Montana
Bill that would sell isolated state land to neighboring landowners nears Gianforte’s desk
On a tailwind of Republican support, the Montana Legislature has advanced a bill that would facilitate the sale of isolated sections of state trust land.
House Bill 676 is a sweeping 22-page bill sponsored by House Speaker Brandon Ler, R-Savage, that addresses multiple aspects of water rights and the administration of state trust lands.
Although several components of the bill drew scrutiny during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, perhaps the most controversial aspect of HB 676 involves the potential for the noncompetitive sale of an estimated 1.5 million acres of isolated sections of state land.
HB 676 would also close the Montana Water Court, a nearly 50-year-old court created to quantify and prioritize hundreds of thousands of water rights that predate Montana’s 1972 Constitution. If HB 676 passes, an existing law specifying that the court cannot alter tribal water compacts would be struck as well. Critics argue it could invite federal intervention in decisions nearing resolution after decades of negotiation and scrutiny. One such agreement is the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Compact, which is currently before the Montana Water Court.
In their comments to lawmakers, HB 676 proponents referenced a controversial decision the Montana Supreme Court issued last year. They described HB 676 as a private property rights protection measure that will prevent the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation from “stealing” private water rights by dictating that in order to claim ownership of a water right, the water right must be used and diverted on state lands.
At issue is the Schutter v. Montana Land Board ruling the Montana Supreme Court issued in late April 2024 siding with the Land Board. The Land Board, which oversees state trust lands and is comprised of the top elected officials serving in state government, had asserted ownership over a portion of a private water right Gallatin County potato farmers developed on their private land to irrigate both their property and a neighboring property they leased from the state.
In an opinion siding with the Montana Water Court’s interpretation of the matter, Montana’s highest court 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 — e.g., Montana’s public schools. State trust lands are sections of land the federal government turned over to the Montana government when it became a state.
The Schutter decision was vigorously opposed by the Senior Ag Water Rights Alliance, which described the DNRC’s stance as “government bureaucracy gone insane.”
Speaking as a member of the Senior Ag Water Rights Alliance on March 21, Jocelyn Cahill described HB 676 as a proposal to put “clarity and stability” into Montana law.
“Many ranchers are afraid to use their water on their state leases, fearing that DNRC will come after their right,” Cahill said. “This uncertainty discourages investment in the infrastructure needed to divert and deliver water. When ranchers stop improving their lease lands, the state leases — and the school trusts that rely on them — lose out on significant benefits.”
Cahill is steeped in water issues in other ways. She recently represented irrigation interests in a water policy stakeholder group that developed legislative proposals over the interim and her politically powerful family recently lost a legal dispute regarding the use of exempt wells to facilitate a Broadwater County development.
Other HB 676 proponents included the Rocky Mountain Stockgrowers Association and the Rocky Fork Decreed Users of Carbon County.
HB 676 opponents argued that the bill is a raw deal for public land access, for Montanans in the midst of the water rights adjudication process, and for public K-12 schools reliant on state trust lands for a healthy and sustainable revenue source.
The Montana Stockgrowers Association, the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, the Montana Water Resources Association, the Montana Quality Education Coalition, the Senior Water Rights Coalition, the Montana Wildlife Federation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Property and Environment Research Center, the Public Land Water Access Association and the Montana chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers spoke in opposition to the measure, along with other groups and individuals.
Matt Leow with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers acknowledged the access challenges posed by isolated sections of state land but argued that the solution is not to create a “fire sale of a state treasure” but rather to “figure out ways to open up public access to our public lands.”
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation lobbyist Charlie Booher echoed that assessment, arguing that facilitating “the non-competitive sale of state land” is the wrong way to address state land that public recreationists can’t access.
“Over the last six years, Montana [Fish, Wildlife and Parks] and DNRC have worked through the [Public Access Land Agreement] program, as well as through the Block Management program, to open up access to over 1 million acres of state land that is currently isolated,” he told committee members. “We are supportive of that work and wouldn’t want to see it diminished by this bill.”
Brian Thompson with the Senior Water Rights Coalition described the dissolution of the water court as “problematic.”
