[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,76,87],{"_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",6622426,"mediaKeyId","2784471-da38a0b12e9afc15832a791dec9133db","parentId",2784471,"title","Committee debates compromise bill to clarify \"exempt well\" rules for small developments","audioSeconds",2028,"startMs",5188000,"endMs",7216000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2784471-da38a0b12e9afc15832a791dec9133db&start=5188&end=7216","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2784471-da38a0b12e9afc15832a791dec9133db/thumbnail_5188000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6622426/Montana/Committee-debates-compromise-bill-to-clarify-exempt-well-rules-for-small-developments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622426-07e2b8f45816b2a2617f08cdc00d9a8d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775434988&Signature=mZUlx4xCIEwKFMK4YrH7qILJkWNI~i3LThb7vlshlTCXZXn70oCBWTuiTr-HXkk0V836~32KPFSt-HeSmm01uEHOVp41vqRBUU1YREUhkHT7Vsaf0xeznDW-h2R0ECrwPhB8-tm2fwSoYd5luvW1ASZc1CmPMAzRRuC061bGAzThA6WdQIjc~vvHhAaOkfebcETN6s5lCmrwxrIcDLDDzQ0VxvI9AX8D9Bw1IvEqBYtdkNsNbt8l~qGNYbfVZY01Dx86Ag0mluk40kVCP6PhL1iupRrYVBsxu0Z5l1fOZ9fmvoMd7mEmvNDaniLbsEgkFVhv13T8PuIiuNjW7z89cA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-26T00:00:00Z","article","Senator Carl Glimm opened testimony on Senate Bill 436, a bill that would revise how Montana treats exempt wells and would add a statutory definition of \"combined appropriation.\" Glimm described the proposal as a pragmatic compromise intended to allow small residential and rural development to proceed while retaining limitations that prevent large‑scale diversion from exempt wells.

Nut graf: Supporters — including builders, realtors and county representatives — said the bill provides needed certainty for small developers and homeowners after court rulings constrained exempt well use; opponents said the bill could perpetuate cumulative impacts by continuing a class of appropriations without robust monitoring, enforcement or notice to other water users.

Key provisions described by the sponsor include a definition of combined appropriation that covers multiple developments drawing from the same aquifer where, in the department’s judgment, the development could have been accomplished as a single appropriation; retention of sideboards (35 gallons per minute; 10 acre‑feet) for many uses; and a new allocation metric that gives 1 acre‑foot per 2 acres of parcel area, with an explicit prohibition on concentrating multiple parcel allocations into a single physical point to produce more than 10 acre‑feet at one location.

Proponents included the Montana Building Industry Association, the Montana Association of Realtors, local builders, and county interests. Adrienne Cotton of the Building Industry Association said the bill \"clarifies for developers what a project is going to require for permitting upfront\" and that the measure reduces delays and administrative burden for small developers.

Some witnesses said the statutes being codified reflect historical rule language first inserted by legislative amendment in the 1980s and later changed; proponents argued codification would reduce litigation over whether combined appropriation exists. Several development and surveying groups described stalled housing starts and reduced business activity tied to uncertainty about well permits in basins where exempt wells are limited.

Opponents included environmental groups, riverkeepers and the Clark Fork Coalition. Opponents argued the bill leaves the exempt‑well pathway in place for potentially significant cumulative impacts without monitoring, notice to other water users, or a permitting and adjudication process to evaluate adverse impacts. John Tubbs of Upper Missouri Waterkeeper said the measure \"doesn't solve the problem\" and could create additional confusion about how cumulative uses will be measured and enforced. The Clark Fork Coalition and the Montana Environmental Information Center urged the committee to reject the bill and to instead pursue the more comprehensive review process that several stakeholders have been developing.

Several witnesses urged that if the committee chose to move the bill it should not be substantially amended on the floor; Brian Thompson of the Senior Water Rights Coalition cautioned that amendments could send the bill to conference where sponsors and stakeholders would have less control over the final outcome.

DNRC Water Resources Division Administrator Anna Pakenham Stevenson was present to answer technical questions.

