By Karli Johnson and Nicole Rolf, Montana Farm Bureau Federation 

Transmittal break has arrived! After two weeks of solid action the work of the first half of the Session is complete. There is always a rush of bills in the two weeks preceding the general bill transmittal deadline and this session was no exception. All general/non-revenue bills must have passed through their chamber of origin and be transmitted to the next chamber by the halfway point of the Session, or they die in the process. While this is only the first of several transmittal deadlines, this is the one that applies to most of the bills. Most committees hear three bills per hearing but in these last couple of weeks, many committees end up having to hear and vote on ten or more bills per day, putting great strain on legislative staff, legislators, lobbyists and members of the public trying to keep track of it all.

Some of the bills over the past two weeks:

SB 358: Revise exempt water rights laws sponsored by Sen. Wylie Galt (R) HD 39 was heard in Senate Natural Resources late into the afternoon/evening of February 28. This bill originated from the Comprehensive Water Review; a committee, which MFBF’s Nicole Rolf served on. The group spent thousands of hours looking at difficult water issues and working to build consensus between many diverse interests. One of these difficult subjects was exempt wells. By way of background, an exempt well is a well that is exempt from permitting process. When the concept was created in the Water Use Act back in the 1970s, these exemptions were meant to be used for truly de minimus uses which includes stock water and isolated rural homes which do not consume much water. By contrast, if a farmer was looking to get a new well for irrigation or if a city wanted to get a bigger water right, they would have to go through the full permitting process, to ensure they do not adversely impact other users. In recent years exempt wells have been used extensively for housing and the irrigation of lawns in subdivisions and major housing developments. Developers argue that they are forced to use exempt wells because the permitting process is too difficult, expensive, or time consuming. To attempt to solve this without limiting the intended use, the Comprehensive Water Review crafted legislation known as SB 358. The concept in this legislation is a dramatic departure from current statute. It breaks the state into “red, yellow, and green” areas based on legal and physical availability of water. Red areas are already in trouble, yellow are getting close and green is the rest of the state. In this legislation, exemptions will be largely ended in red areas, they’ll be monitored in yellow, and in yellow and green ag users will be subject to the combined appropriate analysis (as is current for all uses), but subdivided parcels will be allowed a certain allocation of water with no consideration of combined appropriation. This volume happens to be greater than what ag users would expect to receive. MFBF is still looking for some amendments to ensure that senior water rights are protected. The correct implementation could help ensure the state has enough water for generations to come and can help DNRC track water availability and the need to adjust a basin’s status in the future.

 MFBF took a position of opposition to this bill stating that although SB 358 is generally good in its make and manner, it doesn’t quite go far enough to protect senior water rights. It was explained that the Water Review simply ran out of time to take a hard look at the yellow/monitored areas and that, right now, added exempt well pressure to those yellow areas will harm agriculture and senior water right holders. MFBF offered some ideas on small changes to the bill that could fix it greatly: limiting the water volume in subdivided parcels to 20-acre feet and expanding or doing more than monitoring in yellow areas.

 The complexity of SB 358 resulted in a lot of testimonies, both in support and opposition, from the public during the hearing. Cliff Cox, a Broadwater County Farm Bureau Board member, along with Karl Christians, the District 9 Farm Bureau Director, were both present to stand in opposition to the bill. Both shared the impact that could be made on the agriculture industry if the bill passes without amendments.

 In correlation with SB 358 is SB 436: Generally revise laws relating to exempt wells sponsored by Sen. Carl Glimm (R) SD 3. This is another way of addressing the exempt well debacle. adds the definition of “combined appropriation” to statute and allocates .5 acre feet (AF) of water to every acres of land in a parcel, as long as the appropriation does not exceed 10 AF and is not a combined appropriation. However, the definition requires a combined appropriation to consist of two or more wells. Technically, under this bill, a landowner could use an exemption (i.e. not go through the permitting process) and extract up to 320 AF of water on a section, as long if they just use one well. This may have been an oversight in drafting, but it is a wild expansion of the exemption, so we opposed. To be fair, the bill was amended on the floor to rein it in, but we remain concerned about how the broad title and how this bill will proceed through the process.