“The water court has a job to do, and ending somewhat arbitrarily in 2031 leaves a lot of people in a lurch,” Thompson said during a hearing on the measure. “This is a system and a process that we set in place many decades ago. A lot of people’s water rights are dependent upon this system … They’re counting on the system to continue and to work to protect their rights into the future.”
Opponents also argued that losing more than 1 million acres of state land will jeopardize between $5-7 million of revenue annually, much of which supports public schools. They also pushed back on the notion that the state is “stealing” water rights.
Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras, a former University of Montana law professor with extensive experience in water law, spoke most forcefully on the latter point.
“The state has never and does not assert an ownership of the water used on [private] land. It only asserts the interest on the state trust land, which it’s obligated to do under its fiduciary duty,” said Juras, who was testifying on behalf of Gov. Greg Gianforte in his capacity as chair of the Montana Land Board. “It is absolutely not correct that the state Land Board, acting through the Trust Land division of DNRC, is taking anybody’s private trust rights.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet taken executive action on HB 676.
HOUSE BILL 379
Just after the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 676, the House of Representatives voted to advance House Bill 379, a twice-tabled and later revived measure that sought to combine two existing tools to facilitate the sale of state trust lands to developers.
Lawmakers’ lifeline to HB 379 was short-lived, though. After passing an initial vote on March 21, the measure failed, 42-54, after 10 Republicans flipped their third-reading vote on Monday.
Rep. Larry Brewster, R-Billings, said he was approached by the Forestry and Trust Lands Division of the DNRC to sponsor HB 379. During a Feb. 6 House State Administration Committee hearing on the bill, Brewster described it as a straightforward measure — “nothing slim shady” — that would alleviate Montana’s housing affordability challenges.
The sale of state lands that are “prime” for such residential development — those that communities have grown around, that have access to utilities and are no longer used for grazing, for example — would provide greater financial benefit to state trust beneficiaries like K-12 public schools if the state could enter into a commercial joint venture agreement with developers, Brewster told his colleagues.
Deidra Kloberdanz, who manages the Real Estate Bureau of the DNRC’s Forestry and Trust Lands Division, said HB 379 combines two existing programs under the DNRC’s umbrella — the commercial leasing program and the land banking program — to create a pathway for larger housing developments. The leasing program provides revenue to trust beneficiaries through commercial rent payments. The land banking program, which has been operational for 22 years, allows the DNRC to sell up to 250,000 acres of trust land in order to reinvest in other lands that will provide more financial benefit to trust beneficiaries.
Kloberdanz said the measure would allow a developer to initiate the subdivision and platting process as a property lessee and establish a framework for the later sale of individual home sites through the land banking program. She added that Land Board oversight is baked into the proposal.
“The idea is the state and the developer would be able to share in both the risk and the reward of the project,” Kloberdanz said.
Gale Heide with Habitat for Humanity of Gallatin Valley was HB 379’s other proponent during the committee hearing on the bill. He argued that HB 379 would make the development of state lands for affordable housing developments that groups like his have explored more financially feasible.
“Though I’m not encouraging the state to become real estate investors, you have proven the ability to use careful foresight in preserving your commitment to future generations and a growing education system,” Heide said. “Maybe some day there won’t be enough of Montana to go around, but for now, I think we can work together to create opportunities for working Montanans willing to bear the load with us.”
The measure drew no opponents during its hearing.
Democratic members of the House spoke in opposition to the bill during floor debate last week, arguing that they have concerns about “uncertainty and ambiguity” in the bill, particularly around a transition away from a public auction process to an online sales platform.
EL PASO, Texas (KTSM) — Following widespread neighborhood concerns first reported by KTSM 9 News on Friday, residents of the Montana Vista area came face-to-face with developers of the proposed “Pecos West” transmission line project on Saturday morning, May 9 during a community meeting held at the Montana Vista Community Center.
The multi-million dollar project, spearheaded by power grid developer Grid United, aims to build a massive transmission line connecting the El Paso area to southeastern New Mexico.
