Montana interim committee advances drafting of new rules for exempt groundwater wells after stakeholder presentation and heated public comment

The Water Policy Interim Committee on Feb. 24 reviewed a stakeholder-drafted framework for exempt groundwater wells that would keep Montanas existing 35-gallons-per-minute flow and 10-acre-feet volume limits but add standardized partial allocations by parcel size and location.

Stakeholder representatives from a multi-group working group told the committee the proposal is intended to simplify and make predictable the combined-appropriation analysis now performed by state staff. "The current exemption is 35 gallons a minute, 10 acre feet," said Rayleigh Honeycutt of the Montana Stockgrowers Association, noting the draft does not expand those caps but would allocate up to 0.5 acre-foot for parcels under 20 acres outside closure areas and up to 1 acre-foot for larger parcels, with a separate additional stock-water allotment on very large tracts.

Montana Trout Unlimitedrepresentative Clayton Elliott said the framework differentiates inside and outside controlled groundwater areas and relies on existing closure tools in statute: "Our recommendation would be that the change would be from a may to a shall," he said, arguing that would trigger a public MAPA process where closure criteria are met.

The committee heard extensive public comment from people who said they were caught in limbo after years of 602/exempt-well filings were later denied. Homeowner Jennifer Miller, who submitted a letter on behalf of a subdivision called Red Fox Meadows, told members she and neighbors built and relied on practices they believed were lawful and now face financing and resale problems: "We are asking you to protect Montana families from retroactive regulatory harm," she said, urging a shorter grandfathering timeline than the five-year window some stakeholders proposed.

Several stakeholder organizationsincluding realtors, well drillers and buildersexpressed general support for the collaborative framework but called for more work on permitting and mitigation tools. The Senior Water Rights Coalition and other senior-rights advocates warned that expanding exemptions risks reallocating property rights and urged that permitting and mitigation be strengthened instead.

After discussion and questions for DNRC on parcel counts, permitting timelines and projected impacts, the committee voted to begin drafting legislation based on the stakeholder concept and DNRC data. Representative Kohanauer moved to start drafting; Representative Minor successfully moved that grandfathering be prepared as a standalone bill (and that metering/enforcement be considered separately). Chair Gault instructed staff to aim to provide up to three draft bills for the May meeting: a grandfathering draft, a metering/enforcement draft, and a main framework draft. Staff said they would consult stakeholders and DNRC during drafting.

Next steps: DNRC agreed to provide more granular data on parcel counts and permitting cost/time estimates; the committee also signaled it wants a sharper mitigation analysis to understand downstream impacts where reuse or capture would reduce flows that downstream senior water-right holders rely on. If the committee asks in May, the drafts will be available for public review during later work sessions and for potential bill requests to be filed for the 2027 session.

This action follows a legal backdrop: DNRC counsel reported the State answered a pending constitutional challenge and that four trade groups have been allowed to intervene as defendants in the litigation connected to Horse Creek Hills.

The committee will take up the draft bills and data in May and decided today to direct staff to proceed with drafting.

(Reporting note: quotes and details above come from stakeholder presentations, DNRC data briefings, and the public comment record at the Feb. 24 WIPC meeting.)