[{"_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",6622423,"mediaKeyId","2784468-9266ee3db6b8d20a6a19a5bb69a987cd","parentId",2784468,"title","Bill would bar state/local air rules stricter than federal standards; debate centers on local control and public health","audioSeconds",2523,"startMs",7396000,"endMs",9919000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2784468-9266ee3db6b8d20a6a19a5bb69a987cd&start=7396&end=9919","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2784468-9266ee3db6b8d20a6a19a5bb69a987cd/thumbnail_7396000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6622423/Montana/Bill-would-bar-statelocal-air-rules-stricter-than-federal-standards-debate-centers-on-local-control-and-public-health","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622423-369873c0f0146d4961e7fdc576a99e51/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206117&Signature=LnQBTqKkeTL~czbQnGpcCpjAZ8giQEAvuKka1odgkgmbSrqVujDvUCXXgnI0kZY4sQl-MB9O-fLTzvOKcTQwL1SKIHxDonDKgyMkyuV~q--we9b0G2-NCkuWDoZ4AYB~q2zOrNxhY~SV64OACUvi2iFMoU9ewEDT1slbnDdlTEvdAyEB0MkdYzaZqwxKF2kcQsVJQPFX7UUAVrxNN7xjYGfUZe5bxLMntpzrRDUp~9B-K8qkFR2lqdBo39fwheqz-PixJE0~XNopffpV~AECPLBmCKUETEOU8lP-oSJEJXWezppeUuXkSoaS93dDAhLd0PmyMJPZQwo5g7mxlsuzzA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-26T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Greg Oblander opened the hearing on House Bill 291 by saying the bill would remove authority for DEQ and local air pollution control programs to adopt air‑quality standards more stringent than federal Clean Air Act requirements. He said the proposal includes a grandfather clause that preserves existing standards established before the bill’s effective date and that it would not affect areas designated nonattainment or maintenance to comply with national ambient air quality standards.

Proponents included trade and industry groups such as the Montana Coal Council, the Montana Petroleum Association and the Montana State Building and Construction Trades Council. Proponents argued HB 291 provides regulatory certainty, avoids a patchwork of state and local standards that could impose disproportionate burdens on Montana businesses, and prevents inconsistent requirements across jurisdictions. Several proponents said Montana industries have modern environmental controls and that the bill prevents “self‑imposed” regulatory burdens that would have limited competitiveness.

Opponents testified at length. Public‑health professionals, conservation groups, local civic organizations and numerous citizens said the bill would strip Montana’s ability to respond to local air quality problems, prevent the state from regulating greenhouse gases (noting the federal government currently lacks comprehensive GHG standards for some pollutants), and remove established state tools used to address local pollution episodes — including wood‑stove smoke inversions in valley communities. Witnesses cited historical contamination (Anaconda, Berkeley Pit) and recent wildfire‑smoke episodes as reasons to keep the state and local regulatory authority intact. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality served as an informational witness and agreed to provide technical documents showing how local programs operate; DEQ said on a cursory review it found no obvious examples of current rules that are stricter than federal levels but referred to program-specific implementation steps and grandfather protections.

Committee members questioned how the bill would interact with local nonattainment programs and asked DEQ for examples of how counties use local programs; DEQ said local programs typically implement national ambient air quality standards but have programmatic approaches tailored to local conditions and that the bill’s grandfather clause protects existing program elements in place prior to the act. Opponents urged the committee to reject HB 291 to preserve Montana’s ability to set stricter standards when federal rules lag and to protect public health.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Natural Resources - Mar 26, 2025 15:00 - 19:00","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 291 would prohibit DEQ and local air programs from adopting air‑quality standards stricter than federal requirements, while preserving existing local standards established before the bill takes effect and excluding federal nonattainment obligations.","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},6622428,"Long, contested hearing on HB 285: sponsors say MEPA is procedural; opponents warn of weakened protections",6069,2232000,8301000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2784468-9266ee3db6b8d20a6a19a5bb69a987cd&start=2232&end=8301","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2784468-9266ee3db6b8d20a6a19a5bb69a987cd/thumbnail_2232000.jpg","/articles/6622428/Montana/Long-contested-hearing-on-HB-285-sponsors-say-MEPA-is-procedural-opponents-warn-of-weakened-protections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622428-edf0f0720e112681a01148d8f0112406/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206117&Signature=opx9Vgf7wVIS91ZuC8lpdcspZmFTnCnJlbHdYxjEmRIiMsoCNOf4ru43~fd65Zb4oHgPrvEy6fidBzVsfZBHzmIwu767cCQtRWF3fK0eJkLX-zp0TOJ8~GeeO~CJpTk6U58f2Kkc4MvgWq8aaK9esypfn4KxfCgopnZZOrZmnGclDO13wKb5qc3d~OeALphQL06aHAmjCbTD-jaMO2wSV1zDWlLh-EnvMxSE82L3txV9M93SVZGjIFvqdbyAe6hd2bjenxaX9dO2eRVmDjjQexPGXS9U8mAlFdUM70M51C~RJ-8SZvHBAuez7ZWF3AU~C29FJNxnIu885b~FwPKPMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Speaker Laird opened testimony on House Bill 285 by describing the bill as a reorganization and clarification of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) intended to emphasize MEPA’s procedural, informational role rather than a substantive permitting statute.

