[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6116683,"mediaKeyId","2732525-88292c4d1c34ddc483d5f507dc38d131","parentId",2732525,"title","Montana hearing spotlights clash over state school trust water rights and sale of isolated trust land","audioSeconds",3588,"startMs",180000,"endMs",3768000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732525-88292c4d1c34ddc483d5f507dc38d131&start=180&end=3768","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732525-88292c4d1c34ddc483d5f507dc38d131/thumbnail_180000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6116683/Montana/Montana-hearing-spotlights-clash-over-state-school-trust-water-rights-and-sale-of-isolated-trust-land","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116683-a2b47f9b8d36b6ca8a174af99ebc09bd/orig.mp4?Expires=1770932182&Signature=dRe3SbaMsVd5s9rexZ~CFZFmwwuobSd1Q-L1XAE2YhgmIkI-tpgyScaWF4TSzTnBO6GqG2kIyd~BIIAwO7f6yTyvi6JBfVVqqN04jHwbLyqD7se8BGY88QX0UNIL0s4dwm5R9To~HOPWGUvOqlC1cJzY3mr09en35NliUts7I2OBrc48cIUseSiuCUBfntlha9LK2g~8~LOlDW0sZ4nVIvX1CDs5hBf6GkWDg-w5rfh9cKH-1gCG5S2MJi0lzQFXYXc34vRjC0LH7bbcXordAtesQ0JxzVrq2ue446-1iIujAl3fn3iMT-IP3LqkD1Oaoxq195Vjp869LcrMhFqf5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-21T00:00:00Z","article","Members of the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee heard more than two hours of testimony on House Bill 676 on a contested set of changes that would limit when the state can assert an ownership interest in water rights used in connection with state school trust lands and would allow sale of some \"landlocked\" or isolated trust parcels.

Sponsor remarks and proponents said HB 676 would protect private property and encourage investment on state-leased land. \"This bill provides much needed clarity on state ownership of water rights,\" said Jocelyn Cahill, testifying for the Senior Ag Water Rights Alliance and identifying herself as a rancher in Broadwater County. \"By explicitly stating that both the place of use and the place of diversion must be on state lands, this bill removes ambiguity.\"

The bill’s sponsor told the committee three changes are proposed: to disallow the Board of Land Commissioners from claiming private water rights that are used on state land but diverted from points off state land; to address maintenance/compensation questions tied to leases; and to permit sale of truly inaccessible, landlocked parcels of state trust land, with the sponsor saying sale proceeds could be dedicated to property tax relief or education.

Opponents ranged from the lieutenant governor, who spoke for Governor Greg Gianforte in his capacity as chair of the State Land Board, to school, conservation and water-rights groups. Lieutenant Governor Kristen Juras handed out a packet and argued the state is not \"stealing\" rights but acts under established water-right law and the trust’s fiduciary duty to beneficiaries. She outlined the basic elements of a water right — appropriation, beneficial use and a defined place of use — and said where a lessee acted as an agent on trust land the trust may have an interest that must be administered for schools.

Groups opposing the bill raised four consistent legal and practical concerns: that an arbitrary cutoff or carve-out could disrupt the ongoing statewide water adjudication and the Montana Water Court’s process; that ending or weakening adjudication risks federal complications tied to the McCarran Amendment and federal claims; that allowing non‑competitive sales or preference sales of trust land could violate constitutional mandates that trust sales secure full market value for beneficiaries; and that selling productive grazing or farm land could remove long‑term revenue and public access. \"This is a system and a process we set in place many decades ago,\" said Brian Thompson of the Senior Water Rights Coalition. \"We should allow it to complete its work.\"

Speakers representing public‑education coalitions, outdoor‑recreation groups and wildlife organizations warned the bill’s Section 11 — which opponents said would permit non‑competitive sales of certain isolated parcels at a lessee’s request — could lead to long‑term revenue loss, reduced public access and legal challenges. \"The sale of state lands, even isolated parcels, represents a one‑time influx of funds. Once these parcels are sold, the state loses a potential ongoing revenue from leases and other uses of these lands,\" said Doug Reisig of the Coalition of Advocates for Montana’s public schools.