While developers tout the project as a crucial link to prevent grid bottlenecks, families living in the path of the proposed line continue to voice mounting frustration and distrust over how the land acquisition is being handled.
On Friday, Grid United released a statement to KTSM insisting their one-on-one land negotiations were conducted out of respect for private property rights. But at Saturday’s community gathering, residents and advocates made it clear they aren’t buying it.
“People are afraid. I’m not afraid. I’m angry,” said Armando Rodriguez, president of the Union of Montana Vista Landowners, who previously said that developers had been quietly approaching his neighbors for months with varying buyout offers.
Only about a dozen residents and advocates attended the weekend meeting, but they loudly questioned why the company spent the past year approaching landowners individually rather than addressing the community as a whole.
During the exchange, project officials admitted they have already acquired about 50 percent of the properties in the impacted area. Grid United later clarified to KTSM that the exact number fluctuates frequently, just like the proposed route.
Community organizers argued that the company’s isolated approach leaves residents vulnerable and misinformed.
“When a company like this turns up and says, ‘We’re going to buy your property.’ We must ensure that community members understand that they have the right to say no, or that they have the right to negotiate a higher value,” said Veronica Carbajal, an organizer with the Sembrando Esperanza Coalition.
Carbajal highlighted that the lack of widespread notification and a standardized compensation formula is creating deep unease.
“They’ve already bought properties, but they have not established notification to every resident that will be impacted, nor have they set up a formula for compensation,” Carbajal said. “So what we can see online through the title transfers is that there is a very wide distinction between how much people are being paid. We don’t want the community to be divided. We also want people to understand that this is voluntary. They do not have to sell if they don’t want to.”
A major point of contention at Saturday’s meeting was the threat of eminent domain. Grid United explained that, as a private company, they do not possess eminent domain authority, insisting that if a landowner refuses to sell, the company will simply find an alternative route.
“At Pecos West we’re very landowner-first approach,” said Alexis Marquez, Pecos West community relations manager. “So if a landowner does not want (the transmission line) on the property, then we would find alternative routes.”
But Rodriguez remains highly skeptical that the developers would simply walk away from targeted plots.
“A corporation as big as you, a multi-million dollar corporation, I find it hard to believe that you would invest money into something this big and just walk away if the family said, ‘No, I don’t want to sell it,’” Rodriguez told officials during the meeting. “The question is: Are you really serious about what you’re saying here? Or is this just another dog and pony show?”
Project leaders conceded they need to adjust their efforts in engaging and informing the community, promising more meetings to come. However, residents emphasized that trust is currently broken and will only be rebuilt with concrete action.
El Paso County Commissioner Jackie Butler, who helped organize the meeting, said the County has no power to halt the proposed project, but she said she has been communicating with project officials and is trying to connect them with community advocacy organizations.
“I learned very quickly that the County does not have any authority or permitting process to stop these kinds of projects. And so that’s when I started connecting Pecos West to community members so that they could get directly involved,” Butler said. “My questions to Pecos West have been, Why do you have to come through our community? And even if you have to build through our region, you should go around it.”
Moving forward, the residents in attendance made it clear they do not intend to sell their property. They are demanding Grid United bring all impacted neighbors to the table as a collective before any more land is purchased.
If the project continues to move forward, construction is not expected to begin until the mid-2030s.
The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.
Here’s a look at May 8, 2026, results for each game:
Winning Mega Millions numbers from May 8 drawing
37-47-49-51-58, Mega Ball: 16
Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from May 8 drawing
09-14-18-20, Bonus: 16
Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from May 8 drawing
14-16-21-43-51, Bonus: 03
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.
Mobile home residents in Bozeman, Montana, say they’re being forced to choose between paying rent and paying medical costs.Courtesy of Jered McCafferty
35-year-old Benjamin Moore has lived in Mountain Meadows Mobile Home Park, outside Bozeman, Montana, since he was 17. This month, for the first time, he’s withholding his rent.
On May 1, Moore received a rent bill for $947, up 11 percent from the month before, and the second hike in nine months—the product of the park’s sale to an undisclosed buyer.