 HB 704: Generally, revise ground water laws sponsored by Rep. Mike Vinton (R) HD 40 is similar to SB 358 in that it keeps the red, yellow and green areas but also adds the requirement of hydrological studies to be done by the Bureau of Mines before the DNRC can close a red area, essentially removing red areas and the protections they provide for a very long time. It also takes away consideration of legal availability. HB 704 also limits water users in those red zones to an allotted ½ acre use of water, basically only enough for inside use, for the continuation of subdivision building. MFBF strongly opposed this bill as it does not have adequate protections in place to protect senior water right holders and those who already hold provisional permits. Along with this HB 704 would be more complicated to implement, harder to enforce and still allows the use of water in red areas. It ignores whether or not water is legally available, an important element in determining if there is water available for new uses.  Constitutionally, those that were here first in time are first in right. This would jeopardize those senior water users as all water, whether ground or surface, is hydrologically connected. 

Meagher County Farm Bureau Board Member, Hertha Lund was again present to share her expertise, commenting that this bill violates the Montana Constitution by taking resources and reallocating property rights. MFBF shared that water usage should be done in a way that is consistent with Montana values; protecting agriculture and the rural communities whose economies depend on it. This bill was soundly defeated on the House floor, just days before transmittal. 

MFBF did support HB 775: Repeal sunset on water court actions sponsored by Rep. Ken Walsh (R) HD 69 in House Judiciary. This bill would ensure that the water court remains in place until adjudication is complete. The water court completing adjudication is an important step in consistent future water administration.

 Did you know milk is also 87 percent water? MFBF opposed two bills on milk this week in Senate Public Health and Safety Committee, SB 415: Generally revise milk laws and SB 416: Establish label requirements for pasteurized milk both sponsored by Sen. Greg Hertz (R) SD 7. The basis of the two sister bills is to do away with Montana’s 12-day sell-by rule for milk. SB 415 would completely remove the sell-by date on milk cartons while the alternative, SB 416, would set a 17-day sell-by date. MFBF and many other agriculture organizations opposed both bills. The facts brought before the committee by the opponents included that the 33+ dairies in Montana meet and exceed the amount of milk that is needed by Montanan’s, and pride themselves in providing the freshest milk for the state’s consumers. By removing the 12-day rule, milk is then less likely to be delivered in a timely manner and consumers, especially those who are rural, running the risk of buying milk that could go bad before they make it home.

Park Farm Bureau Board member Lily Anderson made an important point to the committee, sharing that Montana’s current 12-day rule ensures a stable, fresh, affordable and reliable product. It was also shared that by changing the sell-by date on a jug of milk, you are not changing the fact that milk is still only good for 19-20 days. 

 In the end, long dated milk equals less deliveries which equals less chances of good milk in a consumer’s fridge. MFBF testified on the basis that these types of rule changes should come from the producers of these products who are experts in current best practices and reliant on providing the best milk to consumers.  

 To throw a curve ball in this week, MFBF supported HB 767: Revise county predator control laws to include goats sponsored by Rep. Julie Darling (R) HD 84. HB 767 is a request from producers to have additional sources for predator control funding. This bill  creates a process for goat producers to self-impose a tax to pay for predator control, and is only created if 51 percent of the goats owned in a county are in represented on the county predator petition. This bill would simply allow goats to have the same privileges that cattle and sheep producers have when it comes to county predator control funding.

Nicole Rolf is the Senior Director of Governmental Affairs and a rancher from Miles City, Montana. Nicole works closely with our Congressional delegation on national issues affecting Montana agriculture. Additionally, this is her ninth Montana Legislative Session, lobbying in Helena on behalf of MFBF members. Nicole can be contacted at nicoler@mfbf.org.

Karli Johnson is the State Governmental Affairs Coordinator and a rancher from Chouteau, MT. This is Karli’s first session lobbying on behalf of Montana Farm Bureau although she can be known as an old hand at testifying on Grizzly Bear bills before she came onto staff. Karli will focus on water and wildlife issues throughout the legislative session while also serving as the MFBF Northwest Regional Manager. Karli can be contacted at karlij@mfbf.org.