Witnesses from the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) provided technical context. Ryan Weiss, deputy administrator for state trust lands at DNRC, described classification and lease practices and said some isolated parcels can be a single 640‑acre section; he said retained land typically contributes perpetual value, with the permanent fund averaging roughly 3% annual distributions while agricultural lands have market appreciation. Anna Pakenham Stevenson, DNRC Water Resources Division administrator, was available for technical questions about adjudication and water‑use law.

Committee questions focused on maintenance responsibilities for wells, how dual‑use wells are handled, the legal basis for state claims when water diversion points are off trust land, and the scope and definition of \"isolated\" or \"landlocked\" parcels. The lieutenant governor and DNRC witnesses explained that where the point of diversion is on private land the private owner typically owns and maintains the well; where the point of diversion is on trust land, the trust has legal title as trustee and may need to secure compensation if a lessee installs improvements.

The committee did not take a final vote on the bill during the hearing. Supporters said they are preparing amendments and the sponsor indicated a willingness to work on definitions or to consider striking the sale section; opponents urged tabling or delaying action until the adjudication process and possible constitutional issues are further vetted.

Why it matters: HB 676 seeks to change how the state and private users interact over water used on trust lands and to allow sales of some trust parcels. The outcomes could affect agricultural investment, school trust revenues and public access — and could prompt litigation over adjudication and constitutionally required trust‑sale procedures.

The hearing record includes extensive sworn testimony from producers, water‑rights groups, school‑funding advocates, conservation organizations and DNRC staff. The committee closed the hearing without scheduling a final vote, and witnesses indicated negotiations and amendment work remain ongoing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary - Friday, Mar 21, 2025 07:58 - 10:55","oneSentenceSummary","Members of the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee heard more than two hours of testimony on House Bill 676 on a contested set of changes that would limit when the state can assert an ownership interest in water rights used in connection with state school trust lands and would allow sale of some \"landlocked\" or isolated trust parcels.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MT, Montana","taxId",77694,"location","Montana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6116664,"Votes at a glance: executive actions and committee roll calls",646,8467000,9113000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732525-88292c4d1c34ddc483d5f507dc38d131&start=8467&end=9113","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732525-88292c4d1c34ddc483d5f507dc38d131/thumbnail_8467000.jpg","/articles/6116664/Montana/Votes-at-a-glance-executive-actions-and-committee-roll-calls","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116664-9c92cc4a80dbda113d88d33d148c253e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770932182&Signature=KDi2sM3V9uor3nVEGLxKaawBX0-JYbn8pMuJM2qr9KQIdxb3o7MqmI2CgN6wT-~8k4EZBIXFA~Jflr8jY-6UGD8npHYRhpSL3583ZQpQ2FtIa6jXauZ6ATpvDz15W83wRTVaH52PAI4Bfc8FL3uorfuoLOAUnFhZDjRbStq3bl0gMDVLC~sUdcTi~mgiy4kLszy5eqS0Og3lHnEPEvTrJ-bALystUq-B5m-GEh1uIj2boUj7P3HCctt3wLyhf52aA7IxFCfJZPKPJvuWZtekRV2wH3ECusEB2-B4LYlPog~jsJZ6Ol~SN7L0L~37v46ayjKEWF2h2uP57w8TvCoaaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee recorded several formal actions during the session reflected in the transcript. Key outcomes:

House Bill 173 (concurred): A motion to concur in House Bill 173 passed in committee by roll call, 5‑3. The roll call in the record showed votes as follows: Vice Chair Ricky (yes); Vice Chair Olsen (no); Senator Emmerich (yes); Senator Manzella (yes, by proxy); Senator Newman (no); Senator Smith (no, by proxy); Senator Vinton (yes); Chair Usher (yes). The motion passed 5‑3.

House Bill 174 (amendment and final action): Committee members adopted an amendment to HB 174 (amendment H B 0174.0022.002) by roll call (vote recorded as 5‑3). A subsequent motion to concur in the bill as amended failed on a roll call (tied 4‑4) and that bill was later tabled by motion.

