Montana Constitution

Montana Constitution

IX.2 Reclamation

Montana Constitution of 1972

(1) All lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources shall be reclaimed. The legislature shall provide effective requirements and standards for the reclamation of lands disturbed.

(2) The legislature shall provide for a fund, to be known as the resource indemnity trust of the state of Montana, to be funded by such taxes on the extraction of natural resources as the legislature may from time to time impose for that purpose.

(3) The principal of the resource indemnity trust shall forever remain inviolate in an amount of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000), guaranteed by the state against loss of diversion.<ref name="test">Mont. Const. art. IX § 2.

History

Sources

1884 Proposed Montana Constitution

The 1884 Proposed Montana Constitution did not acknowledge reclamation, but instead focused on encouraging mining at all costs. In fact, Article XII, Revenue and Taxation, completely exempted the taxation of mines stating:

  • "[A]ll mines and mining claims, both placer and in rock, in place containing or bearing gold, silver, copper, coal, or other valuable mineral deposits, shall be exempt from taxation."<ref name="test2">Proposed 1884 Mont. Const. art. XII. </ref>

In the 1884 Proposed Montana Constitution's "Address to the Voters of the Territory of Montana," the delegates provided the following explanation on the mining tax exemption (particularly relevant language to reclamation is italicized):

  • "It is fair to say, that no provision of the Constitution received more consideration than the one relating to the subject of revenue and taxation, and especially that portion providing for certain exemptions ; and, although considerable diversity of opinion arose regarding it, yet it was apparent from the beginning that a majority of the Convention favored the proposed plan. It was claimed by some that, under this provision, mines would be exempted from taxation, or at least would not contribute their just proportion to the revenue of the State. By it the value of the surface improvements and other property, and the net proceeds derived from operating the mine, are proper subjects of taxation, the mine itself being alone exempt. It was confidently asserted and plausibly maintained that there is no method known by which the actual value of a mine can be ascertained; that no one can divine what lies beyond the range of vision in the earth; that experience has demonstrated that those who pretend to be the best qualified to judge the merits of a mine are often the most mistaken. It was urged that the value of most classes of property depends upon conditions and circumstances which are apparent and suscceptible of estimation, and practicably permanent in their character; while a mine is generally soon exhausted of its wealth, and becomes worthless, and that the improvements thereon, which in most cases have required a large outlay of capital, are also frequently valueless. It was contended, with much force of argument, that if it were attempted, for the purpose of assessment, to fix a value on mines, many properties of a doubtful, and perhaps, worthless character, would by reason of the mistake or interested motives of the assessor be required to pay tribute, while others of greater value and less notoriety would virtually escape taxation, whereby the system would give rise to interminable conflicts, and result in injustice to both the mine owner and State. The system embodied in this Constitution is similar to that of Nevada and Colorado, where it is claimed every mine that is worked yields its just proportion of revenue to the County and State. Finally it was maintained that the industry of mining, hazardous as it is, was worthy of all reasonable encouragement; that this liberal policy will attract to the State millions of capital; will furnish employment to a large part of its population; build up towns and cities, and contribute immensely to its wealth and prosperity. As before suggested, the expediency and policy of these exemptions are questioned by some, but if found to be inequitable, they maybe obliterated by an amendment to the Constitution. <ref name="test3">Proposed 1884 Mont. Const., Address to the Voters of the Territory of Montana. </ref>

While mines were exempt from taxation, it appears that the 1884 delegates did not intend for them to be completely free of any governmental oversight, as the delegates established Article X, Industrial Resources, which provided:

  • Sec. 1. A Bureau of Industrial Resources shall be established, to be located at the capital of the State, which shall be under the management of a Commissioner, who shall be elected at the first general election, and hold his office for the term of four years, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution
  • Sec. 2. The Commissioner of Industrial Resources shall perform such duties and receive such compensation as may be prescribed by law, and it shall be the duty of the Legislative Assembly, at its first session, to prescribe such duties and compensation and to pass such laws as may be necessary for the government, regulation, and support of such bureau."<ref name="test4">Proposed 1884 Mont. Const. art. X. </ref>

1889 Montana Constitution

The 1889 Montana Constitution was ratified without Article X, Industrial Resources. However, while not as broad as a full mining tax exemption, the special constitutional tax breaks for mining remained:

