SB 497 - Attack on Stream Access

[Ben Lamb]

LAWS Detailed Bill Information Page

SB 497 has a hearing scheduled today in Senate Judiciary. This bill would severely undermine the public's ability to maintain prescriptive easements for stream access and it would create a massive barrier to groups who actually sue to maintain access points by eliminating their ability to recover costs.

This is closely resembling some proposed "solutions" for the landowners along the Bitterroot like Charles Schwab and Huey Lewis who sued to eliminate your stream access rights to Mitchell Slough and landowners like James Cox Kennedy on the Ruby River at Seylor Lane. The bill says that if a gov't entity - any gov't entity - posts no trespassing signs for 5 years, that the prescriptive easement is lost. That is a massive change from current law, and it is designed to keep people from accessing their rivers and streams.

This is a direct attack on stream access in Montana. The bill is being heard today in House Judiciary and your voice is needed to help keep this bad bill from advancing. You can submit your comments here: https://leg.mt.gov/web-messaging/

Tell this committee to table SB 497 and stop this attack on Stream Access now.

 

[Nameless Range]

Thanks Ben. By "any gov't entity", I assume on bad angle is a county could dictate the future of all Montanans access on their streams?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks Ben. By "any gov't entity", I assume on bad angle is a county could dictate the future of all Montanans access on their streams?

Yes.

 

[Beignet]

Chip, chipping away...

 

[Gerald Martin]

Thanks Ben. Message sent.

 

[elkrchr]

Thanks for the heads up Ben!

 

[Southern Elk]

Email sent. Thanks for the heads up, Ben.

 

[sacountry]

Thanks Ben, message sent.

 

[sacountry]

Geesh, I just read SB497. While it doesn't give the landowner the right to restrict prescriptive easements (surface water access), it does give the right to any government agency to post such sign and then wait 5 years for it to take effect. IMHO, this would have been the bill to attack by all the sportsman groups and my time to drive down to Helena to speak against. Why did it come up in the bottom of the 9th inning?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Geesh, I just read SB497. While it doesn't give the landowner the right to restrict prescriptive easements (surface water access), it does give the right to any government agency to post such sign and then wait 5 years for it to take effect. IMHO, this would have been the bill to attack by all the sportsman groups and my time to drive down to Helena to speak against. Why did it come up in the bottom of the 9th inning?

It was introduced Friday, when there were over 309 bills being dropped. It's a deliberate attempt to reduce pressure against the bill through process.

It has passed out of committee already.


Light it up folks. All hands on deck.

Hit your state senators.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Geesh, I just read SB497. While it doesn't give the landowner the right to restrict prescriptive easements (surface water access), it does give the right to any government agency to post such sign and then wait 5 years for it to take effect. IMHO, this would have been the bill to attack by all the sportsman groups and my time to drive down to Helena to speak against. Why did it come up in the bottom of the 9th inning?

Surely this bill will never be misused.
Influential landowners would never use political connection to influence county commissioners or individuals employed by government agencies to post contested access on their behalf. Nothing to see here folks…

 

[Deleted member 52098]

Hopefully I don't get blasted out of the room for this question... but should those of us that live out of state comment on this as well, or is that just increasing the noise and taking away from the chances a Montanans comments get rid? These kinds of bills have consequences beyond state borders, as other states might adopt, so I am more than willing to take the time to comment, but want to make sure it's not a distraction

 

[Carnage2011]

Hopefully I don't get blasted out of the room for this question... but should those of us that live out of state comment on this as well, or is that just increasing the noise and taking away from the chances a Montanans comments get rid? These kinds of bills have consequences beyond state borders, as other states might adopt, so I am more than willing to take the time to comment, but want to make sure it's not a distraction

Definitely comment.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Actual footage of Gianforte and his buddies setting policy objectives for hunting and fishing?

 

[sacountry]

Surely this bill will never be misused.
Influential landowners would never use political connection to influence county commissioners or individuals employed by government agencies to post contested access on their behalf. Nothing to see here folks…

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Beignet]

Where should folks comment to have their voices best heard now that it's out of committee? Committee comments are a good place to get your message heard because they go to multiple people. Aside from my own senator and representative, where would the comment best be directed?

For that matter, where should out of state folks best direct their comments?

 

[sacountry]

Actual footage of Gianforte and his buddies setting policy objectives for hunting and fishing?

Remember GG has some access to the Gallatin River that goes through his place. He's definitely watching this one closely.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Wait a minute. I must be missing something. So a bought and paid for county govt could post no trespassing signs on a creek or river access but the signage would not be legally enforceable for five years? What the ...? So anyone could still walk past the signs? What would be the point in putting them up? This legalizing confusion is asking for open warfare on the rivers. What constitutes a "govt entity?" County grader operator? I'd like to know which one of the ten thousand transplant phony non-Montanan dollhouse ranchers introduced this load of crap?

 

[MThuntr]

There are lots of "local governments" drunk with their little power and have basically zero oversight. I've called out conservation districts before and I know several that will gladly pounce on this opportunity shut down stream access or would gladly support it because they're afraid of being labeled by their neighbors.

I'll have to draft an email this afternoon.

 

[Beignet]

the ten thousand transplant phony non-Montanan dollhouse ranchers

Hell, these are the folks we elect to run the state and represent us in Washington now.

Don't know if it was the real McGuane or not, but someone commenting under that name on a recent Billings Gazette article pointed out that it's "fascinating to watch Montanans vote against their own best interests."