House Bill 416 (concurred): The committee voted to concur in House Bill 416 (the HOA permission bill). The roll call record: Vice Chair Ricky (yes); Vice Chair Olsen (no); Senator Emmerich (yes); Senator Manzella (yes, by proxy); Senator Newman (no); Senator Smith (no, by proxy); Senator Vinton (yes); Chair Usher (yes). The motion passed 5‑3.

House Bill 475 (shackling in labor; tabled): A motion to concur on HB 475 failed on a 4‑4 roll call tie; Senator Ricky then moved to table the bill and the chair announced the bill was tabled without objection.

Notes on procedure and next steps: Some committee actions proceeded by motion and roll call; other outcomes (such as tabling by unanimous consent) were handled without recorded roll‑call tallies. Several bills discussed in hearings have pending amendments or technical fixes that proponents expect to file before further committee or floor action.","Summary of roll‑call and executive actions recorded in the Senate Judiciary Committee transcript: House Bills 173 and 416 were concurred by committee; House Bill 174 failed after tied or split votes and was tabled; House Bill 475 failed concurrence and was tabled.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6116669,"Legislation to ban shackling during labor draws broad support at hearing, is tabled after tied committee vote",738,6084000,6822000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732525-88292c4d1c34ddc483d5f507dc38d131&start=6084&end=6822","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732525-88292c4d1c34ddc483d5f507dc38d131/thumbnail_6084000.jpg","/articles/6116669/Montana/Legislation-to-ban-shackling-during-labor-draws-broad-support-at-hearing-is-tabled-after-tied-committee-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116669-32684e0bc3e16c831716d6fcdf9a666f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770932182&Signature=QdFvMzmjl1h0YuKRLRxe3ZInYRwZXmLLkzngCpMaJZUKy50higfi0BlkdEVNMNYMoGg~JCBQ7O-eXwa8bKLkDP4KCnUzjSSvzXVlFCh3OIUfWIBK48c2uqD4T2~plywUbAcXF~hTdEO0e~YLf65uRy6Aab8FUemt1HTOa3agsxDaD~Ff-5g9Jxsjwr33XzBXe9OGglKSFEo342Pe0NXht-iABhxUjmWzJ7Nm-vrIuq3RKqOdJNEjxOjaKHwHwKDmATKwDaAKP-y4o9QPmk4Fm3iXaJ2KwMHp3Kjy1T~FVZeBKgOmk9~CWWlOfqg--RtWHQWDhimPEz19zTYu-KS8mA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee heard strong, unanimous‑style support from medical, civil‑rights and advocacy groups for House Bill 475, a measure that would restrict the use of restraints on pregnant inmates in county jails during labor, delivery and immediate postpartum recovery. After debate during executive action the committee did not concur and ultimately tabled the bill.

Representative Eames Reavis (sponsor) said the bill is modeled on statute from other states and aims to make clear that restraints during childbirth are unacceptable except where an established, articulable security risk exists. \"I was told a story... where her client was in jail… and her chain was strapped to the bed. That image has never left me,\" Reavis said, explaining the measure’s purpose and noting that 41 states have some statutory restriction on shackling in labor.

Proponents who testified included the ACLU of Montana, the Montana Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (represented by a local OB‑GYN), Catalyst Montana, the Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and others. Medical witnesses said shackling during labor poses clear health risks to mother and baby, impedes medical care, and contradicts American Medical Association and ACOG guidance.

\"The use of restraints on pregnant and postpartum women has been identified as medically dangerous,\" said John Rhodes of Catalyst Montana. OB‑GYN Leah Miller said restraints make it harder to provide care and worsen outcomes. Henry Seaton of the ACLU of Montana cited constitutional and liability concerns and called the bill a way to guarantee humane treatment and reduce institutional risk.

Committee members discussed whether policy already in jail standards or Department of Corrections practice covers the conduct. Sponsor and witnesses said the practice is rare but does occur and that a statutory ban with limited exceptions would reduce the chance of isolated incidents and reflect Montana values. The deputy administrator of state trust lands and other DNRC witnesses were not involved in this item.

