Bill would let subdivisions opt to connect to municipal water/sewer up to 1,000 feet
Loading...
Summary
House Bill 629 would extend the optional distance for subdivisions to connect to municipal water and sewer systems from 500 to 1,000 feet; proponents said it encourages density and treated sewage connections, opponents worried the optional nature weakens mandatory connections and questioned who pays for extensions.
Representative Steve Fitzpatrick introduced House Bill 629, which would change state code to allow — but not require — subdivisions up to 1,000 feet from a municipal water or sewer system to request connection to that system. The sponsor said the change encourages development that uses existing municipal infrastructure rather than septic tanks and individual wells.
"We would prefer not to have septic tanks and cesspools next to bodies of water," Representative Steve Fitzpatrick said, noting last session's change that extended the 500‑foot administrative threshold to 1,000 feet for subdivisions near bodies of water. HB 629 would apply the 1,000‑foot distance more broadly.
Opponents included the Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC). Matt Elsasser (Upper Missouri Waterkeeper) said the bill becomes more permissive and might reduce incentives for cities to expand systems; MEIC’s Laura Collins said making the change optional could be a step backward from the current 500‑foot requirement.
Lindsey Krivaruchka (DEQ Water Quality Division Administrator) testified as an informational witness and said the developer typically pays for connection costs in the department’s experience; she also noted administrative rules require that receiving systems have adequate capacity. Committee members asked about who would pay for connection infrastructure and whether topography or capacity constraints would prevent connection — Krivaruchka and the sponsor said developers normally bear the cost and that the bill would not force systems to accept connections unless capacity and water-right requirements are met.
Several legislators asked clarifying questions about implementation, including whether districts must have adequate capacity and whether lifting the requirement from mandatory to optional could reduce incentives for cities to expand their systems. The sponsor said the bill does not create a new mandate and is intended to encourage connections where practical.
Ending: The sponsor urged passage; committee members flagged follow‑ups about capacity, financing of extensions, and interactions with local authorities.
