That was not a final vote by the House.
Originally Posted by
ScottP
HB-309 approved by 55-44 margin. Hopefully, it'll be voted down in the Senate or vetoed by Gov. Schweitzer.
Regards,
Scott
Follow the link for today's article in the Missoulian.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and...cc4c03286.html
This is a much better discussion than the previous linked articles.
I've read HB309 a good number of times and don't see any language in it that clearly applies to naturally flowing streams and rivers, nor their sidechannels. The language of the bill is vague, to say the least, but I am curious what specific language in the bill those who are saying that it could apply to rivers such as the Bitterroot, the Beaverhead, the Yellowstone, etc. etc. etc. are referring to.
Several things to consider. Keep in mind that I am not in favor of this bill. And I am disheartened that this was one of those surprises that came up in a matter of days, best I can tell, and got ramrodded through a quick vote without much debate. That vote is not final, but it does point in a direction that will likely be followed by the Republican majority in the Montana Legislature.
First, as indicated above, there is no language in HB309 that clearly includes all the naturally flowing streams and rivers in Montana as subject to the restrictions imposed on ditches, and no language that attempts to define those naturally flowing streams and rivers as ditches. The language that is in the bill may be vague, but not on this particular point.
Second, there is a clear record by the sponsor of the bill and at least some of its supporters that HB309 is NOT intended to apply to those naturally flowing streams and rivers.
Third, if there were any attempt to apply the restrictions to "ditch access" to those naturally flowing streams and rivers, there would be challenges pursued in the courts. Given the fact that the Montana Supreme Court has already given a broad application to the existing law, it seems they would be so disposed if presented with a case based on the the language of HB309, assuming that it passes the real vote, gets through the Senate, and is signed by the Governor. It seems quite likely the Court would construe the vague language against the writers of the bill and in favor of the people of Montana, especially where there is a clear written and video record of the limited intent of the bill to apply to ditches only. The cumbersome attempt to "redefine" ditches would probably be shrugged off by the Court.
Finally, it seems to me that the opponents of HB309 could better spend their time cooperating with the supporters to come up with language that works for both sides than fighting over a bill that is more likely to cause problems and cost dollars on down the road ( or should that be "on down the stream" ).
Don't cancel your plans to visit or fish in Montana.
John
The fish are always right.
Montana Stream Access
Reply With Quote