Connect with us

Montana

Montana Supreme Court sides with state in water right dispute

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement



Source link

Montana

Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case – Transnational Litigation Blog

Published

on

Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case – Transnational Litigation Blog


Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act discourages forum shopping in child custody disputes by assigning subject-matter jurisdiction to the court located in the “home state” of the child. In Allen v. Allen, decided on April 21, 2026, the Montana Supreme Court had to determine whether the child’s “home state” was Montana or the Netherlands. This case shines an important spotlight on the importance of timing in international child custody disputes. The left-behind parent’s likelihood of success is strongly correlated with how quickly he or she acts to vindicate their legal rights.

Facts

Jonathan Edward Allen (Father) and Petronella Gerline (Van Oosterom) Allen (Mother) were married in Colorado in 2009. Father is a United States citizen. Mother is a dual citizen of the United States and the Netherlands. Their child (R.A.A.) was born in 2015. In 2020, the family moved from Colorado to Montana.

In August 2023, after Father and Mother began having marital difficulties, Mother and R.A.A. relocated to the Netherlands. In February 2024, Mother filed a petition for divorce and custody with the District Court of Central Netherlands (Netherlands District Court).

Advertisement

In January 2025, Father filed a petition with the District Court of The Hague seeking the return of R.A.A. pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This petition was denied. Although the court held that R.A.A. had been wrongfully removed from the United States, the court reasoned that the one-year automatic return period had passed and that R.A.A. had become settled in her new environment in the Netherlands. This decision was affirmed on appeal.

In September 2025, Father filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Custody and Petition for Permanent Parenting Plan in Montana state court. That court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, it held that it lacked the power to adjudicate the dispute because Montana was no longer the “home state” of R.A.A. Father, acting pro se, appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.

Analysis

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) assigns exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction to courts located in the child’s “home state” when it comes to matters relating to child custody. The “home state” is “the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.” The UCCJEA specifically provides that courts “shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States” for purposes of resolving these disputes.

On the facts presented in Allen v. Allen, the Montana Supreme Court correctly held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Father’s emergency motion. Mother and R.A.A. relocated to the Netherlands in August 2023. Six months later—in February 2024—R.A.A.’s home state shifted to the Netherlands. The Dutch courts—rather than the Montana courts—now had exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve custody disputes involving R.A.A. Father did not file his motion in Montana until September 2025, which was nineteen months too late.

Conclusion

If Father had filed his suit in Montana before February 2024, he could have shown that Montana was R.A.A.’s “home state” because the child had not yet resided in the Netherlands for six months. The suit was, however, not filed until September 2025.

Advertisement

If Father had filed suit in the Netherlands before August 2024, he could have argued that R.A.A. should be returned to the United States pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction because the child had not yet resided in the Netherlands for a year. The suit was, however, not filed until January 2025.

The key takeaway of Allen v. Allen is the need for speed in international child custody cases. The timelines baked into the relevant laws and treaties mandate that the left-behind parent move quickly to assert their rights. If they are slow off the mark, they be forced to litigate in foreign courts under less favorable legal rules.



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Clark Fork River remains central to Missoula’s identity, conservation groups say

Published

on

Clark Fork River remains central to Missoula’s identity, conservation groups say


The Clark Fork River has long been a defining feature of Missoula, shaping the city’s culture, economy and outdoor lifestyle.

The river is so closely tied to the area that it helped inspire the well-known book and film “A River Runs Through It.” But local conservation advocates say its importance goes far beyond scenery.

“Without the Clark Fork River, Missoula would just be another town,” said Lisa Ronald, Northern Rockies associate conservation director for American Rivers. “We wouldn’t be the River City. I think we’re known in Montana as Missoula the River City, and it’s really because of the Clark Fork River and its central role in business, in economics, in recreation, that really makes Missoula the town that it is.”

Carmen Murill, a field organizer with Wild Montana, said the river is deeply woven into daily life for people who live in Missoula.

Advertisement

“A lot of us would wonder what to do on a beautiful or a rainy summer day,” Murill said. “I mean, it’s really a lifeforce of town. And I think it’s pretty unique that Missoula, as a community is living and breathing on both sides of the river. It’s really like two downtowns but connected by the Clark Fork.”

Conservation groups say protecting the river begins with community involvement.

Advocates encourage residents and visitors to spend time outdoors, whether on a trail, in the woods or along the river, and to learn how they can become better stewards of the environment.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

Forstag secures democratic nomination for Western Montana Congressional District

Published

on

Forstag secures democratic nomination for Western Montana Congressional District


MISSOULA — Sam Forstag edged out Ryan Busse to secure the Democratic nomination in Montana’s 1st Congressional District.

Busse conceded the race to Forstag on Wednesday morning. Forstag had trailed behind Busse Tuesday evening, but he made up ground as the votes were counted into the early hours of Wednesday morning. The other two candidates in the race, Russl Cleveland and Matt Rains, are sitting at third and fourth, respectively.

Forstag leads in close race for Montana’s 1st Congressional District

Advertisement

Forstag spent eight years as a wildland firefighter, including four as a smokejumper, and he’s been vice president of the local National Federation of Federal Employees union. Last week, U.S. House of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, held a rally in Missoula to support Forstag’s campaign.

He told MTN on Tuesday that his campaign has been for the working class.

“We got a whole lot of people here that have been working their tail off to finally get some working-class representation in Washington,” Forstag noted. “So proud of everything we’ve done and so grateful.”

Forstag further noted he wants Montanans to be able to afford groceries, have universal free childcare and restore and expand Affordable Health Care Act subsidies.

Advertisement

“Hearing people’s stories and struggles and commonalities in the ways that we’re all fighting in the system that does not serve us so often, and the government serves corporations and the richest people in this country more than working people. It has been frustrating and saddening, but it has also inspired so much hope in me, like the fixes we can actually make,” he told MTN.

The 1st Congressional District covers much of western Montana, including Kalispell, Missoula, Butte and Bozeman. It is currently held by Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Montana, who chose not to seek reelection.

By securing the nomination, Forstag is slated tol face off against Libertarian candidate Nick Sheedy and Republican candidate Aaron Flint in November. 





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending