Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bipartisan support for protecting voluntary drought conservation (HB 580); technical questions on D1 triggers
Summary
House Bill 580 clarifies that voluntary reductions under an adopted drought plan should not by themselves be treated as abandonment of a water right. Proponents including irrigation and water groups supported the bill; DNRC and other witnesses described drought‑designation metrics and monitoring. Committee discussion focused on drought metrics, D1 thresholds, and implementation details.
Representative Josh Seckinger opened House Bill 580, which would protect water‑rights holders who voluntarily reduce diversions under an adopted drought plan from having that nonuse be treated, by itself, as evidence of abandonment. Seckinger said an amendment will require both a drought designation (D1 or worse) and an adopted drought plan metric to be in place before the protection applies.
Stakeholders from across the water management spectrum supported the bill. Clayton Elliott (Tread Unlimited) and Mike Murphy (Montana Water Resources Association) described the "use it or lose it" abandonment doctrine and explained that fear of abandonment discourages collaborative drought management. They cited local drought plans (Big Hole, Jefferson) as examples where voluntary reductions helped avoid calls on water rights. Rayleigh Honeycutt (Montana Stockgrowers) and other ranching and irrigation representatives also urged support and noted the bill had been vetted by stakeholders.
Corey Hawk, DNRC Water Planning Implementation and Communications Bureau Chief, appeared as an informational witness and described the process for drought designations: a monitoring subcommittee reviews county‑by‑county indicators weekly (snowpack, soil moisture, stream gauges, producer reports) and recommends updates to the U.S. Drought Monitor, which publishes final maps. Committee members asked about the D1–D4 scale, which metrics are considered (including surface and groundwater indicators), and how local drought plans would set the numeric criteria that would trigger voluntary reductions. Hawk and other witnesses described the "convergence of evidence" approach and pointed committee members to state tools such as the Montana Mesonet for monitoring.
Committee members sought clarity on whether reductions below D1 could be proposed, how voluntary reductions would be quantified and verified, and whether protections could be gamed; witnesses said the bill ties protections to written plans and drought designation to limit misuse. Sponsor Seckinger closed by urging a do‑pass recommendation; the transcript shows the hearing closed without a recorded committee vote in the transcript.
