Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb262 Mepa Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to exempt subdivisions from MEPA review over objections from environmental groups
Summary
Senate Bill 262, which would exempt subdivision applications from Montana Environmental Policy Act review, passed the committee on a roll call after floor discussion; supporters said litigation is slowing needed development, while opponents urged caution because MEPA’s watershed and cumulative-impact analyses remain important.
Vice Chair Beard moved that the committee give Senate Bill 262 a do-pass recommendation; after floor discussion the committee passed the bill by roll-call vote, 9–2.
"Right now, up in the Flathead, we have litigation going on on a subdivision that's attached to, will be attached to sewer and water system, and it's really dragging it down," Senator Hertz said in support. "This system would replace septics and a lot of other stuff that could, potentially get into Flathead Lake."
Senator Pope said he would be a "soft no," explaining he supports housing but believes the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) still plays an important role and contains cumulative-impact calculations that should not be removed without further resolution. "I think NEPA is still a very important piece of our planning process ... I'm not comfortable right now starting to pull it out of existing statute until that has been more resolved," Pope said.
Senator Bridal noted the League of Cities and Towns supports the bill; the transcript records that MEIC (Montana Environmental Information Center) does not. After discussion, the committee conducted a roll-call: Vice Chair Beard (yes), Vice Chair Weber (no), Senator Trevis (yes), Senator Pope (no), Senator Ellsworth (yes), Senator Hertz (yes), Senator Fern (yes), Senator Lammers (yes), Senator Bogner (aye by proxy), Senator Boldman (yes), Chairman Mandeville (yes). The chairman announced, "9 have voted yes. 2 have voted no."
The committee recorded the bill as passed out of committee; testimony and debate focused on speeding housing development versus retaining environmental review processes.
