Connect with us

Montana

Diverse coalition challenges Montana’s exempt wells

Published

on

Diverse coalition challenges Montana’s exempt wells


Laura Lundquist

(Missoula Current) As Montana’s streams continue to dwindle in the continuing drought, a diverse group of organizations and individuals are once again challenging Montana’s rule on exempt wells, saying the state has repeatedly ignored court rulings.

On Wednesday, six Montana organizations and three individuals filed a complaint in Lewis and Clark County district court alleging that the Montana Department of Natural Resources Conservation has ignored court rulings and the rights of senior water-right owners by continuing to allow subdivision developers to exploit Montana’s exempt well law.

The plaintiffs include the Clark Fork Coalition, Montana League of Cities and Towns, Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Trout Unlimited, Montana Environmental Information Center, Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators and Mark Runkle, a housing developer.

Advertisement

“From rapid growth to ongoing drought, Montana’s water resources and water users are facing unprecedented challenges,” said Andrew Gorder, Clark Fork Coalition legal director. “The cumulative impact of over 100,000 exempt groundwater wells can no longer be ignored. We’re asking the court to conserve our limited water resources and ensure that the constitutional protections afforded to senior water rights, including instream flow rights, are preserved.”

Over the years, especially since 2006, the Legislature has considered more than a dozen bills, most with the intent of enabling the proliferation of small wells – those that pump less than 35 gallons per minute – that the state has exempted from needing a water right or permit. The few bills proposed to keep exempt wells in check have usually failed in the Legislature while the DNRC has been reluctant to insist on regulation. So the incorporation of exempt wells in new subdivisions has exploded at a time when the state, particularly western Montana, is struggling with dwindling water supplies.

According to the complaint, census data show Montana’s population increased by almost 203,000 residents between 2000 and 2021. Over 87% of that growth occurred in six counties—Gallatin, Yellowstone, Flathead, Missoula, Lewis and Clark, and Ravalli – and those are also the counties where hundreds of new wells are pulling huge amounts of water out of their respective aquifers.

The complaint says Ravalli County is the most extreme example of population influx and exempt well development. Census data show 10,000 people moved to Ravalli County between 2000 and 2021, and 84% of the 6,000 new homes were built outside of incorporated areas. As a result, there are now more than 24,000 wells in the county and only 288 are for municipal or public water supply systems. So it’s not surprising that household wells, such as those south of Lolo, were running dry this summer in the Bitterroot Valley.

So many unregulated, unmetered wells together are using more water than agricultural producers who are required to have water rights before they can use water for irrigation or stockwater. If such water rights holders don’t receive their full amount of water, they are allowed to ask other users junior to them to stop using water. But that system doesn’t work when they try to make a call on a subdivision full of exempt wells. So, as courts have found, exempt wells violate Montana’s first-in-time, first-in-right system of water rights.

Advertisement

Over the decades, the number of water rights granted in each river basin account for more water than the basin holds, so starting in the 1990s, the state closed several basins to new water rights, including the Upper Clark Fork, Blackfoot and Bitterroot river basins. Eventually, groundwater rights were limited too when the courts ruled groundwater and surface water were linked. But that hasn’t stopped developers from drilling more household wells.

Back in the 1960s and ‘70s when Montana had only a half-million residents, exempt wells weren’t as much of a problem. But as the population surged and subdivisions multiplied in the 1980s, some Montanans could see danger, and a 1982 state conference recognized the threat to water supplies posed by an increasing number of unregulated wells.

In 1987, the DNRC developed a rule prohibiting the combined appropriation or use of exempt wells from a single aquifer without a water right, which should have stopped subdivisions from installing multiple exempt wells. But real estate and contracting lobbies were gaining strength. In 1993, the DNRC changed the definition of “combined appropriation” to require that the wells be physically joined before being required to get a water right, giving developers an out to use individual household wells.

