Creating the Montana brownfields program
HB 808 creates the Montana Brownfields Revitalization Act and establishes a new state brownfields program to help assess, clean up, and redevelop abandoned, idle, blighted, or underused properties where contamination has complicated reuse. The bill defines key terms such as brownfield site, eligible entity, responsible party, and viable responsible party, and sets out how the Department of Environmental Quality will determine whether a site can use federal brownfields funding. It also authorizes the department to adopt rules to administer the program and to oversee inspections and compliance.
The bill creates the brownfields site redevelopment fund as a state special revenue account and makes it statutorily appropriated for investigation, cleanup, demolition, contaminant abatement, and underground tank removal at eligible sites. It also requires a transfer of $200,000 from the general fund in each of fiscal years 2026 and 2027 to seed the fund. In addition, the bill amends the petroleum tank release reimbursement statute to coordinate brownfields redevelopment with existing petroleum cleanup law, and it repeals the prior Montana Petroleum Brownfields Revitalization Act provisions.
HB 808 changes Montana law by replacing the older petroleum-specific brownfields framework with a broader brownfields revitalization program tied to federal EPA brownfields funding. It amends sections of the Montana Code Annotated governing statutory appropriations and petroleum tank release reimbursement, repeals several obsolete petroleum brownfields sections, and places the new program within Title 75, chapter 11. The bill affects the Department of Environmental Quality, the petroleum tank release board, local governments, tribal governments, nonprofits, economic development organizations, and other eligible entities seeking cleanup and redevelopment assistance.
The voting history suggests generally favorable support for the bill, especially in committee and in the Senate, where votes were overwhelmingly positive. The House floor votes were more divided, indicating some reservations about the policy or funding structure, but the measure still passed both chambers and became law. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a constructive economic development and environmental cleanup measure.
The main points of contention appear to have centered on the scope of the new program, the relationship between brownfields funding and existing petroleum tank cleanup mechanisms, and how viability determinations should be made for responsible parties. The bill also limits the department’s ability to restrict use of federal brownfields funds once a site is deemed eligible, which may have raised concerns about state oversight and liability allocation. The split House floor votes suggest some members were uneasy with the amendments or with the fiscal and regulatory implications, even though committee support and Senate support were strong.