Limits to Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer withdrawals
Summary
HB 935 creates a temporary framework for studying and potentially limiting new large groundwater appropriations from the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer. The bill authorizes the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation to suspend action on, or close, classes of permit applications for groundwater appropriations from that aquifer in specified administrative boundaries when the proposed appropriation is 3,000 gallons per minute or more. It is aimed at balancing continued water development with protection of existing water rights and aquifer conditions.
The bill also directs the Bureau of Mines and Geology to conduct a feasibility study on groundwater availability in the affected areas. The study may include updated geologic and hydrogeologic data, limited field collection of water levels and pressure, a preliminary water budget, and a preliminary pumping-effects model. The bureau must report progress and findings to the Water Policy Interim Committee, which is then expected to make recommendations to the Legislature about whether broader suspension or closure of new groundwater appropriations should be adopted.
In practical terms, HB 935 affects Montana groundwater permitting law in Title 85, chapter 2, part 3, by adding a temporary, aquifer-specific study and management mechanism. It does not permanently ban withdrawals, but it gives state agencies a tool to pause or restrict new high-volume permit applications while data are gathered and reviewed. The act takes effect immediately upon passage and approval and is scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2027.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive and largely noncontroversial in the recorded votes. It passed the House and Senate with broad margins, including several unanimous or near-unanimous committee and floor votes, suggesting general agreement that more information is needed before major new withdrawals are allowed. The Senate amendment process drew some opposition, as shown by a 38-11 vote to amend and a 46-4 concurrence vote, but the final version still received strong support in both chambers.
The main point of contention is the balance between water development and resource protection. Supporters appear to favor precautionary management of a potentially stressed aquifer and a data-driven approach before additional large-scale pumping is approved. Any opposition likely centers on concerns about restricting future water development, the economic effects on users seeking new permits, or the precedent of allowing the department to suspend or close classes of applications based on a study process rather than a permanent statutory finding.
Impact
HB 935 temporarily amends Montana groundwater administration by allowing the department to suspend or close new permit applications for large groundwater appropriations from the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer in specified administrative boundaries. It also requires a state geological feasibility study and reporting to the Water Policy Interim Committee, creating a pathway for future legislative action on whether to maintain or expand restrictions. The bill is time-limited, effective immediately, and set to expire on June 30, 2027.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition in the recorded votes. Committee and floor votes in both chambers were overwhelmingly favorable, indicating a general consensus that the aquifer warrants closer study and possible interim protection. The Senate amendment stage showed the most debate, but the final product still passed comfortably, suggesting the Legislature largely agreed with the bill’s precautionary approach.
Contention
The central contention is whether the state should proactively limit new large groundwater appropriations from the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer while scientific data are gathered. Supporters emphasize protecting existing water rights, avoiding overuse, and making decisions based on updated hydrogeologic information. Potential critics would be concerned about restricting future development, especially for high-volume users, and about giving the department authority to suspend or close applications before a permanent policy decision is made. The amendment votes suggest some disagreement over the exact scope or wording of those restrictions, but not over the need for a study itself.