[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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",6114677,"mediaKeyId","2742577-3878e916f235e45c14e996365adafa0d","parentId",2742577,"title","Senate Judiciary hears hours-long debate over House Bill 676 on water rights, land sales and ending water court","audioSeconds",4186,"startMs",232000,"endMs",4418000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2742577-3878e916f235e45c14e996365adafa0d&start=232&end=4418","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2742577-3878e916f235e45c14e996365adafa0d/thumbnail_232000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6114677/Montana/Senate-Judiciary-hears-hours-long-debate-over-House-Bill-676-on-water-rights-land-sales-and-ending-water-court","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6114677-465f4e2b796b19458ca5e64c0ed58611/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168326&Signature=GlIpTt5-BcyO3k3ao7UdkJev9hYZmEgcl1nn4k4mFvcvi~00ZpJPmysm785KhOoGoWxiUUbGZ5yDhUKqDzgdJPwOZKKbnNMIf~R8t9Gg1mb0m8y13iDEXwdq2ThInjptxVuLol7ewWKCf4JkHxGrL5bDwdogMdl~R22QqauFv27lr49~KpIMaeMjFHIX5-0p6810Qq033mwAVv~Y-tSRR6ci0W4w5cGmSw5BXVOyIHWmeJ67clp3H0k7n2Yezc~Wcbwg2P48R3G9s-dFy4UUReahq2k7gMZHzsOkR4ylqDDxgJWs5RjrS72oFWH81Jkk1EGPXeONfDDfbNJn0q13sQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-21T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Judiciary Committee heard more than two hours of testimony on House Bill 676, a wide-ranging bill that would (1) bar the state from asserting ownership of private water rights used on some state leases, (2) set a five‑year termination date for the Montana Water Court (an element the sponsor said he might accept striking), and (3) allow the sale of landlocked state trust parcels with proceeds directed toward property-tax relief for education.

The bill’s sponsor told the committee HB 676 would “disallow the board or the land board to seize any private water right that is being used on state land” and defended a proposal to sell “landlocked” parcels so proceeds could be invested for school funding. The sponsor said he would be “friendly” to amendments removing the water‑court termination but urged the committee to protect private lessees who invest in improvements on leased state land.

Supporters largely were ranching and landowner groups who said current practice discourages private investment on state leases. Jocelyn Cahill, testifying for the Senior Ag Water Rights Alliance and identifying herself as “a rancher in Broadwater County,” told the committee, “I urge you to support house bill 6 76 because it provides much needed clarity on state ownership of water rights.” Ross Morgan of the Rocky Mountain Stock Growers Association argued the state’s taking of water rights removes the incentive to invest in improvements and said, “The state doesn't farm. The state doesn't fish. The state doesn't grow potatoes. The people do.” Several proponents urged sale of isolated parcels and offered financial arguments for investing sale proceeds to produce ongoing returns for schools.

Opponents included the lieutenant governor, state and conservation groups, school‑funding coalitions, and public‑lands and sportsmen’s organizations. Lieutenant Governor Kristen Juras, appearing “on behalf of Governor Gianforte in his capacity as chair of the state land board,” told the committee, “I want to set the record straight. The state land board is not stealing any private property rights.” She argued the bill as drafted contains no “safety net” if the water‑court adjudication is not complete by the proposed termination and warned that missing federal approvals — including a pending tribal compact — could leave pending federally related claims in legal jeopardy.

Opponents repeatedly flagged two legal and practical risks: (1) ending or truncating the Montana Water Court’s adjudication before final decrees are issued could undermine the state’s primacy over federal water claims (invoking the McCarran Amendment) and leave many rights unresolved; and (2) section 11’s noncompetitive sale language could force sales of trust land that now produce ongoing revenues and public access. Brian Thompson of the Senior Water Rights Coalition said ending adjudication “somewhat arbitrarily in 2031, leaves a lot of people in a lurch” and raised the McCarran Amendment concern. Margaret Byrd of Advocates for School Trust Lands cited a string of Montana Supreme Court decisions that require full market value for trust land dispositions and urged the committee not to approve the bill.

