Committee debates wide-ranging amendments to House Bill 119 for cattle assessment, referendum and committee structure

The Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation committee spent the bulk of the meeting reviewing a packet of proposed amendments to House Bill 119, a bill to establish a Montana cattle assessment and an associated promotional/industry committee.

Carly Johnson, who presented the draft language, said the amendments aim to broaden nomination language so ‘agricultural groups with an interest in the production and marketing of cattle and cattle byproducts may submit to the governor a list of nominations and appointments within 90 days,’ allow tribal groups to participate, and align committee administration with other commodity committees by removing special procurement or bonding exemptions. Johnson said the intent was to keep the statute “evergreen” and avoid naming specific organizations in code. She also explained administrability changes: changing ballot eligibility wording from “seller” to “producer” to make lists easier to pull and clarifying refund and ballot timing (semiannual refund processing and quarterly department processing with a 15‑day rule).

Members and stakeholder representatives raised several points of contention. Rachel Prevost of the Montana Farmers Union requested that certain entities remain named to ensure representation and asked for a 40% turnout threshold for referendum validity (comparing it to bond election practice). Prevost also described an amendment that would reconduct a referendum every five years and expressed that Farmers Union had concerns the bill "isn't quite ready." Committee members debated whether automatic five‑year referendums are necessary or whether a petition-triggered referendum (10% of payees) should remain; supporters of the 5-year approach said it prevents frequent, costly repeat elections prompted by small organized petition drives.

The drafter flagged multiple conflicts among the packet: amendments 0.003, 0.006, 0.008 and 0.01 modify overlapping sections on committee membership, funding the initial referendum, application form requirements, and refund timing. Amendment 0.003 increases committee membership from seven to 11 and adds several interest groups; amendment 0.006 and 0.01 both permit privately raised funds to be used for the initial referendum but use different language; amendment 0.008 would simplify annual application forms and remove some timing and refund minimums; and amendment 0.01 is a large omnibus change that strikes the governor’s appointment subsection and some committee powers while aligning other statutory references.

Practical concerns about costs and logistics surfaced: Senator McCamey warned referendums could carry a “hefty fiscal note” for printing and mailing; the Department of Livestock’s fiscal materials, cited in committee, estimate the referendum voter pool at about 9,700 producers. Public commenters — several students and young producers invited to observe — described varied views: one ranch worker, Thomas Hamel, said a mandatory per-head fee could cost large operations tens of thousands annually (he estimated a 2,000–3,000‑head operation could pay roughly $23,000 per year) and recommended making contributions opt‑in rather than mandatory-with-refund.

Drafter and staff offered to prepare a conflict matrix to lay out which amendment text is mutually exclusive and to provide clearer alignment of the packet. Several senators urged balancing producer protection (refund mechanisms, thresholds) with administrative practicality and fiscal prudence. The committee did not take final votes on these amendments during this session; staff said they would prepare materials (including a clearer conflict matrix and posted amendment packets) before further action.