Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aquifer Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would direct study of Fox Hills/Hell Creek aquifer, propose optional two-year pause on large permits
Summary
Rep. Morgan Thiel proposed HB 935 to fund a $50,000 study by MBMG of the Fox Hills/Hell Creek aquifer and to place an optional two-year pause on new large water permits while data are collected; many eastern Montana ranchers and conservation districts supported the study and temporary pause.
Representative Morgan Thiel opened a hearing on House Bill 935, describing constituent concern about falling water levels in the Fox Hills/Hell Creek aquifer that underlies parts of eastern Montana. Thiel said the aquifer is large, deep (100–1,600 feet depending on location) and that recent data are decades old; he proposed directing the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) to study the basin and report to the water policy interim committee, with a $50,000 appropriation to fund initial work.
Thiel explained there are two linked options in his package: a study and an optional temporary suspension of new permits above exempt-well thresholds (exempt well = 35 gallons per minute / 10 acre-feet) in mapped basins for up to two years while MBMG gathers data. He said the pause is intended to prevent a speculative rush of large applications that could make conditions worse while the state lacks current hydrogeologic information.
Many local ranchers, conservation districts and public officials testified in support of the study and, in many cases, the temporary pause. Don Steinbeiser and Richard Iverson described artesian wells losing pressure and the high cost of drilling replacement wells (witnesses cited drilling costs as high as $235,000 in testimony), stressing that the aquifer supplies municipal and livestock needs in parts of Roosevelt and Richland counties.
Informational witnesses included John Metesh (state geologist, MBMG) and Anna Pakenham Stevenson (DNRC water-division administrator). MBMG staff told the committee that historic data are sparse and that targeted data collection is needed to evaluate aquifer characteristics and the drivers of declines. DNRC and proponents debated whether a statutory ‘‘may’’ (leaving closure to DNRC discretion) or a ‘‘shall’’ (legislatively required pause) would better achieve the sponsor’s goals; the sponsor circulated two amendments—one that includes the temporary hold and one that would remove the hold and make the measure a study-only bill—so committee action could choose the approach.
What happens next: the sponsor said he would take committee feedback and that a study is broadly supported. The committee closed the hearing; amendments and funding language will determine whether the measure becomes a temporary moratorium or a study-only bill.
