Lawmakers consider raising penalties and clarifying jurisdiction for streambank protections

Senate Bill 472 produced prolonged and sometimes contentious testimony as the committee considered changes to enforcement under Montana’s Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (commonly called the 3-10 law).

Sponsor Sen. Denley Loge said the bill aims to strengthen local conservation districts’ ability to protect streambanks, including increasing per-day fines and overall liability for restoration. Loge and several conservation district supervisors described situations where landowners or outside contractors damaged streambanks and “laughed” at current maximum penalties, which they said are too small to deter some violations. Sweetgrass County Conservation District supervisor Mark Thompson recounted a multi-year enforcement case and urged greater financial consequences to secure prompt restoration.

The hearing revealed disagreement among conservation districts and between conservation districts and the timber industry. The Montana Association of Conservation Districts supported the bill’s intent to update penalties but asked for more time to assess language and the effect of an amendment added in the Senate that would exempt certain silviculture or timber-harvest activities from fines. The Montana Logging Association and some loggers urged legal clarity to avoid double penalties, arguing the Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) law and its enforcement—administered through DNRC—already provides strong, specific requirements for forest practices adjacent to streams and that conservation districts were overreaching in some local determinations.

Flathead Conservation District’s resource conservationist, Samantha Tappenbeck, testified in favor of increasing civil penalties per day and adding civil liability for restoration but opposed the logging-industry amendment (section 1(3)(b)), which would limit local enforcement against timber harvest activities that occur under SMZ rules. Several conservation districts and local supervisors expressed concern that some districts have expanded jurisdiction beyond the bed and banks in ways that create uncertainty for operators. DNRC’s state forester, Sean Thomas, and other witnesses said the SMZ rulebook provides guidance and that overlap is a source of confusion that merits clarification.

The committee did not adopt a final compromise in the hearing; the sponsor said he would work on language and indicated an amendment to allow a higher penalty for restoration and to address overlap would be drafted. Several witnesses asked for more time for statewide discussion before final language is settled. The hearing record included letters and testimony representing differing local conservation districts’ views. The committee closed the hearing and the sponsor indicated he would return with a revised amendment.