Education and school‑funding groups, including the Montana Quality Education Coalition, opposed forced sales, calling them a one‑time gain that risks long‑term revenue. Doug Reisig said selling isolated parcels “represents a one time influx of funds. Once these parcels are sold, the state loses a potential ongoing revenue from leases and other uses of these lands.” Conservation and access groups warned section 11 would amount to a “fire sale” of public trust land and cited the importance of those acres for recreation and habitat.

Several witnesses also gave fiscal and scale figures during testimony. A witness identified as Jerry Hoover summarized the bill’s fiscal note testimony by saying the “cost to the Montana taxpayer is estimated to be $2,000,000 in operational expenses and $7,000,000 to $9,000,000 in lost revenue annually.” Multiple opponents noted DNRC and the water court have invested decades and tens of millions of dollars in adjudication and said an arbitrary deadline would put long‑standing investments and legal stability at risk.

DNRC officials were in the room as informational witnesses. Ryan Weiss, deputy administrator for state trust lands at DNRC, said the agency classifies lands by highest and best use and that, from a revenue perspective, retained assets generate long‑term returns; he also said that if land were sold the proceeds would go into the permanent fund and generate roughly 3 percent annually, while productive agricultural lands have historically appreciated faster. Water Resources Division Administrator Anna Pakenham Stevenson and other DNRC staff answered committee clarifying questions about wells sited on private land that deliver water to state leases.

The committee did not take a vote on HB 676 at this hearing; the sponsor said amendments are possible and several groups told the panel they would oppose the bill as written. The hearing record shows broad and organized opposition from school, conservation, and farm‑and‑ranch organizations, while supporters were primarily agricultural lessees and pro‑sale advocates who argued the proposals would protect private property and increase funds for education.

The committee closed the hearing with procedural notes about a pending amendment and scheduling; the land board itself had not taken a formal position on HB 676 during the hearing, the lieutenant governor said.

Votes at a glance from this meeting: the committee conducted later executive actions on unrelated bills (see separate articles).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary Mar 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Judiciary Committee heard hours of testimony on House Bill 676, a proposal to limit state claims on private water rights used on state leases, set a deadline for the Montana Water Court, and allow the sale of isolated state trust parcels to raise funds for education.","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},6114662,"Committee hears bipartisan support to restrict shackling of pregnant inmates; executive action stalls and bill is tabled",655,8199000,8854000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2742577-3878e916f235e45c14e996365adafa0d&start=8199&end=8854","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2742577-3878e916f235e45c14e996365adafa0d/thumbnail_8199000.jpg","/articles/6114662/Montana/Committee-hears-bipartisan-support-to-restrict-shackling-of-pregnant-inmates-executive-action-stalls-and-bill-is-tabled","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6114662-314a5aea7993789be786a1bfce05f8e0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168326&Signature=KRczVsQemqvPWEiVby~d2oT9p9K-f85fHOukkmjC2a5Nv6tUSjeugEMAa1USyK1lIPCerZ9htsDUlCVWh~uwWkOrZljltyBkBCrvpfrvpJJgExLuDdS9rqqtXwQtcCWFwIy0k0-OlyGfCbLx5WEF8XVN325S09bkfzv~48gL89GLoGLc~JoH0ApgQm-XKKWTsTlTsGRkdygnjvEh2FwOc0UGFvPztU0FBppXEHHh89ggigyXCrJnJeEUBbqi4PlAN2nkm7kNmeTbHcHslzm-FEOdPXImwo4i71avUMpZ3RHK48O-nlHD62izXYSj~Uw-aOQxa-kcAYpUoQVLyo8~rQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative James Reavis presented House Bill 475 to the Senate Judiciary Committee as a narrow statute restricting the use of restraints on pregnant inmates while they are in labor and delivery. Reavis said the bill follows model language used in other states and contains exceptions for established flight risk or clear threat to safety.

