Montanans are witnessing an inexplicably vicious attack on the ruling by the state’s Supreme Court that the plain language of the constitution guarantees “a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”  

What we haven’t heard is why a dirty and unhealthful environment is good for anybody — or the future of our state. 

Truly, why would anyone think they or their kids or grandkids would be better off with a degraded and toxic environment?  Yet, the court’s decision has sparked a misguided rebellion against the environmental laws that protect all Montanans — and an attack on the judiciary as if it’s some kind of enemy of the people.  

But it seems pretty clear that enemies of the people don’t rule to protect the people.  And ensuring that the laws passed by the Legislature comply with the Montana Constitution is the primary job of the Montana Supreme Court.  It’s the foundational checks-and-balances upon which our system of government relies to ensure the executive and legislative branches stay within constitutional mandates to preserve the rights of the people.

Making war on the environment is a dead-end street — which we’re increasingly finding out as the tragedies driven by atmospheric pollution stack up along with the hundreds of billions of dollars to deal with the aftermath. So, where’s the wisdom in deciding to protect polluters at the cost to the rest of the populace?

How about this little truth: Pollution does not discriminate between Republicans and Democrats, nor Independents, Libertarians, or any other organizational clusters regardless of what they call themselves.  Nor does polluted air or water recognize any boundaries — we all need clean air and water, which is not only a shared resource, but a shared responsibility to provide those vital necessities to nourish, not poison, our people. 

The fact is, we have many good environmental and conservation laws on the books that serve all our people well. There’s simply no good reason why one political party or another should be against those laws, none at all.  

Perhaps one of the greatest mistakes of the “environmental movement” was attaching itself at the hip with the Democratic Party.  Yet, in Montana’s history, it has often been Democrat governors who have been responsible for some of the worst environmental decisions. 

In the mid-1980s, Democrat Gov. Ted Schwinden cut the coal severance tax in half to supposedly make Montana competitive with Wyoming.  He succeeded in losing hundreds of millions of dollars for the Coal Tax Trust Fund, but it didn’t save the coal industry because distance to market was the deciding factor. 

Democrat Gov. Brian Schweitzer morphed into the “Coal Cowboy” within one year of taking office.  His mission?  Save the coal industry by peddling economically ridiculous proposals for coal-to-liquids when fracking was producing record amounts of cheap oil and gas. 

Democrat Gov. Steve Bullock allowed radioactive waste from the Bakken fracking operations to be disposed of in Montana’s landfills — because it’s illegal to do so in North Dakota.

Of course Republicans have their own rogue’s list of bad decisions and policies — but there’s not room in one column to cover all those.  

There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever why a clean environment should be partisan.  The great attractions of Montana are our clean rivers, our blue skies, and an abundance of fish and wildlife that are the envy of the nation and world.  The Constitution plainly states: “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana” — and that’s a legacy worth upholding. 

By Emma White | UM Legislative News Service

The Montana House of Representatives is working under a new set of rules after voting Jan. 14 along party lines to approve an amended resolution that spurred an emotional debate from both parties. 

House Majority Leader Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls, sponsored House Resolution 1, which sets the rules for the House in 2025. But at issue was an amendment to the bill that lays out decorum – or rules of conduct – as well as what discipline members might face if they break those rules. 

“A lot of people have expressed interest in having a decorum amendment which would establish kind of policies and procedures. I guess this is kind of like a human resources, step-by-step progression on what will happen if we have breaches of decorum,” Fitzpatrick said.

Fitzpatrick said the amendment was an attempt to provide a more narrow definition of decorum for the representatives, but Democrats expressed worries that the amendment would be used punitively.

Under the amendment, a representative would get one strike, then face a three day censorship, then expulsion.

But Rep. Jonathan Karlan, D-Missoula, pointed out a clause farther down in the bill that allows the representative to be censured or expelled on the first offense, if there is a majority vote. 

“I think that of course we are well aware that we’re not in the majority, and we’d be relying on the majority to just uphold our rights because with not even a party-line vote, we could expel somebody and there’s no limit on that,” Karlan said.

Fitzpatrick replied that the bill simply seeks to clarify the behaviors that are considered unacceptable in the chamber, such as personal attacks against character and using profane language, to clear up some of the ambiguity that can arise during controversial debate.

“We’re not interested in being the word police. We’re going to have good, vigorous debate in this room, but we can do it professionally, we can do it in the type of discussion that honors the people of Montana, so this I think is an appropriate amendment,” Fitzpatrick said.

The amendment to the rules comes after a contentious debate and a public protest during the 2023 session that led Republican leadership to censure Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula. 

On the House floor Jan. 14, Zephyr pointed out that decorum standards were lowered from a super majority vote to a majority vote, which she said raises concerns about how the bill could be used.

“There is a risk we run when we lower to a simple majority, that the majority can deem at any time that if they think a certain stance is offensive, that they can silence dissent,” Zephyr said. “And to me that is inherently un-Democratic.”