Proponents — including consulting practitioners, the Montana Coal Council, Treasure State Resources Association, the Montana Petroleum Association, Montana Chamber of Commerce, and electric cooperatives — said HB 285 would provide regulatory certainty, prevent courts from using MEPA to deny permits beyond the scope of underlying substantive statutes, and align MEPA with interim work‑group recommendations. Testimony from Daryl James (consultant) and trade groups emphasized that MEPA should inform decisions but not substitute for the substantive permitting standards found in separate statutes.

Opponents testified at length. Conservation and hunting groups, the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC), Montana Audubon, Northern Plains Resource Council, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, physicians’ and public‑health organizations, and dozens of private citizens and local leaders said the bill weakens long‑standing public‑engagement and cumulative‑impact provisions, could bar agencies from denying permits where MEPA findings indicate significant harm, and conflicts with other pending bills (noted in testimony). Witnesses described specific concerns: risks to water quality, wildlife habitat and public health, cumulative impacts analysis, and the constitutional obligation to maintain a “clean and healthful environment.” Several witnesses cited historical contamination incidents (Anaconda/Silver Bow) and Superfund costs as reasons to preserve strong environmental review.

DEQ officials attended as informational witnesses and answered committee questions about where cumulative and long‑term impact analysis remains in code and administrative rules. Committee members asked whether language in HB 285 removed statutory requirements; DEQ staff said statutory obligations to consider cumulative impacts remain in code (citing 75‑1‑1208) even where the bill removes some duplicative or formulaic language from MEPA text.

The hearing record shows extensive public testimony both pro and con; proponents framed HB 285 as clarifying the act’s procedural purpose and opponents argued it would limit the state’s ability to protect air, water and public health. The transcript records no final committee action in the hearing itself.","House Bill 285 would amend the Montana Environmental Policy Act to emphasize that MEPA is a procedural disclosure law, not a substantive permitting statute; proponents said the change restores legislative intent, while opponents warned the language would weaken environmental review and public protections.",{"_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},6622438,"Committee hears bill to raise hard-rock mining fees, create permitting-account for reclamation work",674,797000,1471000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2784468-9266ee3db6b8d20a6a19a5bb69a987cd&start=797&end=1471","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2784468-9266ee3db6b8d20a6a19a5bb69a987cd/thumbnail_797000.jpg","/articles/6622438/Montana/Committee-hears-bill-to-raise-hard-rock-mining-fees-create-permitting-account-for-reclamation-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622438-de8bcf73675cfd82daa9aea3c31a97a4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206117&Signature=PeuKgXn-7uLLYX7LNUN0uyAMcqTTQUT0AIpRSIR4oS890vFrBvX1t~zCqTNZ5trBbAeicI40va3R0ue7~fmR790uOgHr3jy0JOBTljHHC8rpHsIAXgp8cKJahp1oQo88U2seXAw6av5h5KCwrFUrKU7gpJEtrPrPE6JHzJzWWegsj6HBq2TPxbPmDKGFS7ak7IzRyB0lZgTEvDN7pTbEqJ~Rc1DsdFC5xteEJj8dgVFuwdQRLkpyCzdxXp20MYaL2o~6INCxZiNmXXsu0Wie2PcD7hMguCwR4LmjUbpPzQaUzuvWclHdLfSD-1jlfKo6jU2PAjzbQs2pbOU1BDcgaw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Steve Gist opened the hearing on House Bill 69 by saying the bill updates hard‑rock mining fees that have not kept pace with costs for several decades and creates a dedicated account to let the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) use collected fees to implement the Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act.