Proponents included medical and civil‑liberty groups, physicians and representatives of health organizations. Henry Seaton of the ACLU of Montana urged support, citing constitutional and ethical concerns and national medical guidance that opposes restraints during childbirth. Leah Miller, an OB‑GYN appearing for the Montana section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told the committee restraints complicate medical care and “make it harder. It's worse for the patients. It's worse for the doctors and the nurses taking care of them.” Jean Branscum of the Montana Medical Association said the measure aligns with best‑practice medical care and urged the committee to act. John Rhodes of Catalyst Montana argued restrictions protect mothers and babies and noted that many states have enacted similar prohibitions.

No formal opponents were recorded; the sponsor said the practice is rare but that codifying a prohibition would make the standard clear and protect detainees and caregivers. Several committee members indicated they view the policy as sensible, but some senators said codifying the standard could amount to unnecessary statutory clutter because state jail standards already prohibit routine shackling in labor. One senator said the bill should be unnecessary if agencies are already following the practice; another senator said exceptions for safety remain important.

In executive action the committee split on concurring in the House bill: the motion to concur failed after a tie vote and the committee then tabled HB 475 by unanimous (no objection) motion. The sponsor noted the bill had passed the House unanimously (100–0) and suggested possible Senate carriers if the bill is restored from the table.

The committee record captures wide medical and civil‑liberties support for the bill while senators raised procedural questions about statutory clarity versus existing policy. The bill remains tabled as of the close of the committee’s session.","Representative James Reavis introduced HB 475 to bar routine shackling of pregnant detainees during labor and delivery except in narrow safety cases; medical groups, the ACLU and OB‑GYNs urged passage, citing health and constitutional concerns. During executive action the committee was split and ultimately tabled the bill.",{"_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},6114667,"Committee hears measure to let landlords return security deposits electronically",400,8050000,8450000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2742577-3878e916f235e45c14e996365adafa0d&start=8050&end=8450","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2742577-3878e916f235e45c14e996365adafa0d/thumbnail_8050000.jpg","/articles/6114667/Montana/Committee-hears-measure-to-let-landlords-return-security-deposits-electronically","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6114667-9485221638d7d7dfd3799cde60049942/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168326&Signature=GTmX4k7beEddE5CpFUbsumIOontUZfUkX1IVKiw2DtO6x15s~Vb4ZxcdAu4SPLma8BkzoJqLau2PwzuA97FcJL-1Mln4N7Lfu9clHsRSXkis9GSjRVJqnm9LNrQlA2ZCy8zDMvjPDCCNrIdN8ngbrGpnwM5WeQqAT8z~ECnb-Zef~ApMVh9CoWWIFcGtbPjZ4D1h2vJv0XYpSLzWO85Mgvv~sGHosrJWpn-B3ZyFjHtUhOeca4AI6s7Mz4t6Sh5k5fd67nBGUPpKRYJZcKV0HyTRz2ngXb0AgVCXSmskXCNnNapuztJOnWb6wTc700KjVOkgw-kXt3ZdGW1cPQbzVA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Paul Tuss told the Senate Judiciary Committee House Bill 444 would modernize landlord‑tenant statutes by permitting required notices to be sent by electronic mail and by allowing security deposits to be returned by electronic funds transfer, with tenant and landlord agreement.

Proponents said the bill simply updates an older statute to reflect common modern practices and would reduce stress and delay for tenants, especially students and those in rural areas. Daniel Cox of the Montana Association of Realtors said the change “allows the use of electronic funds transfer if the tenant and the landlord both agree to use it.” A witness identifying himself as a representative of the Montana Landlord Association supported the bill as an option that needs clear, precise language. A student representative from the Associated Students of the University of Montana emphasized benefits for students juggling moving and study schedules.

No opponents or informational witnesses were recorded during the hearing. The sponsor closed by thanking the committee; an amendment to resolve a minor language conflict was mentioned and the sponsor said a technical amendment would be filed to address it.

