Bill would expand public notice and comment for open‑cut gravel permits; industry warns of delays (SB 391)

Senator Shane Morgeau introduced Senate Bill 391 as a response to changes made in 2021 to Montana’s open‑cut mining law that, sponsors said, curtailed public participation when local communities face applications for gravel pits and asphalt plants.

"This bill simply tries to make the law match the constitutional rights of my constituents," Morgeau said, framing SB 391 as a measure to restore meaningful notice and opportunity to comment when a proposed mine could affect neighbors’ property, water or community life.

Proponents—largely nearby residents and community organizations—described cases where notice arrived late, where meetings were hard to schedule and where they were told a permit would be issued regardless of public comment. Kristen Corbin, a Manhattan resident, said her neighborhood received notice of a proposed pit on Thanksgiving and faced an abbreviated timeline for response: "We were ambushed by an application for a gravel mine next to our home," she said. Several other residents from Gallatin Gateway and Elbow Lake gave similar accounts and asked the committee to restore a longer, clearer public process.

SB 391 would make several specific changes to the permitting process as presented in the draft discussed at the hearing:

- Remove the ambiguous statutory phrase "occupied dwelling unit" and instead define notification and thresholds by residence and property ownership to reduce confusion about who must be informed. - Restore a larger notification radius (from one‑half mile to one mile) for surrounding property owners and require operators to provide DEQ with a list of owners within that radius. - Lower the threshold of those within the notification area needed to trigger a DEQ public meeting from 51% to 30% of households, using a clarified definition of "residence." - For "high and dry" (dry‑land) permits that currently have a 15‑day comment window, require a 30‑day public comment period and require DEQ to respond in writing to comments and make a decision within five days after the comment period closes.

Supporters said the changes are aimed at giving communities time to consult experts, present technical concerns about water and traffic, and avoid litigation by improving agency decision making.

Industry representatives and contractors opposed the bill. David Smith, executive director of the Montana Contractors Association, said the 2021 changes established an expedited path for rural, dry sites and that the public may comment at any time through DEQ’s posted documents: "The current public notice requirements are adequate," Smith said, and he urged a do‑not‑pass recommendation.

Contractors including Riverside Contracting and TMC Sand and Gravel warned that expanding notice, increasing the radius and requiring written responses to comments would slow permitting and raise costs for projects that supply material for roads and housing. Cal Fisher of Riverside Contracting said the proposed changes would eliminate the dry‑land expedited pathway and could lengthen the minimum permit timeframes so that a dry‑land permit could take longer than the standard application; he warned that contractors often have short windows between winning a bid and needing a permitted site.

Others opposed on economic grounds argued expanded procedure would increase administration for an agency already under staffing pressure and could translate to higher gravel prices and higher costs for infrastructure and housing.

Proponents countered that the present approach gives operators pre‑application site visits and technical support from DEQ that neighbors do not receive and that the law should require comparable opportunity for public input. Multiple residents described site postings they said were inadequate and argued that the proposed text would reduce disputed permits and litigation by forcing DEQ to consider and respond to substantive concerns before issuing a permit.

The committee heard both extensive personal testimony from neighbors and technical opposition from industry representatives. No vote was taken at the hearing; proponents said they would pursue amendments to address drafting questions raised by DEQ and members of the committee.