  • Art. XII, § 3. All mines and mining claims, both placer and rock in place, containing or bearing gold, silver, copper, lead, coal or other valuable mineral deposits, after purchase thereof from the United States, shall be taxed at the price paid the United States therefor, unless the surface ground, or some part thereof, of such mine or claim, is used for other than mining purposes, and has a separate and independent value for such other purposes, in which case said surface ground, or any part thereof, so used for other than mining purposes, shall be taxed at its value for such other purposes, as provided by law ; and all machinery used in mining, and all property and surface improvements upon or appurtenant to mines and mining claims which have a value separate and independent of such mines or mining claims, and the annual net proceeds of all mines and mining claims shall be taxed as provided by law. <ref name="test5">1889 Mont. Const. art. XII. </ref>
    • This provision was later discussed by the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention Commission in Report 15 on Taxation and Finance stating:
      • "One of the most controversial provisions in the Montana Constitution, and one of the few specific provisions that many citizens know about, is the mining tax clause. The section establishes the procedures for valuating mines and mining claims for property taxation purposes. The provision is controversial because some students of Montana history believe it was included in the Constitution under questionable and conspiratorial circumstances at the 1889 Convention. But historians cannot agree, some claiming that mining interests controlled the Convention and got special constitutional considerations and others urging that the provision was a natural response to the conditions of the state at that time. Whatever its historical significance, the mining tax clause has aroused bitter passions and heated arguments since its inclusion in the Constitution. The most famous of those "disagreements" occurred in the 1920s, v/hen critics charged that mining interests in the state were not paying their fair share of taxes, even under the special constitutional tax break. The most famous of those criticisms was prepared by Lewis Levine, an economics professor at the University of Montana in Missoula. Due, in part, to Levine' s charges, Montana voters passed an initiative to impose a gross proceeds metal mines tax on mining property in Montana--an effort to make mining interests pay according to their worth. The controversial sections in the constitutional mining tax provisions include the stipulation that mines and mining claims will be taxed at the price paid the United States government, which, in most cases, means between $2.50 and $20 per acre, and the net proceeds provision, which is a complicated system to determine taxable worth of mining production during the year. Net proceeds is ascertained by subtracting from gross production (1) all royalties; (2) all expenses for necessary labor, machinery, and supplies, and (3) the cost of improvements, repairs and betterments on the mining property. Net proceeds is determined by the State Board of Equalization, apparently from information supplied by the mining companies themselves. The important consideration for the Convention is whether such a taxation system should be frozen in the Constitution. Net proceeds is not the only method of determining taxable value of mining property, but as long as the mining tax provision remains in the Constitution, it is the only method which can be utilized in Montana. Mining property is the only property in the state which enjoys special constitutional treatment; the propriety of that treatment is a major consideration for the Convention."<ref name="test244">Montana Constitutional Convention Commission, Report 15: Taxation and Finance (1972). </ref>

Other Sources

The only other states to have constitutional provisions specifically on mining reclamation are Alaska and Pennsylvania (other states discuss water reclamation). It is probable that the Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee delegates drew inspiration from both the Alaska and Pennsylvania provisions on reclamation in developing Article IX, § 2. The Alaska reclamation provision was reprinted by the Montana Constitutional Convention Commission in a research report on new state constitutions,<ref name="test603">Montana Constitutional Convention Commission, Report 6: New State Constitutions, p. 15. </ref> and while the Pennsylvania provision was not specifically reprinted, the new Pennsylvania constitution was discussed in the report as a recently adopted new state constitution that delegates could reference. <ref name="test6103">Id. at iii, 265-66. </ref>

  • Alaska Constitution of 1956
    • Alaska Const. art. VIII, § 5 - Facilities and Improvements
      • "The legislature may provide for facilities, improvements, and services to assure greater utilization, development, reclamation, and settlement of lands, and to assure fuller utilization and development of the fisheries, wildlife, and waters." <ref name="test6">Alaska Const. art. VIII § 6. </ref>
  • Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968
    • Pa. Const. art. VIII, § 16 - Land and Water Conservation and Reclamation Fund
      • "In addition to the purposes stated in article eight, section seven of this Constitution, the Commonwealth may be authorized by law to create a debt and issue bonds in the amount of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) for a Land and Water Conservation and Reclamation Fund to be used for the conservation and reclamation of land and water resources of the Commonwealth, including the elimination of acid mine drainage, sewage, and other pollution from the streams of the Commonwealth, the provision of State financial assistance to political subdivisions and municipal authorities of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the construction of sewage treatment plants, the restoration of abandoned strip-mined areas, the control and extinguishment of surface and underground mine fires, the alleviation and prevention of subsidence resulting from mining operations, and the acquisition of additional lands and the reclamation and development of park and recreational lands acquired pursuant to the authority of article nine, section twenty-four1 of this Constitution, subject to such conditions and liabilities as the General Assembly may prescribe."<ref name="test7">Pa. Const. art. VIII, § 16. </ref>

