Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stream Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers debate toughening penalties and jurisdiction for streambank protection under 3‑10 law
Summary
Senate Bill 472 drew extended testimony from conservation districts, logging interests and DNRC over overlapping jurisdiction between the 3‑10 permit (conservation districts) and the streamside management zone (SMZ) administered by DNRC; committee was told fines have not been adjusted since 1975 and supporters argued for stronger penalties, while timber interests warned of duplication and overreach.
Senator Denley Loge presented Senate Bill 472, which seeks to strengthen enforcement tools under the Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (commonly called the 3‑10 law), raise per‑day civil penalties and address a jurisdictional overlap with the streamside management zone (SMZ) rules.
Why it matters: Conservation districts administer 3‑10 permits and some testified that current penalties (originally $500/day in 1975) have not kept pace with inflation and that out‑of‑state owners sometimes ignore fines; proponents asked for higher civil liability for restoration and greater maximum penalties to deter repeat violators. Logging and timber industry witnesses, however, urged caution and proposed an amendment to prevent double penalties when timber harvests follow SMZ requirements.
Proponents: Mark Thompson (Sweetgrass County Conservation District) and Samantha Tappenbeck (Flathead Conservation District) described the 3‑10 permit process, local enforcement practice, rare use of civil penalties, and the need for stronger remedies in egregious cases. Jeffrey Tiberi (Montana Association of Conservation Districts) provided handouts and said districts issue hundreds of 3‑10 permits statewide but very few reach penalty stage.
Opponents/concerns: Jason Todhunter (Montana Logging Association), Kandi Kanduch (Granite County Conservation District supervisor and logger), and Julia Altimus (Montana Wood Products Association) warned the logging industry could be unfairly penalized where SMZ rules already apply and urged either clarifying jurisdiction or amending the bill to avoid duplicate enforcement. DNRC’s Sean Thomas and others described a genuine gray area in some harvest situations where both SMZ and 3‑10 could be implicated.
Committee discussion: Members asked for concrete examples of overlap and how double fines could occur; witnesses described the gray areas (timber harvest adjacent to streams, islands, skid trails and culverts) and said county attorneys and mediation have been used when landowners fail to cooperate. Senator Loge said he expects to work with stakeholders on amendments to reconcile the SMZ/3‑10 issues and the fines question.
Next steps: The committee did not record final language in the hearing and the sponsor said he would return with amendments, aiming to reconcile conservation district and timber interests and address penalties and restoration liabilities.