Ending: Senator Glimm closed describing the bill as a compromise that preserves protections against large‑scale diversions while enabling small residential and livestock uses under defined limits. The committee took testimony and did not record a committee vote during the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Natural Resources - Mar 26, 2025 15:00 - 19:30","oneSentenceSummary","Senator Carl Glimm presented Senate Bill 436, which would clarify the definition of \"combined appropriation\" and preserve sideboards on exempt wells while adding an acreage‑based allocation metric intended to enable small, rural residential development.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MT, Montana","taxId",77694,"location","Montana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":44,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6622430,"House committee hears bill to require Land Board review before state lawyers assert private water rights",4722,466000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2784471-da38a0b12e9afc15832a791dec9133db&start=466&end=5188","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2784471-da38a0b12e9afc15832a791dec9133db/thumbnail_466000.jpg","/articles/6622430/Montana/House-committee-hears-bill-to-require-Land-Board-review-before-state-lawyers-assert-private-water-rights","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622430-1c06126e9a2d955c06d09e967bcd8105/orig.mp4?Expires=1775434988&Signature=Qu-Afh0HMHiDc3bKFKBr4WhnZ53LOaa5sDUQCB5lukafmU-qrEfM0gTxX2orA61QNTnwdL1QtvW68UjqHTlkL2sMtxwgGQWwvbBCoE0MF-IuKW91kJ62O9w25~6j7OIWe9hgagm2~8UC-dg6aS3p1b5EiX2Ucy6MI1LqO1E1Fs~YB54wM3ivX5vaDeQL2JzTLmTFfTqDVPXOpgomzgV2TkiPsi-3h~wNUwykSGKDpFCeMAYw4FZm4HnLo25u-7ojqCMhWhPPl~ooKaSA1e3AAYwShquiKcncOGjrentoHbFhQw~WG88J9iQeviHOA~Z-LId9Yyed2FbD9VEnwckbzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Becky Beard, sponsor of Senate Bill 263, told the House Natural Resources Committee the bill would ensure “a process of transparency and accountability when the state attempts to claim private water rights.” The bill would require the Land Board — the elected body that oversees state trust lands — to decide whether to direct state attorneys to pursue co-ownership or other claims before lawyers file in water court.

Beard, R-38, said the bill does not change who ultimately owns water rights but would add a step: notice to private water-rights owners and a chance to present to the Land Board before litigation. \"This bill does not change who ultimately owns water rights. It simply requires the land board, not unelected state lawyers, to decide whether in each particular case it wants to direct its lawyers to claim the ownership,\" Beard said.

Nut graf: Supporters said the change restores a public, elected decision-maker to a process that, in some instances, left private owners unaware their rights were being challenged; opponents, including the lieutenant governor and multiple agricultural groups, said the measure could conflict with the state’s fiduciary obligations to school trust lands and could impose timing constraints that impair the Land Board’s ability to protect trust assets.

Proponents from ranching and landowner groups described cases where private wells or infrastructure developed entirely on private land later were associated with uses on state-leased grazing or school-trust parcels. John Metropoulos, a Helena attorney representing the Senior Ag Water Rights Alliance (SAWRA), said the bill creates a pre-litigation process that lets the land board and affected owners discuss facts before state attorneys act. \"When they're dealing with the property of their citizens, it only seems right to me that the citizens ought to get notice and have a chance to discuss the matter with their elected representatives,\" Metropoulos said.

Multiple ranchers and local landowner groups testified in support, citing family ranches that have used private water sources in conjunction with state leases for decades and expressing concern the state could assert ownership without prior notice.

Opponents included Lieutenant Governor Kristin Juras, who appeared on behalf of Governor Gianforte, and representatives of the Montana Stockgrowers Association, the Montana Farm Bureau Federation and Advocates for School Trust Lands. Juras told the committee the Land Board has a fiduciary duty under the Enabling Act and Montana case law to preserve value for the school trust and that existing processes and a 2024 Land Board motion already require the Land Board’s approval before filing co-ownership objections in many circumstances.

Juras said: \"The land board is required to preserve the value of the school trust lands. An interest in school trust lands, including water rights, cannot be alienated unless the trust receives adequate compensation.\" She cautioned the bill’s Section 1, which characterizes some water rights as \"improvements,\" could conflict with Montana precedents (including Pettibone) and could allow lessees to walk away without compensation to the trust.

Committee members questioned witnesses about how water rights associated with wells, stock tanks and mixed private-and-state uses are handled during adjudication. The lieutenant governor and DNRC staff described a process under which DNRC examines decrees as they issue, researches files and brings matters to the Land Board; the Land Board may meet in executive session with counsel before deciding whether to pursue an objection in water court. Witnesses described a typical timeline: staff research following a decree can take 60–90 days, the Land Board has 180 days to assert an objection after a decree issues, and there is typically a 90‑day settlement period in adjudication before a contested hearing.