Drafting

During the drafting stage, Article IX, § 2 was hotly debated on the floor, as well as by the delegates on the Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee. The debate centered on what, if any, specific language should be added to the provision detailing the standard that reclamation must adhere to, such as requiring reclamation to bring the land back to a "productive and beneficial use" or "to as good a condition or use as prior to the disturbance." Ultimately, the delegates settled with no specific language detailing the standard, opting instead to leave it to the legislature to develop appropriate standards for reclamation.

Original Committee Proposal

Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee Reports and Proposals

Delegate Proposal No. 162, February 4, 1972

  • Prior to the development of the reclamation section, Committee Chairwoman Louise Cross proposed the following:
    • "Section 5. PUBLIC USE. The highest of public uses of any property within the state shall be only those uses consistent with a high quality environment; accordingly private and public efforts at the preservation of environmentally significant lands shall be a public use."<ref name="test2091">Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript Volume 1, p. 309. </ref>

Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee Proposal, February 17, 1972<ref name="test2010">Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee Proposal, Montana Constitutional Convention (February 17, 1972), p. 3. </ref>

  • In this February 17, 1972 Committee report, the Natural Resource and Agriculture Committee first submitted the proposal for an entire new article on "Environment and Natural Resources," which also included the new section on reclamation. The majority proposal for § 2 reclamation was:
    • "All lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources must be reclaimed to as good a condition or use as prior to the disturbance. The condition or use to which the land is to be reclaimed and the method of enforcement of the reclamation must be established by the Legislature.”
  • In discussing section 2, the Committee Proposal stated:
    • "Your committee finds it necessary to direct the legislature to recognize the demands of this and future generations and that our natural resources must be used to be enjoyed, but only with judicious use and reclamation. Because Montana has at least 500,000 acres of stripable coal land and untold acres of other natural resources, your committee believes the responsibilities of protecting and restoring the surface conditions of those lands for unborn generations should not be left to men, but rather protected by fundamental law."<ref name="test210">Id. at 8-9. </ref>

Floor Debates

March 2, 1972<ref name="test29">Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript Volume 5, p. 1275-1363. </ref>

  • The original proposed provision from the Natural Resources Committee was heavily debated on the floor, with certain delegates arguing to delete the provision completely and others arguing for stronger language to be added in that details the specific standard that reclamation projects must meet:
    • 1) Delegate Delaney motioned to wholly delete Section 2, reasoning that, "I believe that this reclamation is covered entirely or satisfactorily in subsection 3 of Section 1. . . .":<ref name="test21">Id. at 1278, 1290.. </ref>
      • Motion failed - 60 Nay to 33 Aye.
    • 2) Delegate Ask and Delegate Romney proposed an amendment stating:
      • “All lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources must be reclaimed. The Legislature shall provide effective requirements and standards for the reclamation of lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources.”<ref name="test22">Id. at 1298-99.. </ref>
        • The amendment passed - 63 Aye to 29 Nay.
    • 3) Delegate Cate then proposed a second amendment stating:
      • "I move to amend Section 2 as amended by adding, after the words 'reclaimed', 'to a beneficial and productive use'. The remainder would be read as amended by Mr. Ask."<ref name="test23">Id. at 1299-1300.. </ref>
        • The amendment passed - 63 Aye to 27 Nay
    • 4) With Delegate Cate's amendment passing, the section read:
      • “All land disturbed by the taking of natural resources must be reclaimed to a beneficial and productive use. The Legislature shall provide effective requirements and standards for the reclamation of lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources.”<ref name="test24">Id. at 1300.. </ref>
    • 5) At the end of the discussion on Article IX, Delegate Kamhoot successfully moved to reconsider Delegate Cate's amendment on the notion that, as provided by Delegate Studer, "We have all made a serious mistake when we added the words-I quote-'to a beneficial and productive use' to the reclamation section" because he felt defining reclamation standards was a legislative task. <ref name="test255">Id. at 1354.. </ref>
      • The motion to reconsider successfully passed - 68 Aye to 22 Nay.
    • 8) Delegate Kamhoot then motioned to strike the words "to a beneficial and productive use" from line one of the provision.<ref name="test295">Id. at 1356.. </ref>
      • Ultimately, the motion passed - 63 Aye to 23 Nay.
        • Between Delegate Kamhoot's motion being submitted at the motion passing, there were several failed motions made by Delegates.
    • 9) Delegate Martin then moved to reconsider section 2, however, he was denied by Chairman Felt since "We've had a motion to reconsider and it's been acted upon, so the motion is out of order." The delegates then moved onto a separate article.<ref name="test25">Id. at 1363..</ref>
    • 10) At the end of March 2, 1972's floor debate Article IX, § 2 read:
      • "All land disturbed by the taking of natural resources must be reclaimed. The Legislature shall provide effective requirements and standards for the reclamation of lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources.”

