Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Well Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to update water well contractor rules draws support and some opposition over disciplinary language
Summary
Rep. Mike Vinton's HB 59 would modernize the Board of Water Well Contractors’ authority: raise bonding requirements to $25,000, clarify licensing language, and remove a sentence that currently can block disciplinary action if a landowner denies access.
Representative Mike Vinton presented House Bill 59 to change rules governing the Board of Water Well Contractors. The bill would remove an old requirement that the licensed water well contractor must be the individual who signs contracts on behalf of firms, clarify which kinds of well work require a license, raise license bond amounts to $25,000, and remove language that the board said could prevent disciplinary action when a landowner refuses access.
Todd Netto, bureau chief at DNRC and a voting board member, testified the changes would help firms that employ licensed contractors by allowing company representatives to sign contracts while the licensed contractor remains responsible for construction. Netto and Art Robinson (DNRC program manager for the board) said the $25,000 bond better reflects current drilling costs and ensures funds are available to repair or replace poorly constructed wells. They said the board recommended $25,000 after consultation with licensed drillers.
Rhonda Wiegers, representing the Montana Water Well Drillers Association, supported the bill and said the bond increase translates to a roughly $250 annual premium for most contractors, a manageable cost. Industry proponents said removal of the sentence limiting board discipline is necessary because it currently allows some licensees to avoid board action when landowners deny access. The proponents said disciplinary due process remains in statute (section 310), so removal of the sentence would not eliminate licensees’ opportunity for appeal.
A water-well driller, Matthew McKenzie, testified in opposition to the change removing the sentence that requires licensees be given an opportunity to respond before disciplinary action. McKenzie warned that without the sentence the board — which includes licensed contractors — could discipline competitors without the contractor first being given a fair chance to respond and correct issues. He asked the committee to preserve due-process protections.
Committee members discussed options to preserve industry opportunity to respond while allowing the board to act when landowners deny access. Members suggested refining language and asked staff to provide statutory cross-references to disciplinary procedures (the committee identified 37-43-310 as the disciplinary section to review). The sponsor said he would work with staff and stakeholders to refine the provision.