During executive action Senator Ricky moved concurrence; a roll call vote resulted in a tie and the motion failed. The transcript shows mixed views among senators about whether codifying the standard was necessary (some members called it \"code clutter\") and whether the legislative floor was the right place to enshrine the policy. After the failed concurrence vote Senator Ricky moved to table the bill; the chair announced the motion to table carried without objection and the bill was tabled.

Why it matters: The bill would align Montana with a national trend to prohibit shackling in labor and delivery, citing medical and human‑rights concerns. It drew support from medical, civil‑liberties and advocacy groups; committee questions focused on whether administrative standards already in use render a statute redundant and on preserving limited exceptions for safety.

Next steps: Tabled in committee; sponsor and supporters may seek further floor or amendment strategies in future.","Supporters including medical associations, ACLU and advocates said House Bill 475 would codify existing standards banning restraints on pregnant persons in labor; the committee vote on concurrence tied and the bill was tabled.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6116673,"Bill to allow electronic return of security deposits draws support from realtors, student groups",148,3519000,3667000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732525-88292c4d1c34ddc483d5f507dc38d131&start=3519&end=3667","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732525-88292c4d1c34ddc483d5f507dc38d131/thumbnail_3519000.jpg","/articles/6116673/Montana/Bill-to-allow-electronic-return-of-security-deposits-draws-support-from-realtors-student-groups","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116673-ad6123f676b700ad1ae569b26056fc3c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770932182&Signature=cVEj7rseNlsvY2GfBg2XGWxqtM36vP3AuT4jZ85XGy5fKa4K07O-EcuKkgy4UKvKQVYrefN6I-s668xUS~I8AE54r-i0kP5uath1KSVHnuadhM8T46Aghcm7Cnpqa6LYsNyMLLSQrng-5KkdWmC9xJZet6ZcsMngwZ2K1mu-eY6p9N84v2aZ3ivCnwnimjIEqIplejNeyycz00iRKnpNkxC8y5w7JkePb2FCuH2345pPKTGsJSDKDNqDja2o8HGibvnggnGDF052ghsShz69BXpCueiTWpEtdOfjAXqV8vGOw84c063Xi2XehGtJkWoBeZ9MQXd5kn-bKDQuJaF1PQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judiciary Committee heard testimony supporting House Bill 444, which would update Montana’s landlord‑tenant statutes to permit electronic communication for required notices and to allow security deposits to be returned by electronic funds transfer if the parties agree.

Representative Paul Tuss, the sponsor, said the bill simply modernizes current law by adding electronic mail and electronic fund transfer to the methods by which landlords and tenants can send notices and return security deposits. \"It's that simple,\" Tuss said.

Proponents included the Montana Association of Realtors and the Montana Landlord Association, which urged a clarifying amendment to tidy language. Daniel Cox of the REALTORS noted the bill preserves choice — electronic transfer remains an option only if both parties agree — and said the group would provide a technical amendment to fix a minor inconsistency. John Synrude of the Montana Landlord Association said clarifying language is important so judges, landlords and tenants can apply the statute consistently.

Associated Students of the University of Montana also testified in favor, citing student needs for speed and flexibility when vacating rentals. The student representative said electronic returns would reduce stress and aid rural and disabled students who otherwise must rely on mail or in‑person pick up.

There were no opponents at the hearing. The sponsor closed by asking the committee to modernize the statute; he and proponents said they would work together on a technical language amendment before further action.

