Montana committee advances bill to clear rules for utilities crossing railroad right-of-way after contentious hearing

The House Transportation Committee advanced House Bill 933, which would allow utilities to cross or place infrastructure within a railroad's right of way and adjacent railroad land, following a contested hearing that drew broadband providers, local utilities and rail companies to testify.

Supporters said the bill would provide predictable timelines and fees needed to build broadband and water infrastructure; opponents, led by BNSF Railway, said the legislature should not intervene in private disputes and warned of legal and safety risks.

Sponsor Representative Neil Durham, R-House District 1, told the committee the bill is meant to bring parties to the table and provide a timeline for permits. “Section 3 is important that it recognizes existing agreements. Section 4 describes the rights of utilities and their crossings,” Durham said during opening remarks.

Brady Adams, chief operating officer of Intermountain Infrastructure Group (IIG), described repeated delays and uncertainty his company has faced seeking railroad crossings for fiber builds. “We've currently invested north of $100,000,000 of broadband infrastructure into Montana in the past 18 months,” Adams said. He asked the committee to adopt statutory timelines and a predictable fee structure so projects can proceed in areas where highways, rail and rivers limit construction routes.

Local officials and small utilities described the costs and permitting burdens for non-telecom infrastructure. Ross Fitzgerald, representing a water and sewer district in Power, Montana, said permit requirements and steep insurance demands have made routine projects unaffordable for small towns: “They want an equal policy on the town of Power to the tune of $5,000,000 and a $10,000,000 max. That's gonna cost our little district $25,000 for 1 year. That's nuts to swallow.” Fitzgerald said those costs, plus engineering requirements for going under tracks, make essential projects prohibitively expensive.

Organizations representing municipal governments and electric cooperatives supported the bill conditionally. Jennifer Olson, government affairs director for the Montana League of Cities and Towns, said the bill would “balance the operational needs of infrastructure requirements of utilities while ensuring safety and clarity in the crossing process.” Mark Lambrecht for the Montana Electric Cooperatives Association described a 2021 agreement his group negotiated with BNSF that created predictable fees and communication standards and said the bill must preserve working agreements where they exist.

BNSF Railway’s representative Steve Wade testified in opposition and provided the committee with a written letter describing an ongoing legal dispute with one proponent. Wade said the company has worked with utilities to improve permitting but urged the committee to reject legislation that, in his view, would “raise the likelihood that the state of Montana will be involved in any potential litigation, over trespass on private property.” He also said the bill’s fee provisions leave no cap on how far longitudinal occupancy could extend, which he described as unreasonable given safety and future railroad plans.

Testimony included competing accounts about whether certain utility installations were placed on railroad-owned land without permission. Adams said some of IIG’s infrastructure was installed up to points determined by publicly available cadastral data and that in certain locations, BNSF later claimed a broader property boundary; BNSF described that dispute as ongoing litigation.

Committee members asked about eminent domain as a possible remedy for small towns; BNSF’s witness said eminent domain is a local-government tool but its applicability depends on the type of railroad property and requires further research.

After testimony and questions, the committee moved the bill into executive action. Vice Chair Wirth recommended House Bill 933 “do pass,” and a roll call later in the meeting recorded members’ votes; the bill passed out of committee and will proceed to the next stage. The transcript does not include a numeric final tally in a single consolidated line for publication.