Montana committee advances bill to clarify utility crossings of railroad right-of-way

Representative Neil Durham opened the committee hearing on House Bill 933, describing the bill as an effort to provide procedures, timelines and definitions for utilities seeking to place infrastructure within railroad rights-of-way.

Why it matters: Proponents said the bill would provide certainty and predictable permitting for broadband, electric and water projects that cross rail corridors; opponents said the legislature should not substitute for private negotiation and warned of safety and potential legal conflicts with railroads.

Intermountain Infrastructure Group Chief Operating Officer Brady Adams told the committee his company has invested more than $100,000,000 in Montana recently and employs roughly 70 full-time staff and about 300 contractors in the state. Adams said lengthy permitting delays, unpredictable fees and unclear cadastral records have blocked or slowed projects and that HB 933 would mirror approaches other states use to set timelines and fee structures. "We're asking just to simplify the process of gaining permits, to occupy that space that's already occupied by many others," he said.

Opposing testimony came from Steve Wade of BNSF Railway, who urged the committee not to involve the legislature in private business dealings and said the company has already invested in improving Montana permitting. Wade also said BNSF had an ongoing legal dispute with the bill's main proponent and provided the committee a written letter describing alleged trespass and other concerns. "All that will do is raise the likelihood that the state of Montana will be involved in any potential litigation," he said.

Mark Lambrecht of the Montana Electric Cooperatives Association described a multi-year agreement negotiated with BNSF that went into effect in February 2021 and, he said, has resolved many prior communication and fee problems for cooperative members. Lambrecht warned that HB 933 could "blow up that agreement." Representative Durham said the bill recognizes existing agreements and adds timelines for responses; he asked stakeholders to continue negotiating while the bill moves forward.

Committee members pressed witnesses on key points: whether small towns could use eminent domain, the number of pending crossings, insurance and permit costs, and whether the bill would change engineering or construction expenses. Proponents said some crossings had been delayed more than 12 months and that a small town project cited in testimony faced permit paperwork on the order of several thousand dollars and insurance requirements that district officials said could be unaffordable.

Outcome and next steps: Following executive action, the committee voted 9 in favor and 5 opposed to pass HB 933 out of committee. The bill will proceed to the next legislative stage, where senators will have an opportunity for further hearings and amendments.