxdA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Wiley Galt opened the hearing on Senate Bill 357 as a measure to extend perfection deadlines for existing water reservations held for future municipal and conservation uses.

\"This bill is just moving back a sunset,\" Galt said, asking the committee to give stakeholders additional time to perfect water rights in the face of permitting, technical and financial hurdles.

City officials and water interests told the committee that the reservations were granted to secure future municipal supply but that the law’s perfection deadline—set by an earlier board order for some reservations at Dec. 31, 2025—risks lapsing before the cities can complete technical work, testing and permitting.

Ryan Leland, public works director for the City of Helena, said his city had spent years and millions of dollars on test and production wells and that an identified contamination plume could force re‑sampling and additional work. \"We could lose $2,000,000 that we've already spent,\" Leland said, urging an extension so municipalities do not forfeit reserved rights they need to meet growth.

Jennifer Olson, government affairs director for the Montana League of Cities and Towns, said the bill \"will extend these water reservations for these cities and districts to ensure reliable and sustainable water for current and future needs.\" Supporters argued the measure helps communities avoid overbuilding infrastructure while ensuring water is available for housing and business growth.

Brian Heaston, senior water resources engineer for Bozeman, described the reservation in the Missouri River basin above Fort Peck and said a missed perfection deadline could eliminate the reservation. He told the committee Bozeman’s reserved volume could supply the equivalent of more than 2,600 single‑family homes and said the city supported a clarifying amendment intended to correct drafting errors.

Anna Pakenham Stevenson, water resources division administrator at DNRC, testified as an informational witness that the department supports a technical amendment and that the bill mirrors language used previously to extend a Yellowstone Basin reservation deadline in 1997 (House Bill 507). She said the department had a friendly amendment for clarity and confirmed the proposal follows established precedent for extending reservation deadlines.

Committee members asked procedural and drafting questions. Senator Gillespie asked whether the bill’s language and procedures were acceptable to DNRC; Pakenham Stevenson replied they were and recommended the friendly amendment.

Sponsors and proponents described the bill as status quo maintenance to preserve future municipal water options rather than a substantive change to water‑allocation policy. The committee did not take a final vote at the hearing; proponents asked for a do‑pass recommendation and noted a drafting amendment would be offered for committee consideration.","SB 357 would extend deadlines for municipalities and districts to perfect reserved water rights in the Missouri River basin above Fort Peck. City officials and water stakeholders told the committee the extension is needed to protect investments and allow municipalities time to bring rights to beneficial use.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6308919,"Senate committee hears bill to parcel small state trust lands for homesteads (SB 381)",1524,335505,1859895,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2415978-5d89fc62191832280e209a7897242cbb&start=335&end=1859","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2415978-5d89fc62191832280e209a7897242cbb/thumbnail_335505.jpg","/articles/6308919/Montana/Senate-committee-hears-bill-to-parcel-small-state-trust-lands-for-homesteads-SB-381","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6308919-3382df7955cc4faf58d93ee5a055df33/orig.mp4?Expires=1775135191&Signature=jtTEwddgAvQdwSGimrbU6E4g4fpnu-X~LE1RjNRwskdrsxYMiSwZ3go9ZkFwVgxNt9KQLz2jgJVeidvvQm0qMyr4H4L~0jRFILMf9sFn9HrJOjDPPSIlAZj-EzPXSSvky4RxG6pkb2wfk271eHHJZDoapsn-nNqjFrCCpNbiKnw12IA9qb6QBRPU0euCldYZ2ogObr05ZjY-~nzoVq~0VAw-rVoYt7gFR2cKEDLI5PIvkNQb9cj1MzymbLIR022uyt83CXvC9S6RXIJjYdhce8oiLf-4Af6S5vkOvHQLohOJ1wruFs4bJdydDwMZV81XUrGsPhfcEtsCFNNqUlBMzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Daniel Emmerich, sponsor of Senate Bill 381, told the Senate Natural Resources Committee the bill would direct the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) to identify and sell qualifying state trust lands in parcels of about five acres for homesteading.