No executive‑action vote on HB 444 was recorded in the committee transcript provided; the bill remains at the hearing stage pending any technical edits requested by stakeholders.","House Bill 444 would add electronic communications and electronic funds transfer as valid methods for landlords to provide required notices and to return security deposits; proponents included the Montana Association of Realtors, the Montana Landlord Association and student representatives.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6114672,"Bill would require HOAs to get homeowner permission before entering private property; committee hears support and approves concurrence",0,5371000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2742577-3878e916f235e45c14e996365adafa0d&start=5371&end=5371","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2742577-3878e916f235e45c14e996365adafa0d/thumbnail_5371000.jpg","/articles/6114672/Montana/Bill-would-require-HOAs-to-get-homeowner-permission-before-entering-private-property-committee-hears-support-and-approves-concurrence","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6114672-356b2794ec14776fdfdc6063295a8baa/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168326&Signature=cX7UN~rAyOtes7kAuAfsrQWDff9XeKo1DCpp~0JT-3yvbXz8kTVsxvRNOosp~k88GvgILqldIo2m46CFZtvqj1KvrwWP83EPdameXSDjRV~QEYwEH70qCGJtd~XI3i4CaGsSuwybwTzZXH0ueY7vIj8w2D0RUH8ov~fDWrWmWb1cObPnukbKOU2oe7GPqcIlbkXGK27yeuc3xtHoqm8qkjBocsKaCk1gon253E9NZImZdbQNZr4agAqzM1NZF7ffoqHJ9YtQVMXCDoAUoCRWw1W6neH36ARc~4u0CGD~vJksO-HLJ~MGpY6r09IwWcuDhusM9-EQFXAiqWHcgbSBzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Jedidiah Hinkle introduced House Bill 416 to the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying the measure would require homeowners association (HOA) boards or design review committees to obtain a homeowner’s permission before entering private areas of the homeowner’s property.

Hinkle said he filed the bill after constituents told him HOA covenants in his district had language granting review committees “full access to the property.” He told the committee the bill simply clarifies expectations about privacy and board entry and includes carve‑outs for condominiums and recorded easements that “specifically benefit the homeowners association.” He said the measure passed the House and carried bipartisan support there.

Proponents included tenants’ and landlord‑law advocates and a private attorney. John Sinrude testified a landlord–tenant statutory regime already requires notice before entry into a tenant’s domicile and said HB 416 is “common sense.” Attorney Stephanie Bacchus, who said she represents both owners and HOAs in dispute matters, said she had seen committees enter interior spaces and that the bill is “a reasonable limitation on the powers of HOAs under their contracts and their covenants.” No opponents appeared to testify in the hearing record.

Committee members asked about the scope of the bill’s exceptions, particularly how the “easements of record that specifically benefit the homeowners association” carve‑out would operate in practice. Hinkle said the language was intended to keep the bill focused on HOA matters and not open up unrelated access across adjacent private property; he said condo common elements and recorded easements for utilities are not intended to be restricted by the bill.

During executive action the committee voted to concur in HB 416. The roll call on concurrence recorded five yes votes and three no votes; Vice Chair Ricky and Chair Usher voted yes, Vice Chair Olsen voted no, and Senator Newman voted no. Senator Ricky volunteered to carry the bill on the Senate floor.

The committee record shows amendments were considered in the House earlier and the sponsor said the language excludes condominiums where common elements require access and recorded easements that were intended to benefit an HOA.","Representative Jedidiah Hinkle told the committee HB 416 would protect homeowner privacy by requiring homeowners association boards or their committees to obtain permission before entering a homeowner’s private premises; the committee later concurred in the bill during executive action.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate Judiciary hears hours-long debate over House Bill 676 on water rights, land sales and ending water court

Committee hears bipartisan support to restrict shackling of pregnant inmates; executive action stalls and bill is tabled

Committee hears measure to let landlords return security deposits electronically

Bill would require HOAs to get homeowner permission before entering private property; committee hears support and approves concurrence