Committee debates compromise bill to clarify "exempt well" rules for small developments

Senator Carl Glimm opened testimony on Senate Bill 436, a bill that would revise how Montana treats exempt wells and would add a statutory definition of "combined appropriation." Glimm described the proposal as a pragmatic compromise intended to allow small residential and rural development to proceed while retaining limitations that prevent large‑scale diversion from exempt wells.

Nut graf: Supporters — including builders, realtors and county representatives — said the bill provides needed certainty for small developers and homeowners after court rulings constrained exempt well use; opponents said the bill could perpetuate cumulative impacts by continuing a class of appropriations without robust monitoring, enforcement or notice to other water users.

Key provisions described by the sponsor include a definition of combined appropriation that covers multiple developments drawing from the same aquifer where, in the department’s judgment, the development could have been accomplished as a single appropriation; retention of sideboards (35 gallons per minute; 10 acre‑feet) for many uses; and a new allocation metric that gives 1 acre‑foot per 2 acres of parcel area, with an explicit prohibition on concentrating multiple parcel allocations into a single physical point to produce more than 10 acre‑feet at one location.

Proponents included the Montana Building Industry Association, the Montana Association of Realtors, local builders, and county interests. Adrienne Cotton of the Building Industry Association said the bill "clarifies for developers what a project is going to require for permitting upfront" and that the measure reduces delays and administrative burden for small developers.

Some witnesses said the statutes being codified reflect historical rule language first inserted by legislative amendment in the 1980s and later changed; proponents argued codification would reduce litigation over whether combined appropriation exists. Several development and surveying groups described stalled housing starts and reduced business activity tied to uncertainty about well permits in basins where exempt wells are limited.

Opponents included environmental groups, riverkeepers and the Clark Fork Coalition. Opponents argued the bill leaves the exempt‑well pathway in place for potentially significant cumulative impacts without monitoring, notice to other water users, or a permitting and adjudication process to evaluate adverse impacts. John Tubbs of Upper Missouri Waterkeeper said the measure "doesn't solve the problem" and could create additional confusion about how cumulative uses will be measured and enforced. The Clark Fork Coalition and the Montana Environmental Information Center urged the committee to reject the bill and to instead pursue the more comprehensive review process that several stakeholders have been developing.

Several witnesses urged that if the committee chose to move the bill it should not be substantially amended on the floor; Brian Thompson of the Senior Water Rights Coalition cautioned that amendments could send the bill to conference where sponsors and stakeholders would have less control over the final outcome.

DNRC Water Resources Division Administrator Anna Pakenham Stevenson was present to answer technical questions.

Ending: Senator Glimm closed describing the bill as a compromise that preserves protections against large‑scale diversions while enabling small residential and livestock uses under defined limits. The committee took testimony and did not record a committee vote during the hearing.