HB 940 prohibits overnight camping and the storage of personal property on state highway rights-of-way in Montana. The bill defines key terms such as “camping,” “overnight camping,” “campsite,” “storage,” and “state highway right-of-way,” and it applies the prohibition to the full width of highway property, including shoulders, medians, ditches, bridges, tunnels, and adjacent public spaces maintained by the Department of Transportation.
The bill creates limited exceptions for emergency situations where temporary shelter is necessary for safety, for authorized work crews and government personnel, and for designated rest areas, parking areas, or pullouts approved by department rule for temporary parking and rest of up to 24 hours. It authorizes the Department of Transportation, the Montana Highway Patrol, and local law enforcement to enforce the law, issue written notices to vacate, and remove campsites and property after specified notice periods. A person who does not comply with a 72-hour notice may be fined up to $50, and unattended property may be removed after a separate posted notice period of at least 120 hours. The bill also allows recovery of cleanup, legal, and enforcement costs through department rulemaking and appropriates $15,000 from the highway restricted account to implement the new law.
The bill’s impact is to add a new part to Title 60, chapter 6, of Montana law governing highway use and enforcement. It gives the Department of Transportation explicit authority to regulate camping and abandoned property on highway rights-of-way and to adopt rules for enforcement and cost recovery. It also preserves other civil or criminal remedies, meaning the new provisions supplement rather than replace existing law.
Overall sentiment in the legislative record appears generally favorable, as reflected by strong committee and floor votes in both chambers. The bill passed the House and Senate with comfortable margins, though not unanimously, indicating broad support for clearing highway rights-of-way while still leaving room for some disagreement.
The main point of contention is the balance between public safety, roadway maintenance, and the treatment of unhoused individuals or others using highway-adjacent areas for shelter. Supporters appear to favor the measure as a safety and cleanup tool for transportation corridors, while opponents likely object to criminalizing or penalizing camping and property storage in public spaces, even with notice and emergency exceptions. The relatively small fine and notice periods suggest an attempt to moderate enforcement, but the bill still authorizes removal and disposal of property, which is likely the most sensitive aspect of the legislation.
HB 940 creates a new statutory framework in Title 60, chapter 6, prohibiting overnight camping and unattended personal property storage on state highway rights-of-way. It expands the Department of Transportation’s enforcement and rulemaking authority, authorizes law enforcement involvement, establishes notice-and-removal procedures, and permits fines and cost recovery for violations. The bill also appropriates $15,000 from the highway restricted account for implementation.
The bill appears to have been generally well received in the Legislature, passing committee and floor votes in both chambers by substantial margins. The vote totals suggest broad bipartisan support for the measure, though the nontrivial number of dissenting votes indicates some concern about its enforcement and social impacts. No committee transcript was provided, so sentiment is inferred from the voting history and the bill’s progression to chaptered law.
The main contention likely centers on whether the state should prohibit camping and storage in highway rights-of-way at all, and how aggressively enforcement should proceed. Supporters likely view the bill as necessary for roadway safety, access, and cleanup, while critics may see it as targeting unhoused people or displacing vulnerable individuals without addressing underlying housing needs. The bill’s notice periods, emergency exception, and low civil fine appear designed to soften the policy, but the authority to remove and dispose of personal property remains a significant point of concern.