DEQ testimony said HB 69 would add a third funding source for implementation of the act, relieve pressure on the general fund, and direct fees to a new hard rock permitting program account instead of the Environmental Rehabilitation and Response Account (except for fines, penalties and other unspecified monies). DEQ estimated the fees generated in year four after enactment would total about $189,000. DEQ staff said the bill establishes annual operating fees and permit application fees for exploration licenses and operating permits and that the department worked with industry stakeholders, including the Montana Mining Association and the Montana Wood Products Association, while drafting the bill.

Matt Vincent, executive director of the Montana Mining Association, testified in support and said the association and its affected members had been engaged in the bill development and view the fees as a reasonable modernization compared with other states. Amy Narison of Sabanye Stillwater also supported the bill on behalf of a major U.S. platinum-palladium producer. Julia Altimus (Montana Wood Products Association) testified online in support and said the department had balanced concerns with affected wood-product producers who sometimes are regulated under the Metal Mine Reclamation Act.

No opponents or informational witnesses appeared in the hearing record. Committee members asked technical questions about fee structure and impacts; the sponsor said DEQ would provide more details and thanked the stakeholders for their input. Representative Gist asked for a “due pass” (a favorable committee recommendation) at the close of testimony; the transcript records the hearing conclusion but no vote.

Because the bill would change how fees are used and create a new account for permitting activity, DEQ officials said passage would improve the department’s ability to produce legally defensible permits and maintain implementation capacity for reclamation work.","Representative Steve Gist told the Senate Natural Resources Committee that House Bill 69 updates decades‑old hard‑rock mining fees and creates a new permitting program account so DEQ can use fee revenue to implement the Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act.",{"_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},6622442,"Senate resolution seeks state attention to Flathead Lake water levels",481,292000,773000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2784468-9266ee3db6b8d20a6a19a5bb69a987cd&start=292&end=773","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2784468-9266ee3db6b8d20a6a19a5bb69a987cd/thumbnail_292000.jpg","/articles/6622442/Montana/Senate-resolution-seeks-state-attention-to-Flathead-Lake-water-levels","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622442-8b12586af049b0012ad9f6372e130b90/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206117&Signature=XlAyZ636NF6hV6x9OYU-f~SCbFlcfwFZRGvZY5Jsx5aLSS1U~BPLmr1yO2M797nDG1~bs8lufEPNhI-2hhDkfgFJ2ZOflWSVk7L3HbfOePA9aRKzlhm71x38sn8-Z89M1KAo257k-Q1Cr5580b1TRie1yKFLaLuQGP-YMf0SztN0kp1i9ZvooZaSOm9udmjb5L~PGWjkGHiT3eiOcmeiGCO6yTrZhhL38ixDEduFdnYjUjMpF57v2wBil0uY6S3ZCC5oEHXVVAzYgfGRGySW4~TFtc42p~ICeh5Knn81qHtbBjLK1PxwfaIRox7uuM8gcvIGcRGhPunDFl1IgBJLVw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Matt Regier, sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 18, told the Senate Natural Resources Committee that the measure is intended to highlight the economic and recreational importance of Flathead Lake as negotiations over river and reservoir operations continue.

Regier said Flathead Lake’s low pool two years ago left some residents and businesses unable to put boats in the water and imposed “ripple effects” across the local tourism and recreation economy. He said the resolution asks state negotiators to ensure the Flathead Valley is considered in discussions tied to the Columbia River system, the Columbia River Treaty and river operating entities, including federal agencies, tribes and electric utilities.

Committee members asked who makes the final lake-level decisions. Regier replied that authority is spread across many actors — the Army Corps of Engineers, Columbia Basin operators, tribal governments, utilities and international treaty obligations — and said that prompted him to file a resolution rather than a binding statute. Senator Morgell disclosed a potential conflict: she said the dam in question is managed by a company that manages it for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and noted she has professional experience on lake-level policy.

