Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Metering And Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stakeholders split on metering proposal as committee weighs PD 3 requirements
Summary
A draft bill to require meters and annual reporting for new groundwater appropriations drew technical and political pushback — drillers warn of hardware cost and maintenance, ranchers seek variances for stock water and free‑flowing wells, and conservation groups say measurement is central to protecting senior rights and enabling mitigation markets.
Committee staff presented PD 3, a provisional metering and reporting bill, that would remove the statutory prohibition on DNRC requiring meters on wells and would require measurement and annual reporting for new appropriations (including many new exempt wells). The draft also includes an enforcement framework (civil penalties modeled on Idaho’s approach) and authority to require meters in controlled groundwater areas.
Proponents including Montana Trout Unlimited and other conservation groups urged measurement as an essential tool to protect senior water rights and to enable a workable mitigation and allocation system. ‘‘Measurement and reporting is central to any compromise on exempt‑well policy,’’ testified Clayton Elliott of Montana Trout Unlimited, arguing that data are necessary to establish aggregate volumes and to resolve disputes about combined appropriations.
Opponents raised practical concerns. The Montana Water Well Drillers Association estimated all‑in meter installation costs of roughly $1,500 per site, with additional replacement and maintenance in hard‑water areas. Ranching groups and the Montana Stockgrowers and Farm Bureau pushed for a variance pathway for stock water, free‑flowing artesian wells and remote sites without power, pointing out that some stock‑water installations lack metering points and that a one‑size‑fits‑all requirement would be infeasible and inequitable.
DNRC staff described options: require metering for new uses only; allow narrowly defined variances set in statute or rule; use controlled‑area designations to require meters where needed; or pursue a phased approach tied to permitting. Several stakeholders urged combining measurement with corrective‑action steps before fines and recommended state support or grant assistance for meters in disadvantaged or agricultural areas.
Committee members signaled they want additional work with stakeholders. Several members said they were open to metering as part of a package that includes variances and a clear enforcement/corrective mechanism, but skeptical about passing a standalone metering bill during a single session.
Next steps: DNRC and stakeholder working groups to provide refined proposals about who pays for meters, variance criteria, and an enforcement ladder (notice/correction before penalty). Staff will include metering in the broader exempt‑well package and return options in July.