Why it matters: The bill updates an administrative, consumer‑facing part of landlord‑tenant law to reflect common electronic practices and reduce friction for tenants and landlords who mutually agree to electronic processes.","House Bill 444 would let landlords and tenants use email and electronic funds transfer for required notices and security‑deposit returns; landlords associations, realtors and a student government testified in favor, urging clear statutory language.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6116678,"Committee concurs with bill requiring homeowners associations to get permission before entering private yards",572,2933000,3505000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732525-88292c4d1c34ddc483d5f507dc38d131&start=2933&end=3505","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732525-88292c4d1c34ddc483d5f507dc38d131/thumbnail_2933000.jpg","/articles/6116678/Montana/Committee-concurs-with-bill-requiring-homeowners-associations-to-get-permission-before-entering-private-yards","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116678-4bfd34611fceb2eb45079fde0b0f291c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770932182&Signature=nUhIthXhqKs~K6oUzbHrFMFX-Zts7iDyeyPIziKCAFPvkYNdLbVFaVh5DdR9bF3uSDnD0lfZW0XGJcYgCRD5ncOtoJ3~KgQUsw6160KMv6R2Hq~FbCrfoX8LZvpZxjq~HlFPcCfx2cDKRrgoEVRKPy0G~0eAaPXJp65~ZlA5eR6d5AFCzMwR0CUeWCRcvUGJTaSlSmemhvqyITKSRAFNhvqGDH2vBqdZCPZOuSBtsbPBHH49jaWRljkCgsdnC8e~CDadKE4eyK9TpXdCcd3Y1nzgVH4SdQk6siyQBaDfPxegXhKCw-4vPVZWsWUlyCFZ~aR1K9r3n~vtU4eM9k51eQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to concur in House Bill 416 after a public hearing in which Representative Jedd Hinkle (sponsor) told the committee the bill would require homeowners association boards or their design‑review committees to obtain permission before entering a homeowner’s private premises for inspections or improvements.

\"I came across a declaration that said 'The owners hereby grant members of the design review committee full access to the property,'\" Hinkle said. He described constituent complaints that board representatives visited yards or even entered homes without notice; the bill would bar entry into a homeowner’s private area without permission and contains carve‑outs for condominiums with common elements and for easements of record that specifically benefit the HOA.

Supporters included homeowners, an attorney who represents owners and associations, and the Montana Landlord Association. John Sinrud, testifying for himself, cited parallels to tenant‑landlord law that requires notice before entry. Stephanie Bacchus, an attorney in Billings, told the committee she had seen HOA committees enter homes without homeowner consent and said the bill was a reasonable, limited constraint on HOA powers.

Committee members questioned the sponsor about the amendment that exempts condominiums and easements recorded for the benefit of an HOA. Senator Mansella pressed the sponsor on whether the bill would protect non‑HOA neighbors who had granted easements (for utilities, for example); the sponsor said the exemption language was intended to limit the carve‑out to easements that \"specifically benefit the homeowners association.\" A municipal attorney in the hearing clarified that a public utility easement recorded on an adjacent property would not be an HOA benefit absent express language.

On executive action the committee voted, by roll call, to concur in HB 416. The motion to concur was moved by Senator Ricky. The roll call record in committee showed five votes to concur and three opposed: Vice Chair Ricky (yes); Vice Chair Olsen (no); Senator Emmerich (yes); Senator Manzella (yes, by proxy); Senator Newman (no); Senator Smith (no, by proxy); Senator Vinton (yes); Chair Usher (yes). The motion passed 5‑3.

Why it matters: The bill addresses a common civil‑property complaint about HOA enforcement and design‑review practices, clarifying that ordinary private‑property privacy protections apply unless the homeowner has granted a specific easement or the property is a condominium where common‑element access is defined in the declaration.

The sponsor indicated the bill had strong bipartisan support in the House (passed 56‑44 there) and requested the committee’s concurrence; Senator Ricky volunteered to carry the measure to the Senate floor.","The Senate Judiciary Committee concurred in House Bill 416 after a hearing where the sponsor said the bill closes a gap allowing some HOA covenants or design‑review rules to be interpreted as granting unlimited access to owners' private premises; proponents included homeowners and attorneys, opponents were not present.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Montana hearing spotlights clash over state school trust water rights and sale of isolated trust land

Votes at a glance: executive actions and committee roll calls

Legislation to ban shackling during labor draws broad support at hearing, is tabled after tied committee vote

Bill to allow electronic return of security deposits draws support from realtors, student groups

Committee concurs with bill requiring homeowners associations to get permission before entering private yards