Emma White is a reporter with the UM Legislative News Service, a partnership of the University of Montana School of Journalism, the Montana Broadcasters Association and the Greater Montana Foundation. White can be reached at emma.white@umconnect.umt.edu

A workforce housing tax credit bill moved ahead Thursday in the Montana House with significant bipartisan support.

Modeled after the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, the state credit in House Bill 21 aims to be one fix to the state’s persistent lack of housing and the high cost of existing homes.

It would offer credits managed by the state for affordable housing developments.

Rep. George Nikolakakos, R-Great Falls, said because Montana didn’t have the program in place before, it has left 1,300 units on the table since 2019. He said the return on investment with the program is good.

“It’s a program that gets shovels in the ground,” Nikolakakos said.

The program would offer $1.5 million worth of credits each year for six years on a cumulative basis, and then sunset, according to a fiscal analysis by legislative staff.

Sponsor Rep. Larry Brewster, R-Billings, said the bill is “a little expensive,” but it is needed given the state of housing affairs in Montana. He said the money doesn’t go out until the project is done, and the affordable rent is guaranteed for at least 30 years.

In a committee hearing, he said the credit has a beginning and an end date, and “lots of opportunity for oversight.” It fills the gap that developers can’t afford to pay with the federal credit, possibly grants, and a bank loan.

“These days the mortgage can’t quite reach around what the federal tax credit provides, so this would be a bridge to fill that in,” Brewster said.

Rep. Mark Thane, D-Missoula, said housing tax credits already are successful, and HB 21 helps address the severe problems in Montana. He said projects don’t pencil out at the rates needed for people living on the margins.

The Montana Housing Coalition said a home is deemed “affordable” if a household pays no more than 30% of its income for a home including utilities. It said 32 other states have such a program.

“This is an opportunity to create additional housing units, an opportunity to make a dent in our housing crisis,” Thane said.

All Democrats supported the bill, along with 33 Republicans.

Twenty-five Republicans opposed it, some objecting to the price tag. At its peak year, it will cost the general fund $9 million, according to an estimate in the fiscal analysis.

Rep. Jed Hinkle, R-Belgrade, said he appreciates the intent, but he doesn’t believe the government should interfere with the free market because “it messes things up.”

“Then, we have people say, ‘The free market doesn’t work.’ Well, this is why. It’s because of constant government intervention,” Hinkle said.

In a House Tax committee hearing last week, developers, affordable housing advocates, and members of the business community spoke in favor of the bill.

Proponents said the credit multiplies in the state economy. They described the bill as one that will help fill the financing gap that has emerged as costs to build have increased in the form of higher interest rates and prices of materials.

The only opponent at the hearing was the Montana Society of CPAs, which opposes credits in general because they complicate the tax code. On behalf of the accountants, John Iverson suggested the money be handed out directly instead of through a credit.

Sam Sill, with the Montana Bankers Association, said people considered “the working poor” will be helped with the credit.

“The cost of building is significant enough now, high enough now, that without some degree of support, you probably can’t build housing that those folks are going to able to afford,” said Sill, who said he used to represent real estate developers.

Beki Brandborg, chair of the Montana Housing Coalition and a private affordable housing developer, said she and a partner were able to take an old apartment building of subsidized units in Culbertson “back to the future” with a similar credit.

She said the people who live in the units are hairdressers, cooks, dishwashers, grocery store clerks, mechanics and school janitors.

A couple of mayors spoke in favor of the credit, too. Missoula Mayor Andrea Davis, who worked in housing development, said affordable housing is one of the reasons voters elected her.

Regulation alone won’t solve the problem, she said. Capital is necessary, and she views housing in the same way she sees sewer, water, roads, and sidewalks in a community.

“Homes that Missoulians can afford, and that Montanans can afford, that our workforce can afford, is our housing infrastructure. It is an investment in our residents,” Davis said.

Michael O’Neil, head of the Helena Housing Authority, pointed to a 2022 study from the University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research as evidence of future success.

“For every dollar in lost revenue to the tax credit, a state credit program is estimated to leverage $2.69 in direct public and private residential spending in the broader state economy,” O’Neil said. “This is a very conservative estimate.”

Montana’s Board of Housing manages those credits, and in recent years, it has awarded nearly all of its federal allocation, roughly $29 million each year, and has received applications for “at least double that,” the study said.

Citing the study, O’Neil said 40% more units of low-income housing tax credits could be built every year in Montana if the state started a program, or 122 more a year.

Had such a credit been in place in 2019, Aubrey Godbey with the Montana Budget and Policy Center estimated even more units could have been built, 1,350 at the end of 2024.

Godbey said Montana has 42 units of affordable homes available for every 100 households who need them, citing data on rentals from the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Developer Don Sterhan and member of the Montana Housing Coalition said many members want to see the credit pass. The bill needs one more vote to pass the House.

“It’s not the total solution, but it helps, and it very well might be the component that makes the difference whether a project is built or not,” Sterhan said.

Also in support were the Montana Chamber of Commerce, the Montana League of Women Voters, the NeighborWorks Montana, Homeward, Montana Contractors Association, Montana Association of Realtors and Shelter Whitefish, and Montana League of Cities and Towns.