MEIC’s Laura Collins testifies at a hearing during the 2025 Legislative Session. Photo by Jim Sayer.
by Laura Collins
Now that the 69th Montana State Legislature has wrapped up, here’s the rundown of some of the most notable outcomes in the land use arena.
Defeating the Private Property Protection Act and Related Legislation
Early in the session, Sen. Becky Beard (R-Elliston) sponsored a bill drafted by development interests that would have blocked local governments’ ability to regulate land use in favor of the unregulated use of property, except in instances of overt health and safety hazards. This short-sighted bill would have rolled back decades of well-established growth management and environmental safeguards — the foundations of land use planning. After intense lobbying by conservation interests, SB 146 failed second reading in the Senate by only one vote. Fortunately, it also failed reconsideration in a tie vote.
Multiple bills — two of which were sponsored by Rep. Jedediah Hinkle (R-Belgrade) — supported the same unregulated use of property. HB 658 sought to remove local governments’ authority to enforce sanitation regulations stricter than state law, including in sensitive groundwater management areas. It also would have prohibited local governments from requiring septic systems to be updated when a property changed uses, even if the new use would have been beyond the system’s capacity.
Next, Rep. Hinkle introduced HB 899 to undermine local government’s ability to prohibit county growth policies from referencing agricultural protections or “sensitive lands.” This would exclude any mention of wildlife habitat, scenic views, and other resources a community might want to protect, but the bill’s language was so vague it could have prohibited numerous considerations.
Thankfully, HB 658 was tabled in the Senate and, in another close call, HB 899 failed on third reading on the House Floor.
Exempt Well Bills Failed After Bad Amendments
Last year, a court order invalidated Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation’s (DNRC) practice of administering and regulating exempt wells. In response, Sen. Wylie Galt (R-Martinsdale) introduced SB 358, which was the result of compromises between stakeholders representing conservation, developers, well drillers, realtors, stock growers, and municipalities. While MEIC opposed the bill as introduced, we believed amendments could have made the bill acceptable. Unfortunately, the series of amendments that did arise dramatically modified the bill in such a way that it became unpalatable for MEIC and our conservation partners.
DNRC’s exempt well loophole to the water rights system has led to haphazard and unplanned growth, water pollution, and the drawdown of critical aquifers. The bill would have required metering for new water appropriations and for DNRC to monitor exempt uses. It also included a public petition process to evaluate any aquifer for water quantity shortages, which would have potentially excluded exempt wells from being permitted in these aquifers.
In the end, MEIC opposed the bill due to a number of persistent loopholes, such as allowing developers greater water appropriation for subdivisions of up to 24 lots. The fact is that almost no interest group was satisfied with the proposal, and the bill died on the Senate floor.
Prioritizing People, Not Cars
There were several promising bills to make cities more walkable, transit-oriented, and more densely housed. Before HB 764 (Rep. Brian Close, D-Bozeman), a transportation district could only be created or expanded through a citizen-led petition effort. After HB 764’s passage, County Commissioners will now be able to initiate the process, relieving the burden from the citizens. HB 764 also allows a district to be expanded to communities beyond the previous limits when funding is available or when a city-county interlocal agreement requires it. This is a fantastic win for increasing access to transportation in both urban and rural communities.
HB 492 (Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings) relaxed mandatory parking requirements that some municipalities mandate for new projects. Decades of excessive parking requirements have led to a surplus of land dedicated solely to parking, constraining land available for residential and mixed-use development. Car-centric development reduces a community’s walkability and harms its character. Often, residents and tourists’ favorite places to visit are designed for people, not cars. HB 492 is a big step towards a less car-centric and more people-friendly Montana.
Family Transfer Loophole Persists
It wouldn’t be the Montana State Legislature without at least one attempt to open up subdivision exemptions for more abuse. The most abused provision in the subdivision law is the family transfer exemption, which allows developers to give subdivided lots to immediate family members who may then sell them to a third party, all without government review. HB 714 (Rep. Larry Brewster, R-Billings) would have increased the abuse of this exemption by reducing local governments’ authority to deny family transfer applications even when there is a preponderance of evidence that the applicant intended to evade subdivision review. It also tried to expand the definition of immediate family to include siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren —a change that would have resulted in an increase in lots being exempted from local review. Thankfully, HB 714 was amended to remove these two egregious provisions and ultimately passed as a somewhat benign bill, that even has some redeeming qualities.
On the flip side, SB 477 (Sen. Theresa Manzella, R-Hamilton) would have improved local governments’ ability to curtail family transfer abuses, but it was unfortunately tabled in committee.
Exempting Subdivisions from MEPA Review
While the worst bills failed to cross the finish line, one truly concerning bill became law.
SB 258 (Sen. Forrest Mandeville, R-Columbus) removes the requirement that the state Department of Environmental Quality must comply with the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) when it reviews a subdivision’s sanitation system.
Sen. Mandeville argued that the MEPA process is duplicative of state sanitation review. Unfortunately, this reasoning does not acknowledge the important differences between the two review processes. While subdivisions are subject to review under the Sanitation in Subdivisions Act, this review only assesses the site-specific conditions of the specific development. It does not consider a development’s potential cumulative impacts that may occur due to development in the surrounding area, including impacts to water quality. The cumulative impacts are only considered under MEPA review. Under this new law, those cumulative impacts will no longer be considered. This is a major concern for our right to a clean and healthful environment.
This article was published in the June 2025 issue of Down To Earth.