Several ranchers gave examples they said illustrated confusion caused by changing case law and the adjudication process. One witness said his father had a pre-1973 water right developed entirely on private land; DNRC at one point attempted to assert partial ownership after a later decree. Supporters said the bill would give landowners an opportunity to present facts to elected officials before the state’s lawyers moved to file claims.

Opponents urged caution. Rayleigh Honeycutt of the Montana Stockgrowers Association and other opponents said the bill reaches farther than the Land Board motion adopted in 2024, risks turning the Land Board into a quasi-judicial body and places rigid deadlines that could impair the Land Board’s ability to meet fiduciary duties.

Beard closed by asking the committee to adopt the bill for its transparency and to give landowners a chance to be heard before litigation. The committee took testimony and did not record a committee vote during the hearing.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on SB 263 after extended testimony. Committee members asked for additional technical information during the hearing; witnesses indicated they would provide documents and examples to the committee record.","Lawmakers and ranchers debated Senate Bill 263, which would require the Montana Land Board — not state attorneys alone — to approve any state assertion of ownership in privately developed water rights used on state trust land and would add notice and an opportunity to be heard for private water-rights owners.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6622421,"Committee executive action: SB 500 tabled; committee concurs on SB 221",1071,8153000,9224000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2784471-da38a0b12e9afc15832a791dec9133db&start=8153&end=9224","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2784471-da38a0b12e9afc15832a791dec9133db/thumbnail_8153000.jpg","/articles/6622421/Montana/Committee-executive-action-SB-500-tabled-committee-concurs-on-SB-221","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622421-496483de7cfec18fce13ae25cb8d9879/orig.mp4?Expires=1775434988&Signature=JgDkkXtI-KfHHHvqNroPlm~jG2kPv~t~e47OpzUrxuQub4B3hLmOB9HLwDTsTzzNnFR2q00LqRxbUm~Ek0vGw3msjp3U6k5wUpqcxEwfZS9pUdj6VRNNkoifQt4mKzH6yLb9QsOnWm2QbbW4m9RhQpPZYtMtIycTGRfHzEUwOmoI3gLOv2lnNtqxGwgR8XU9CIWUyBl8k~t8Ou6AjeOTTjv23jW6IBJ~z4u3ZXA~W~1ha3XVX62C7VTBqrReWqzQphC0aHZBOA10oz8669DihaHQdZ7DvSAozLGDmflJhlfZRaJ3DbVDCLQEI2bppg~ZMjC3CTrKUtJXERiSktBcVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Natural Resources Committee took executive action on two Senate bills during the session.

Senate Bill 500: Committee members debated a motion to concur and then a substitute motion to table. After voice votes the committee adopted the substitute motion and tabled SB 500. Proxy votes were recorded for the record on the tabling motion (Representative Oblender and Representative Fitzpatrick were noted via proxy votes as \"no\" on concurrence earlier in the record).

Senate Bill 221: The committee voted to \"do concur\" on SB 221. A roll call was held. The clerk recorded eight ayes and six noes; the committee chair announced that SB 221 would be sent to the floor. The roll call record in committee (as read into the record) listed votes as follows: Vice Chair Oblender (yes, by proxy); Vice Chair Marler (no); Representative Koehnauer (no); Representative Edwards (no); Representative Fitzpatrick (yes, by proxy); Representative France (no); Representative Hinkle (yes); Representative Carlin (no); Representative Meynas (yes); Representative Minor (yes); Representative Schubert (yes); Representative Steinger (no); Representative Teal (yes); Chair Gist (yes). The tally announced was 8 ayes, 6 noes.

No floor carriers were named in committee during the executive action; the chair said a carrier would be determined later and noted timing constraints for additional scheduling.","During executive action the committee tabled Senate Bill 500 and voted to \"do concur\" on Senate Bill 221, sending SB 221 to the floor. The SB 221 concurrence passed by roll call (8–6).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee debates compromise bill to clarify "exempt well" rules for small developments

House committee hears bill to require Land Board review before state lawyers assert private water rights

Committee executive action: SB 500 tabled; committee concurs on SB 221