Study resolution of search and rescue services and funding
House Joint Resolution 56 requests an interim legislative study of Montana’s search and rescue system, with a report due to the 70th Legislature. The resolution lays out concerns that Montana’s geography, remote terrain, and high volume of missing-person cases create search and rescue demands that often exceed local capacity. It also notes that Montana lacks a statewide search and rescue program or coordinator, and that current funding and reimbursement mechanisms may not reflect actual costs or the needs of all jurisdictions.
The study is directed to examine whether reimbursement amounts under existing law should be updated for inflation and actual costs, whether the reimbursement process can be simplified, and whether funding sources and administration should be centralized. It specifically asks for review of the search and rescue account, including motor vehicle revenue and conservation license donations, and whether administrative rules affect how funds are distributed. The resolution also directs attention to the distinction between ordinary local search and rescue incidents and disaster-level events handled by the Department of Military Affairs.
A major focus of the resolution is the unequal impact on Indian country and tribal communities. The bill cites the disproportionate number of missing Indigenous persons in Montana and the fact that tribal search and rescue teams are not eligible for the same reimbursement available to county sheriff-led operations under current law. The study is intended to gather input from county, municipal, tribal, fire, EMS, volunteer search and rescue, state agencies, the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Task Force, and tribal governments.
The bill’s impact on state law is indirect but potentially significant: it does not itself change statutes, but it sets up a legislative review that could lead to amendments to sections 10-3-801, 15-1-122, 87-1-601, and related provisions governing search and rescue funding and reimbursement. If the study results in legislation, it could affect reimbursement caps, eligibility rules, funding streams, and administrative oversight for search and rescue operations statewide.
The overall sentiment appears broadly supportive, as reflected by strong passage in both chambers, though the Senate votes were less unanimous than the House votes. The main points of contention appear to be whether current reimbursement and funding structures are adequate, how to treat tribal versus county-based operations, and whether search and rescue administration should be centralized. The resolution itself frames these as issues needing study rather than immediate policy changes.
HJ 56 does not amend the Montana Code Annotated directly; instead, it creates an interim study directive that may lead to future legislation affecting search and rescue reimbursement, funding sources, administrative oversight, and eligibility rules. The study specifically targets sections 10-3-801, 15-1-122, and 87-1-601, MCA, and could influence how state funds are allocated and which jurisdictions or teams can receive reimbursement for search and rescue operations.
The bill appears to have been generally well received, passing the House and Senate with comfortable margins. Support is reflected in the resolution’s bipartisan framing around public safety, rural access, and funding adequacy. The somewhat higher number of dissenting votes in the Senate suggests some disagreement about the need for a study, the scope of the issues raised, or the policy direction implied by the resolution, but the overall sentiment was favorable.
The main areas of concern are whether the current $12,000 reimbursement cap and existing funding sources are sufficient, whether the reimbursement process is too fragmented, and whether state administration should be centralized. Another notable point of contention is equity for tribal search and rescue operations: the resolution highlights that only county sheriff-led operations are currently eligible for reimbursement, leaving tribal teams outside the existing framework despite significant need in Indian country. The role of multiple agencies and the potential effect of administrative rules on funding distribution are also identified as issues for review.