Moore hung a sign on his trailer that says “RENT STRIKE.” He and his neighbors in Mountain Meadows and nearby King Arthur Park, organized with the citywide group Bozeman Tenants United, are collectively withholding over $50,000 a month from their landlord.
Historically, trailer parks have been a relatively affordable housing option—a third of trailer park residents in America live below the poverty line. But on average, their cost of living has risen 45 percent over the past decade. By unionizing, the Bozeman trailer park tenants believe they might be able to fight the most recent rent hike—especially given the state of their housing.
For years, tenants say, the maintenance hasn’t been attended to: tree limbs hang perilously over trailers, and water shutoffs are a regular occurrence. “I cannot recall a time in the past 20 years where we had three straight months of water and power working all day, every day,” Moore said.
Shauna Thompson, another resident, calls the water “atrocious…like a Milky Way, like you’re drinking skim milk. It’s very nasty and turned off all the time, without any notice.” And tenants allege that they’ve experienced retribution for maintenance requests, punitive eviction attempts, and unsafe conditions.
“It’s really hard on people here,” Moore said. Some residents are “already paying their entire Social Security check for rent. It’s a very poor neighborhood. We’ve got old folks. We’ve got young families. We’ve got working-class people who can’t afford anything else.”
For the past four decades, a group called Oakland Properties has owned both trailer parks. When they learned about the sale, tenants were scared that their parks would be bulldozed, or that their rent would be increased even further, forcing them to move.
The tenants attempted to buy the parks themselves, but were decisively outbid. The winning bidder demanded an NDA. The transaction should be finalized next month, park owner Gary Oakland said, but residents still don’t know who’s going to own the land they live on.
This month’s rent hike, Oakland acknowledged, was “part and parcel” of the sale. But for tenants, it’s a catastrophe. On top of the $947 lot rent—more than double the national average—many residents also pay off home loans on their trailers, as well as insurance and utilities costs.
Oakland calls claims of broken utilities “nonsense”: “If it was such a bad place to live, why would the homes be selling for such high dollars?” he said. The rent strike, Oakland points out, is “just a group of people not paying their rent.”
Some people are rationing their medication to make ends meet, Moore said. “There’s one person who canceled Life Alert. It’s either Life Alert or rent, and if you don’t pay rent, they evict you and throw you in the streets.”
Tenant organizers across the nation have found a foothold in recent years organizing against individual landlords, and Bozeman’s tenant union, situated in one of the fastest-growing communities in the state, is no exception. Tenant unions from Los Angeles to Kansas City to New York have organized to win rent freezes, maintenance, and security in their homes.
Mobile home parks—increasingly private-equity-owned and uniquely at-risk in the face of climate disasters—are organizing, too: a group of trailer park residents in Columbia, Missouri, unionized in February. In Montana, as Rebecca Burns recently wrote for In These Times, mobile homes were already once a site of tenant organizing: buoyed by the state’s miners unions, the first Bozeman-area mobile home tenants’ union won an agreement with their landlord in 1978.
Oakland says park residents “have been terrorized by the union,” and plans to evict the strikers. The strikers say they’ve retained a lawyer and will fight to stay in their homes.
“I wish none of this was happening,” Moore said. “Your utilities should work. Your place should be safe. You should be able to get in and out of it. These are the absolute basics, and they just haven’t kept them up. And if you call them on it, they threaten you.”
-
Arizona1 minute agoDrowning happens in seconds, Arizona safety experts warn as triple-digit temperatures arrive this week
-
Arkansas7 minutes agoOklahoma Responds Well But Collapses Late to Drop Series With Arkansas
-
California13 minutes agoTwo GOP candidates for California governor participate in Bakersfield forum
-
Colorado19 minutes agoColorado man sentenced to over 40 years in prison for murder of ex-girlfriend
-
Connecticut25 minutes agoBody recovered from Connecticut River near Chester-Lyme Ferry, DEEP says
-
Delaware31 minutes agoFormer Delaware police officer accused of raping woman he met on dating app
-
Florida37 minutes agoFlorida man taken into custody related to call threatening business
-
Georgia43 minutes ago
Leschber Named to 2026 ACC All-Tournament Team
