Protecting and restoring the Clark Fork watershed since 1985

SB 190 allows water users to voluntarily file a written consent to waive the adverse effects analysis requirement when applying for water right permits, changes in appropriation rights, or temporary changes in water rights. CFC utilizes the water right change process to temporarily convert irrigation water rights to instream flow on dewatered streams throughout the Clark Fork Basin. SB 190 would streamline this change process and improve our ability to complete important flow restoration projects on key streams and rivers.

HB 256 creates a new state special revenue account for water development, seeds the trust with $50 million from general fund in 2025 and an additional $50 million in 2026, and requires a portion of the earned interest to fund water storage pilot projects aimed at increasing water storage for beneficial uses. CFC has several potential water storage projects under development aimed at boosting streamflows on dewatered streams in the Clark Fork Basin. New funding provided by HB 256 could be paired with other state, federal and private funds to complete new water storage projects or increase capacity at existing reservoirs.

In Montana, water rights are subject to the law of abandonment, meaning that an irrigator who stops diverting irrigation water for an extended period of time could potentially be accused of abandoning his/her water rights. HB 580 clarifies the law to make sure that water users who voluntarily choose to stop using water during a drought and in compliance with a local, state or regional drought management plan cannot be subject to claims of “abandonment” of their water rights. CFC supports this common-sense policy change, which will encourage users to make voluntary decisions to conserve water and help protect streamflows during periods of intense drought.

HB 472 increases the civil penalty for violation of the Montana Streambed Preservation Act. CFC supports this bill because it will effectively deter more individuals from undergoing projects that could impact our streams and rivers without receiving approval from the Board of Supervisors for the local Conservation District. The statute still allows the Board to work with an offending party to resolve a dispute before collecting the civil penalties.

SB 358 represents the culmination of over 20 months of work on behalf of a DNRC Stakeholder Working Group looking to tackle the challenge of exempt well policy. CFC was a member of this group and advocated for a reform bill that ends the unlimited use of exempt groundwater wells for growth and development and implements closures in our areas of highest need. CFC was largely supportive of the concepts that came out of the stakeholder working group. Unfortunately, not all of those concepts are reflected in SB 358, and the bill language has changed to include new concessions that CFC is not in agreement with. Accordingly, CFC will oppose the bill as drafted and advocate for amendments to address our concerns.

SB 436 is another exempt well bill. The bill would insert a statutory definition of “combined appropriation” in the Water Use Act that is problematic and would continue to allow for DNRC to evade an evaluation of the cumulative impacts of multiple permit exempt wells. It would also remove the flow rate limitation on exempt groundwater wells and weaken protections for water users who are facing encroaching new water uses in so-called “stream depletion zones.”

This bill represents a massive overhaul to the administration of water rights, water use and state lands in Montana. CFC believes this bill has major legal problems. For example, the bill would allow a reviewing court to unilaterally alter the terms of water compact that has been previously negotiated between the federal government, the State of Montana and an Indian tribe, a violation of federal law. This bill also directly conflicts with another proposed bill that was collaboratively debated and drafted by a diverse group of stakeholders led by the DNRC during the legislative interim.

HB 704 will continue the proliferation of permit-exempt wells statewide to the detriment of senior water users and our water resources. The bill does little to resolve the abuse of exempt wells for subdivision development and would not close any of Montana’s highly-appropriated basins or aquifers to exempt wells. CFC believes that action to reign in the abuse of exempt wells is long overdue. HB 704 would largely maintain the status quo for exempt well policy; therefore, CFC is opposed.

HB 664 would repeal Montana’s numeric water quality standards for nutrients that were adopted in 2014, eliminate the Nutrient Work Group and attempt to revert the state’s WQS to narrative standards for nutrient pollution. These numeric nutrient standards have a proven track record of success in the Clark Fork Basin and offer the best path for protect our state’s water resources from harmful nutrient pollution. CFC opposes HB 664 because it would Montana’s numeric nutrient standards without a clear plan for replacement, without any scientific basis for the rollback, and without submitting the proposed changes to the EPA for approval as required by the CWA.

Montana law establishes a process for individual citizens or groups to submit a request (and supporting data) to DEQ to add a water body to the State’s list of threatened or impaired waters. In turn, this request allows DEQ to take certain actions to protect these waterways from harmful pollution. Under existing law, once DEQ receives a request from the public, DEQ has 60 days to review it and make a decision about whether to take action on the citizen request. HB 684 would remove any deadlines for DEQ to respond to these requests!

In some cases, Montana DEQ can grant permission for a proposed project (such as a mine) to negatively impact water quality in a given stream or river. In order to do so, DEQ must (among other things) balance the economic or social benefits of a proposed project with the costs of allowing degradation of our high-quality waters. HB 685 eliminates this requirement. Instead, it would require DEQ to simply determine whether the proposed project will result in economic development “in the area that the high-quality waters are located.” CFC opposes this bill because it will make it easier for DEQ to authorize degradations of our high-quality waters.