Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rights Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee narrowly approves bill requiring transparency when state uses water rights on state land
Summary
The Senate Natural Resources Committee approved Senate Bill 263, as amended, by a 6-5 vote after debate over whether the bill would improperly subject state-controlled water rights to private-rights processes and whether it raised constitutional concerns.
The Montana Senate Natural Resources Committee voted 6-5 to pass Senate Bill 263 as amended, a measure that would change how the state handles certain water rights used on state land by increasing transparency and requiring additional review.
Committee members debated constitutional limits and property-rights implications at length. Several senators said they feared the bill could create a precedent that would allow state control over private water rights; supporters said the amendment improves transparency and allows public scrutiny without preventing the state from using water rights when needed.
Senator Beard is the bill sponsor. Vice Chair Cuff moved the committee to give SB 263 a do-pass recommendation and moved the committee to consider an amendment; the committee took the amendment up and then voted by roll call. The amendment (SP0263.001.001) passed on a roll-call vote that the secretary recorded as 6 in favor and 5 opposed. The committee then voted to pass SB 263 as amended; the chair announced the bill passed 6-5.
Opponents raised constitutional concerns and the potential for state overreach. Senator Marzio said he did not support the amendment and called it unconstitutional, saying he had "spent some time with the constitution this weekend" and that he saw no fiduciary responsibility in the document that would support taking or reassigning private water rights. Senator Gillespie said he had "a lot of heartburn" and questioned how the government could take a water right for use on state land during dry years.
Supporters said the amendment keeps the process "out in the open" and does not prevent the state from exercising its water rights; it only requires public notice and review. Senator Mitten said the bill is intended to "put a check on" the state and that it requires transparency rather than outright prohibition.
The roll-call records in the transcript show named yea and nay responses and several proxy votes. During the amendment roll call the secretary recorded Vice Chair Cuff as "yes," Vice Chair Morgeau as "nay," Senator Usher as "yes," Senator Vinton as "yes," and other votes that led to the amendment’s 6-5 passage. During the final roll call for the bill, the transcript shows a similar split and the chair announced the bill passed 6 to 5.
The transcript contains no text of the final floor amendment in full and does not include fiscal notes or implementation language in this excerpt. Committee members noted that the bill does not prevent the state from using water rights; it requires additional transparency and review when state actions could affect private water rights.
Committee members indicated they expect to return to water issues in upcoming meetings.