A 2008 DNRC report, written for the newly created Legislative Water Policy Interim Committee, found that “exempt wells had become a major source of unregulated groundwater use in closed basins, areas with high population growth and increasing subdivision development.” The DNRC acknowledged that water rights owners could have their water use curtailed while subdivision exempt-well use continues unabated.

The Water Policy Interim Committee would conduct two additional studies of exempt wells in 2012 and 2018, which would find exempt wells problematic for water supplies and water law, but prompted no action.

Advertisement

Finally in 2009, a group of water rights holders, including the Clark Fork Coalition and rancher Katrin Chandler, petitioned the DNRC to rewrite the 1993 rule to protect senior water rights. When the DNRC refused, they went to court. In October 2014, a district judge ruled in their favor, saying the 1993 exempt well rule violated Montana’s Water Use Act. The state appealed, and meanwhile, the Legislature tried to pass laws to bolster the 1993 rule even though many legislators say they’re pro-agriculture.

In September 2016, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the district court finding that the 1993 rule on combined appropriation was inconsistent with the Water Use Act. DNRC went back to its 1987 definition of combined appropriation, and that should have put an end to the use of multiple exempt wells in subdivisions. But it didn’t.

In 2022, Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and others filed a court challenge to stop a 442-acre subdivision with exempt wells in Broadwater County that had gotten DNRC approval because it would be developed in four phases that were considered individually. The district court sided with Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, saying the DNRC’s “interpretation here would allow developers to circumvent exempt well limitations easily and unilaterally by simply slicing any project into phases each small enough to fall under the exempt-well ceiling for the aggregate acre-feet.”

District judge Michael F. McMahon said the DNRC ignored the 2016 Montana Supreme Court ruling and he expected that the department might do the same in future situations.

“The economic impetus to develop land is overwhelming and relentless. If there is going to be any check on uncontrolled development of Montana’s limited water resources, it will have to come from DNRC, which is statutorily charged with fulfilling Montanans’ constitutional right to ‘control, and regulation of water rights,’ a duty DNRC has manifestly avoided or undermined for over a decade to the detriment of our waters, environment, and senior water rights holders whose protection is the ‘core purpose’ of the Water Rights Act,” McMahon wrote.

Advertisement

The 2025 Legislature killed Senate Bill 358, which came out of recommendations from a DNRC working group, which included some of the plaintiffs. SB 358 would have significantly restricted the use of exempt wells in four aquifers where DNRC data and analysis shows that wells are affecting senior water rights owners: the Helena Valley, the Bitterroot Valley, the Missoula Valley, and the Gallatin Valley.

DNRC data show that between 74% and 94% of all groundwater use within these aquifers are from exempt wells, compared to 1% to 5% that are permitted wells, according to the complaint. In the Missoula and Bitterroot Valleys, more than 15,000 exempt wells serve rapidly growing residential areas, making up 74% of all groundwater rights in the Missoula Valley and 89% in the Bitterroot Valley. DNRC has recommended that the Legislature close both the Missoula and Bitterroot aquifers to additional exempt well development.

Because efforts to work with the DNRC and the Legislature have been stymied, the plaintiffs are turning to the courts and asking a judge to find the Exempt Well Law is unconstitutional by violating the property rights of water-right owners and by limiting their right to participate. They also want the DNRC to stop implementing the Exempt Well Law and rewrite it to conform with the water law of prior appropriation.

“Farmers and ranchers have followed the rules and invested generations of work based on secure access to water,” said Scott Kulbeck of the Montana Farm Bureau Federation. “Everyone has to play by the same rules. When some folks skip the permit process and pull from a water source that’s already spoken for, it hurts their neighbors. This case is about protecting the way Montanans have managed water responsibly for generations.”

Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.

Advertisement





Source link

Montana

Road closure continues Thursday in Missoula’s Miller Creek

Published

on

Road closure continues Thursday in Missoula’s Miller Creek


A road closure will impact drivers in the Miller Creek neighborhood in Missoula.

Missoula County Public Works crews are working on a storm drainage project that will keep Miller Creek Road closed from Gharrett Street to Stonehaven Avenue.