\"The bill you have before you today is Senate Bill 381, an act making certain state lands available for homesteading,\" Emmerich said, describing limits in the draft that parcels would be taken only from undeveloped tracts of fewer than 100 acres and that buyers must be Montana residents for 10 years.

The bill would require purchasers to demonstrate a bona fide homestead within about five years by building a home on a permanent foundation, require the department to sell homestead deeds at full market value, and give DNRC rulemaking authority for implementation.

Proponents framed the bill as a response to Montana’s housing shortages. Emmerich said the measure would \"give Montanans the opportunity to own a chunk of land themselves\" and generate state revenue from land sales.

Opponents urged the committee to reject the proposal. Nicole Rolfe, representing the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, said many state trust parcels are currently leased for grazing or agriculture and said the bill would remove protections in existing sale procedures, referring to state sale rules that allow a lessee to match a competitive bid: \"Many of those leases could be impacted by a bill like this because many of these have current lessees on them,\" Rolfe said, and she asked the committee to \"vote no on this bill.\"

Ellie Bridliton, representing the Montana Association of State Grazing Districts, said small parcels under 100 acres can make up a significant portion of grazing lands and urged keeping the lands in production agriculture. Rayleigh Honeycutt of the Montana Stock Growers Association warned that if homesteads fail or are left with foundations and wells, lands could be removed permanently from agricultural production.

Tribal representatives also opposed the bill. Patrick Yawake, speaking for the Blackfeet Tribe, Fort Belknap Indian Community and the Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy, called SB 381 \"an attack on public lands\" and said the bill did not account for required tribal consultation and co‑management tied to treaties and tribal hunting and gathering rights.

The Montana Wildlife Federation, represented by Frank Szollosi, cited impacts to wildlife habitat and migration and noted polling the group cited showing public opposition to public‑land sales.

Sean Thomas, DNRC division administrator for Forestry and Trust Lands, provided the committee with DNRC’s inventory estimate under the bill’s definitions. He told the committee his initial review identified roughly 1,745 individual tracts that could fall under the 100‑acre threshold, representing about 26,000 acres in total, with an estimated 6,670–7,000 acres classified as forest land. He also gave a rough breakdown that about 11,000 acres were classified as agriculture and more than 79,000 acres as grazing in the department’s broader inventory; Thomas described these as department classifications and approximations.

Committee members asked how often parcels under 100 acres are currently leased. Thomas said most small tracts, especially those classified as grazing or agricultural, are under lease and that a sale under the bill could terminate existing leases: \"Leases can be terminated for a variety of reasons and so, and land sales are one of the ways that a lease could be canceled,\" he said.

Members pressed the sponsor about the bill’s effect on the DNRC’s constitutional duty to produce maximum return for the school trust. Thomas said the bill provides for appraisals and \"full market value compensation through an appraisal\" but noted the draft did not specify a public auction process or other advertising that exists under current sale procedures; he flagged questions about whether an appraisal alone would capture full market value.

In closing, Emmerich said the bill gives \"pretty broad rulemaking authority\" to DNRC to ensure lands are used for \"highest and best use\" and that the department would account for obligations such as tribal consultation during implementation. He said he is willing to work on amendments and urged a do‑pass vote.

The committee did not take a final vote during the hearing. The record contains extensive public and organizational opposition focused on impacts to existing lessees, grazing operations, wildlife habitat and tribal rights, and several committee members asked DNRC staff to clarify inventory figures and how sales would affect leases and school trust revenue.","Sen. Daniel Emmerich introduced SB 381 to allow the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation to sell small, undeveloped state trust tracts as five‑acre homesteads. Farmers, ranchers, tribes and wildlife groups told the committee they oppose the bill, citing impacts to grazing leases, habitat and tribal treaty rights.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill would expand public notice and comment for open‑cut gravel permits; industry warns of delays (SB 391)

Committee hears bill to extend water‑reservation perfection deadlines for municipalities (SB 357)

Senate committee hears bill to parcel small state trust lands for homesteads (SB 381)