Below is a summary of bills that will impact water in the Gallatin:

Water Storage & Reuse

• HB 924 (transmitted to governor) creates a growth and opportunity trust, including a Montana Water Development Special Revenue Account. This account allocates 10% of interest to fund water storage pilot projects and dam inspections. Funding for water storage pilot projects could help innovative solutions in Gallatin in the face of drought. For example, students from Headwaters Academy researched how building mounds of snow can slow down runoff in the spring.

• HJ 74 (passed) is a study resolution for analyzing water re-use in the state. In the Gallatin, water re-use is used for irrigation and snowmaking. The latter is a recent innovation that has been used at resorts in Big Sky and potentially in the future at Bridger Bowl.

Land Use Planning & Water Analysis 

• HB 40 (passed) makes sure that the fees paid for building or changing a public water or sewage system go into a special account used specifically for reviewing those system plans. This change targets efficient management of funds that are distinctly tracked and managed for plan review.

• HB 684 (passed) increases the timeline for the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to review petitions to add water bodies to the Montana list of impaired waters from 60 days to 180 days. In 2023, the Middle Segment of the Gallatin was petitioned and then included on the impaired water bodies list.

• HB 685 (passed) changes how the DEQ makes decisions about allowing pollution from a project into a healthy water body. The DEQ can approve lower water quality standards if a project brings significant economic or social benefits to the area. The bill removes the requirement for DEQ to weigh whether those benefits outweigh the broader costs to society from degrading the water.

Water Rights

• SB 76 (passed) updates how Montana reviews applications for water rights. It clarifies the responsibilities of the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and local governments at different stages of the process.

• SB 358, HB 704, and SB 436 (all died) addressed Montana’s exempt well policy, proposing changes to when and how much groundwater can be used without a permit. ​​ SB 358 would have mandated that developments proposing new groundwater wells in aquifers with limited water availability (like the Gallatin Valley) go through the permitting process. With the death of these bills, the status quo for exempt well management in Montana is maintained.

• HB 441 (passed) creates a process for people who have older water rights (from before 1973) to ask the state to change or cancel newer water permits (issued after 1973) if those newer uses are hurting their access to water.

• HB 580 (passed) allows water right holders to conserve and reduce water consumption during drought conditions without the fear that their water rights will be considered abandoned. The user's reduction in water use must be part of a local, regional, or state drought plan. Stakeholders across the Gallatin Watershed are working to develop a Gallatin Drought and Deluge Adaptive Management Plan.

• HB 775 (passed) removes the end date for the Water Court, so it can keep operating permanently. The Water Court will then be able to help the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation in certain water rights decisions and disputes.

Water Quality

• HB 664 (passed) repeals numeric nutrient water quality standards and reverts back to narrative nutrient standards for the regulation of discharge permits. For example, instead of regulations requiring a numeric target, like 0.3 mg/l total nitrogen, the regulations will be based on conditions caused by nutrients like the amount of algae and/or dissolved oxygen. The Environmental Protection Agency will have to approve the decision to repeal numeric nutrient standards and ensure that water quality standards in Montana still comply with the Clean Water Act.

• HB 736 (passed) provides criteria for nutrient pollutant offsets for point source discharge permits, where offsets can be made within a local watershed. It obligates the DEQ to establish offset amounts for non-point pollution sources, including riparian fencing, riparian vegetation, and the removal of septic systems. This bill could potentially enable the City of Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility to invest in projects off-site that improve water quality within the middle segment of the East Gallatin Watershed. These “offsets” will count toward meeting its regulatory discharge limit. It is unclear how pollutant offsets will work without numeric nutrient standards.

Montana Environmental Protection Act (MEPA)

• SB 262 (passed) says that some subdivisions do not need a full environmental review if they meet certain criteria, such as areas served by centralized water and sewer systems. If someone is subdividing their land within a municipality like Bozeman or an area with public water and sewer such as sections of Big Sky, that institution will not need to go through a full environmental review under MEPA.

• HB 466 allows state agencies to skip a full environmental review for certain activities that do not typically have significant environmental impacts. Through the bill’s passing, Montana state agencies can create and use these exclusions when they believe a type of project or action doesn’t pose environmental risks.

• HB 285 (passed) clarifies the role of MEPA as a guiding document rather than an authoritative one. 

• HB 270 (passed) clarifies how courts can respond if MEPA is not followed. With this bill, a project can only be denied if it is in the public interest to do so, does not harm local economic impacts, or provides meaningful environmental relief.