The road is expected to reopen Thursday at 4 p.m.

Drivers, pedestrians and cyclists can expect to see signs about the detour and closure.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Montana Lottery Mega Millions, Lucky For Life results for Nov. 11, 2025

Published

on


The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big. Here’s a look at Nov. 11, 2025, results for each game:

Winning Mega Millions numbers from Nov. 11 drawing

10-13-40-42-46, Mega Ball: 01

Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Lucky For Life numbers from Nov. 11 drawing

12-25-30-40-42, Lucky Ball: 15

Advertisement

Check Lucky For Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from Nov. 11 drawing

01-05-18-22, Bonus: 05

Check Big Sky Bonus 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.

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

Winning lottery numbers are sponsored by Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network.

Advertisement

Where can you buy lottery tickets?

Tickets can be purchased in person at gas stations, convenience stores and grocery stores. Some airport terminals may also sell lottery tickets.

You can also order tickets online through Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network, in these U.S. states and territories: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., and West Virginia. The Jackpocket app allows you to pick your lottery game and numbers, place your order, see your ticket and collect your winnings all using your phone or home computer.

Jackpocket is the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network. Gannett may earn revenue for audience referrals to Jackpocket services. GAMBLING PROBLEM? CALL 1-800-GAMBLER, Call 877-8-HOPENY/text HOPENY (467369) (NY). 18+ (19+ in NE, 21+ in AZ). Physically present where Jackpocket operates. Jackpocket is not affiliated with any State Lottery. Eligibility Restrictions apply. Void where prohibited. Terms: jackpocket.com/tos.

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.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Montana’s forgotten ‘Silver Star’: WWI combat nurse finally gets her due … 106 years later • Daily Montanan

Published

on

Montana’s forgotten ‘Silver Star’: WWI combat nurse finally gets her due … 106 years later • Daily Montanan


The dog tags of Elizabeth D. Sandelius (Photo courtesy of Ed Saunders).

This Veterans Day will be a little different than the others for Elizabeth Dorothy “Sandy” Sandelius.

Even though she died decades ago, after living what her family describes as a full life mostly spent in California, the Montana-native and World War I hero — and her family — can now say: She has a Silver Star, a medal awarded to those who served heroically during combat.

As one of many Montana women who answered the military’s call for service during World War I as a trained nurse with the Red Cross, Sandelius shipped overseas, volunteered for combat duty, and served on front-line hospitals, nearly losing her life several times. She returned to America with little fanfare and got married to a man whom she secretly wed before deploying, both never knowing if they’d see each other again.

Advertisement

They did. And they raised a family. But even that family, who knew her simply as “Granny,” had no idea that among the records of battlefield heroics, she stood out. According to her relatives, she never recounted her experiences of the field hospital or the wounded.

It was a decade-long journey by one of Montana’s best contemporary historians that culminated in a small ceremony in Los Angeles last year, where Sandelius was awarded the honor, even though many nurses during the “Great War” never got the same recognition as their male military counterparts.  

Elizabeth Sandelius in civilian clothing, after World War I. (Photo courtesy of the Benbow Family).

In fact, in what may be a cruel historic irony: Sandelius’ name may have been more remembered had she been killed in action rather than just serving in it. The names of the fallen dead were remembered, often chiseled in the stone of memorials and written in the books of military history.

However, Sandelius’ story follows a common trajectory: Small town girl who becomes a nurse, only to have the country enter into a great global war. Edward Saunders, who has done extensive history of Montana women in the military, especially during the first half of the twentieth century in his book, “Knapsacks and Roses,” said when America entered into the war, there were more nurses in Montana than the military, which only had about 400 (at the time, there were 500 in the Treasure State). The Department of War would send out a call for more than 14,000.

Sandelius answered that call, not once, but three times. She volunteered to be a nurse for the military; she volunteered to go to overseas; and then she volunteered to go to the front lines. None of those things were required.

Advertisement

But it would be her service on the battlefield, in a field hospital that wasn’t much more than a tent, during some of the most intense fighting where she caught the notice of the commanders.

In July and August 1918, Sandelius was assigned to the U.S. 28th Division, which was helping the French infantry stave off German attacks, including those with lethal gas. During the Oise-Ainse offensive and the Second Battle of the Marne, the 28th sustained more than 14,000 casualties.

Sandelius was assigned to Field Hospital 112, near Cohan, about 60 miles from Paris. Saunders recounts that the tented field hospital would receive more than 5,000 wounded and perform more than 200 surgeries.

But on Aug. 10, the Germans stepped up the attacks, and the field hospital was caught.

Even after military commanders had ordered the nurses to withdraw to three miles, Sandelius refused to leave the side of the injured and sick.

Advertisement

“For eight consecutive days and nights, she stayed with her patients, enduring enemy artillery and aerial bombardment in dire and deadly conditions,” Saunders wrote.

Her life could have ended in a multitude of ways during those harrowing hours, but two coincidences should have killed her. Both times, a German warplane — military aviation was still in its infancy — dropped a bomb near the tented hospital, only to have them both fail to explode. One landed approximately 15 feet from her.

While she would survive on a combination of luck and steely determination, Sandelius and other nurses would stay on long after the war’s end on Nov. 11, 1918, helping to care for the sick and wounded.

She returned to the United States in 1919, alive and with little other fanfare. Few even know that she and her husband, Stillwater County soldier C.B. Benbow, had fallen madly in love just prior to entering into the war. Not knowing where they’d end up, or if either would make it out of the worldwide conflict alive, they secretly wed two weeks before she left.

The marriage had to be done secretly, or she’d likely not be accepted for the war effort. On all of her war records, including her dog tags, she remained Elizabeth D. Sandelius, No. 12660, of the American Expeditionary Forces.

Advertisement

In reality, she was Elizabeth D. Benbow.

After the war, she returned to her husband, C.B., who was trained as an early aviation pilot, but never left the states during the war. Sandelius died in May 1983, never knowing her battlefield legacy would be remembered. She was buried in Los Angeles’ National Cemetery.

The cover of “Knapsacks and Roses” by Ed Saunders.

It was Saunders, while researching his book about Montana women and their involvement in World War I, who discovered Sandelius’ story.

“From the centennial of World War One about 10 years go, I first met her in the dusty archives of the Montana state library among many records of Montana women who went to war in 1917,” Saunders said. “As I looked at Elizabeth’s service record in war-torn France, I couldn’t help but think, ‘This gal was in some bad stuff.’ I wanted to find more about her. My walk with her began.”

His inspiration would lead him to research more of her life, and he believed that U.S. military officials had overlooked awards that she more than deserved.

It took nearly a decade of research and a writing campaign. Saunders was able to track down the grandchildren of Sandelius, themselves old enough to be grandparents. They were shocked to learn about “Granny’s” history, and proud that their grandmother, whom they remembered warmly, was also a hero.

Advertisement

They offered letters of support in Saunders’ campaign to earn her recognition, including sending Sandelius’ dog-tags and photos. And they were shocked when the U.S. Army accepted their case for Sandelius receiving the Silver Star.

Saunders, a retired Army colonel who served in combat himself, remembers calling the family when the letter from the U.S. Army arrived.

“We both had tears in our eyes,” Saunders said.

Sandelius was among the first four American servicewomen in the American military history, all WWI Army Nurse Corps nurse, to have been awarded the Silver Star medal for valor in combat.

“The greatest tragedy that can befall an American serviceman — or woman — is not that they may be killed in action, that’s the greatest sacrifice. The greatest tragedy is they may be forgotten: Forgotten in life and forgotten in death by the very same nation they — and I — swore and oath to defend, even at the cost of our lives,” Saunders said. “In the words of the ancient Greeks, Elizabeth helped make gentle the horror which mankind often inflicts upon itself.”

Advertisement

Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our website. AP and Getty images may not be republished. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of any other photos and graphics.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending