Representative Ken Walsh, sponsor of House Bill 355, told the House Natural Resources Committee on Friday that the bill clarifies that easement rights remain when an irrigation canal or ditch is converted to a buried or above‑ground pipeline.

The measure would make explicit that the owner or manager of a converted ditch — for example an irrigation district or co‑op — retains access to the pipeline for maintenance and repair, Walsh said.

The clarification matters because many irrigation systems around the state are being converted to pipelines for safety, liability and water‑conservation reasons, proponents said. “Making that transition to a pipeline is in a lot of cases from a water conservation perspective and other reasons is a very good move,” Mike Murphy, representing the Montana Water Resources Association, told the committee, adding, “we stand in support of House Bill 3 55.”

The sponsor said the bill is short and intended to add “teeth” to the statutory language so that future pipeline owners retain maintenance access. Representative Ken Walsh supplied his name and House District (House District 69) for the record.

A witness participating by phone, Allison Dubs, said she generally supports the bill but opposed the bill as drafted because it would require that pipelines be “conspicuously marked.” Dubs, an attorney appearing on her own behalf, said many lateral ditches have been buried for years and are already shown in recorded easement agreements; requiring new conspicuous markings could impose a burdensome obligation on pipeline owners and upset landowners who do not want visible markers in their yards. “As written, it’s a little bit concerning just because there are so many lateral ditches that have already been buried,” she said.

Committee members asked the sponsor to clarify what “conspicuously marked” would mean in practice; Walsh said a simple marker — for example a section corner or other small field marker — could suffice and would not require intrusive markings across private yards.

The committee closed the hearing on HB 355 after the sponsor urged the bill “do pass.” No formal vote on HB 355 occurred at the hearing.

The hearing record shows proponents in the room, at least one proponent online and one opponent online who asked that the marking language be amended; the transcript does not record any committee amendment or final vote at the hearing.