No proponents, opponents or informational witnesses registered for the hearing. Committee members questioned how broadly the resolution would signal the Legislature’s intent and whether it could be used to influence the next Columbia River Treaty negotiation. Regier said the resolution specifically references involvement in the upcoming Columbia River Treaty review and is meant to ensure the voices of Flathead Lake residents and businesses are not forgotten.

The hearing record shows no formal committee action on SJ 18 during this session’s hearing; the sponsor closed after questions. The committee proceeded to its next agenda item after the close of testimony.","Senator Matt Regier introduced Senate Joint Resolution 18 asking the Legislature and state agencies to emphasize Flathead Lake water levels in upcoming regional water negotiations; supporters cited local economic harm and urged inclusion of Flathead Valley interests in broader Columbia River Basin discussions.",{"_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},6622434,"Bill would raise forest-fire readiness assessment caps; DNRC, stockgrowers debate allocation and fairness",725,1487000,2212000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2784468-9266ee3db6b8d20a6a19a5bb69a987cd&start=1487&end=2212","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2784468-9266ee3db6b8d20a6a19a5bb69a987cd/thumbnail_1487000.jpg","/articles/6622434/Montana/Bill-would-raise-forest-fire-readiness-assessment-caps-DNRC-stockgrowers-debate-allocation-and-fairness","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622434-cb7d02ea6039a4f5489be771f33ae68f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206117&Signature=fSkr0M5RYTgU8FxkGS4rTmgX~Bfi0Yfmkbs0t6cqutKhwYmIrocXvRyyvrJVHp11t-v~Q-zrwIW1qIpEMoxsukt7MvizRxu7aaIlLeJFT0mv~yPS103XqoaP5Gy2awOuyFIi2-h6l~chVP2zlccgAJ~LWQDwxIecVjhwk3E2WptIxs0uYEFs3alWem1p3zBDv5hOIfL2sr55rrO9rE9hFA87dkMWn4TSe-yfWQNSs3a-VhYrOQdSGGqC6padz2ebloBEPsOblZTqS9qAgNS3HIF0KUECRkIxw5CNBI3WqfXHfiUB1qKotDljcEqSg-6W~0ug00Ng-IH-tnegNXTNIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Steve Gist introduced House Bill 421, which proposes higher caps for the fire protection assessment that funds the state Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) readiness account used for equipment, training and other wildfire preparedness needs.

Matt Hall, Fire Protection Bureau Chief for DNRC, testified the department protects roughly 60 million acres across the state and that the Legislature provides two-thirds of the fire protection budget by appropriation while DNRC must generate roughly one-third through fire protection assessments. Hall said statutory assessment caps last were adjusted in 2015 and current caps no longer generate enough revenue to meet appropriations. The bill would raise the maximum assessment per landowner from $50 to $58.70 and the per‑acre assessment over 20 acres from $0.30 to $0.49. DNRC staff told the committee the department does not intend to assess at the cap immediately; DNRC estimated next‑year rates might be about $52.80 and $0.43 per acre over 20 acres.

Representative Gist and DNRC described readiness activities the fees would support: personal protective equipment and replacement fire shelters, hand tools, portable radios, fire hoses, training and salaries for initial attack resources. The department said higher costs — PPE, radios, tires, labor — have outpaced past rates.

Ellie Brighton of the Montana Stockgrowers Association testified in opposition and said members prefer increases be approved by the landowners being assessed rather than set by the Legislature. Committee members asked whether grazing provides natural fire deterrence and whether assessment revenue should be directed to local volunteer departments; DNRC replied that local initial-attack resources are essential and DNRC often supports them with aircraft, engines and personnel when fires grow beyond local capacity.

Representative Gist closed asking for a due pass for the bill. The transcript records committee questions and testimony but no recorded committee vote during the hearing.","House Bill 421 would increase statutory caps on fire protection assessment rates that fund DNRC readiness activities; DNRC urged higher caps to fund equipment, training and personnel while the Montana Stockgrowers Association opposed the increase absent a vote of assessed landowners.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill would bar state/local air rules stricter than federal standards; debate centers on local control and public health

Long, contested hearing on HB 285: sponsors say MEPA is procedural; opponents warn of weakened protections

Committee hears bill to raise hard-rock mining fees, create permitting-account for reclamation work

Senate resolution seeks state attention to Flathead Lake water levels

Bill would raise forest-fire readiness assessment caps; DNRC, stockgrowers debate allocation and fairness