Committee hears bill to define tribal consultation, agencies debate scope and fiscal impacts

Senator Susan Webber opened the committee hearing on Senate Bill 379 by describing the measure as a statutory definition of tribal consultation and guidelines for tribal liaisons.

Webber said the bill “finally” defines what tribal consultation is and provides guidelines rather than requiring new hires. Multiple tribal representatives testified in support, urging a uniform definition to improve government‑to‑government engagement. Patrick Yawake, representing Blackfeet, Fort Belknap and the Chippewa Cree tribes, told the committee the bill provides “policy guidelines for departments and agencies to utilize to work towards proper state tribal consultation” and said the fiscal note should not be attached because departments already perform consultation in practice.

Several state agencies offered informational testimony. Molly Kruckenberg, director of the Montana Historical Society, and Sean Thomas, a division administrator at the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), were present to answer questions about potential fiscal impacts. Thomas explained DNRC’s fiscal note, saying DNRC does not have a single designated liaison position at the director level and that fully implementing the broader statutory definition would be “bigger and broader” than current field‑level practices and could require additional resources. The Department of Labor and Industry told the committee it already has a two‑person tribal consultation team and does not anticipate a fiscal impact.

Committee members pressed the sponsor and tribal representatives on whether the bill would impose new staffing or travel requirements. Webber and tribal witnesses said the bill is intended as guidance and to produce a consistent definition across state government, not to impose redundant staffing mandates. Patrick Yawake emphasized the bill “is not putting any financial burden on any department.”

Senators and agency representatives debated a technical phrase in the draft that cites 2‑15‑1401 and uses the phrase “when feasible.” Senator Flowers asked whether that language creates ambiguity about what is required; the sponsor responded it is not an attempt to “push ourselves on anybody” but to ensure agencies can talk with tribes. DNRC reiterated that its fiscal note reflected full implementation obligations under the bill’s broader language.

Webber closed by saying the bill aims to make state and federal consultation align and to put a consistent definition in statute so “we could all work on the same page.” The hearing record shows discussion between the sponsor, tribal representatives, and agency staff but no committee vote recorded in the transcript.