SB 167 transfers $10 million from Montana’s general fund to the noxious weed management trust fund and makes that transfer effective immediately upon passage and approval. The bill also amends the statute governing the trust fund to clarify that one-quarter of the interest and income generated by the fund must remain in the trust fund, while the remainder may be used according to the existing trust structure. In addition, it confirms that deposits to the trust principal may include federal contributions, private donations, and state contributions.
The measure is aimed at strengthening the long-term funding base for noxious weed management in Montana by fully capitalizing the constitutionally required trust fund. It changes state law in Section 80-7-811, MCA, by specifying how earnings are retained and by reinforcing the types of deposits that may be made into the trust corpus. The bill directly affects state fiscal policy by redirecting general fund dollars into a dedicated trust for weed control and land management purposes.
Impact
SB 167 increases the principal of the noxious weed management trust fund by $10 million and codifies a rule that one-quarter of the fund’s interest and income must stay in the trust, which should support long-term growth of the fund. It amends Montana Code Annotated section 80-7-811 and affects the state treasurer’s duties by requiring the transfer from the general fund by June 30, 2025. The bill primarily impacts state budgeting and the administration of noxious weed control funding, with benefits flowing to the department responsible for trust administration and to landowners, local governments, and others involved in weed management efforts.
Sentiment
Overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable. It passed the Senate and House with substantial bipartisan support at multiple stages, including unanimous committee approval in the Senate Finance and Claims Committee and the House Appropriations Committee. The large margins in floor votes suggest broad agreement that the trust fund should be funded and that the state should make the required transfer.
Contention
There was limited visible contention in the available record, but the bill did face some opposition on the floor, with a small number of no votes in both chambers. The main point of debate appears to have been the use of $10 million from the general fund for a dedicated trust rather than for other state priorities, though the voting history suggests this concern was not enough to prevent passage. The final status notes that a veto override failed, indicating that the bill ultimately encountered executive resistance even after legislative approval.