Montana

Montana Supreme Court sides with state in water right dispute

Published

2 years ago

May 3, 2024

Montana Supreme Court sides with state in water right dispute

The Montana Supreme Court has sided with the state’s Department of Natural Resources and Conservation in a dispute involving a 64-year-old water right that’s used to irrigate both private and public land.

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Beth Baker, the court ruled that the state retains an ownership interest in a water right first claimed in 1960 by John Schutter of Gallatin County. The water right is somewhat unique in that it’s supported by a well that was drilled on private land, but used to irrigate both private and public land. Debra and Sidney Schutter use that well to grow potatoes and other crops on three, square-mile sections of land they own, as well as a square-mile section of state trust land that’s managed by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.

The dispute that inspired the lawsuit began in 2019 when the Montana Land Board — composed of the state’s top five elected officials — claimed ownership of the portion of the water right used to irrigate the state land. The Schutters objected to the state’s ownership claim and brought the matter before the Montana Water Court, which ruled in favor of the state.

In their ruling on April 30 upholding the Montana Water Court’s decision, the justices argued that the state must exercise some ownership over the water right to act in accordance with its directive to “secure the largest measure of legitimate advantage” for state trust land beneficiaries — Montana’s public schools.

The justices found that the use of the Schutters’ well water on state trust land plays a key role in the dispute because it demonstrates that the water is being put to “beneficial use” — one of the conditions that must be met before the state will authorize a water right. Had the state land been excluded from the water rights application, “the Schutters’ claim to a water right would have been different, perhaps smaller,” the justices wrote.

The justices further concluded that the water rights are intertwined with the state’s property rights because much of the state exists in a semi-arid zone where “control of water means control of the land itself.” To ensure that the state is maximizing its trust lands’ potential, it’s important that the state also exercise some control over the water rights used to irrigate state trust land, the justices suggested.

Carl Devries, who sits on the board of the Senior Ag Water Rights Alliance, described the state’s position as a “government bureaucracy gone insane” in a recent op-ed in the Billings Gazette about the lawsuit.

“This ruling significantly undermines private property rights and will have long-lasting and negative effects,” DeVries wrote in an email to Montana Free Press. “As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, water rights holders are now faced with a tough choice: protect their valuable water rights or fully use their state-leased land.”

DeVries said the holders of water rights might now be inclined not to use their water rights on state-owned land out of fear that the state will claim partial ownership over the right. That, he wrote, would be a loss for both the lease-holder — who could be limited to a less-productive use of the land — and Montana’s public schools. Since land with water access is generally more productive, a lessee’s decision not to apply their water right to state trust land could result in a decline in revenues for school system coffers.

DeVries called for the Land Board to exercise greater oversight over the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation “so it can no longer make these unilateral decisions.” More specifically, he urged the Land Board to take up the matter when they meet on May 20.

The DNRC did not respond to MTFP’s request for comment.

Amanda Eggert is an environmental reporter for the Montana Free Press, a Helena-based nonprofit newsroom, and can be contacted at aeggert@montanafreepress.org.

Source link

Montana

Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for March 2, 2026

Published

41 minutes ago

March 3, 2026

Press Room

The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 2, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Powerball numbers from March 2 drawing

02-17-18-38-62, Powerball: 20, Power Play: 2

Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Lotto America numbers from March 2 drawing

03-08-17-24-34, Star Ball: 06, ASB: 02

Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from March 2 drawing

06-12-19-29, Bonus: 11

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from March 2 drawing

21-28-58-65-67, Powerball: 25

Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 2 drawing

28-41-42-50-55, Bonus: 02

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.

Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

13 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.

Source link