March 14, 1972<ref name="test28">Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript Volume 6, p. 1211-13.. </ref>

  • The discussion centered on recommended stylistic changes by the Committee on Style, Drafting, Transition and Submission that resulted in successfully amending the section 2, subsection 1 to read (changed language italicized):
    • "All lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources shall be reclaimed. The legislature shall provide effective requirements and standards for the reclamation of lands disturbed [deletion of repetitious language].”

March 22, 1972<ref name="test41">Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript Volume 7, p. 2928.. </ref>

  • The final version of what is now Article IX, including § 2 was adopted by the delegates.

Ratification

Article IX, § 2 was ratified by the people of Montana as part of the proposed 1972 constitution. In voting on the new constitution, Montanans were well-informed on the reclamation section and its meaning, as the reclamation section was widely discussed in voter information pamphlets and in newspapers around the state.

Voter Information Pamphlets

  • Roeder Voter Information Pamphlet:
    • "Most of the material in this Article is new. Sections 1 and 2 reflect a concern with and a determination to protect Montana's environment. They direct the legislature to take necessary steps to preserve the environment and to conserve the state's natural resources by preventing a headlong waste of them. The Convention, of course, recognizes that Montana's non-renewable resources must be used for man's benefit but it showed particular concern about the methods which will be used to mine Eastern Montana's tremendous coal reserves. Section 2 reflects a determination to prevent that portion of the state from being turned into a wasteland of stripping banks."<ref name="test10">1972 Montana Constitution Newspaper Supplement (Roeder). </ref>

Excerpts from Newspaper Articles (for compilation of newspaper clippings containing the below articles see footnote 28):<ref name="test12">1972 Montana Constitutional Convention Newspaper Clippings, Brown Collection. </ref>

  • February 1972
    • ConCon Proposals Narrowing, February 9, 1972:
      • The' environmental protection provision says "it is the public policy of the state and the duty of each person to provide, maintain and enhance a quality environment for the benefit of the people." The legislature is directed to implement and enforce the policy, including, but not limited to the areas of air water, land, wildlife, minerals, forests, open space, populations and sound, and the preservation, enhancement, reclamation and restoration of these values.***
    • Delegates Plan Tougher Strip Mining Proposal, February 11, 1972:
      • A tough new provision aimed at curbing strip mining abuses not guarded against by the legislature has been proposed to the Constitutional Convention by its Committee on Natural Resources and Agriculture. Committee chairman Louise Cross, D-Glendive, told the Tribune Friday that one reason for the proposal was that Senate Bill 70, the surface mining reclamation act passed by the 1971 legislature, would give "negligible" protection to the land. The committee's proposal, which was contained in its tentative draft, says: "The legislature must require that all lands disturbed by strip mining of coal be restored to as good a use, or to a better use, than it was before commencement of mining operations." One problem with SB 70, Mrs. Cross said, is that it does not allow the state to prohibit strip mining if coal companies are unable to restore the mined land to its original use. The thrust of the proposal, she said, is to require the legislature to pass adequate land reclamation laws. "There will be increasing strip mining in Montana, especially in eastern Montana," Mrs. Cross said. Mrs. Cross said that the consensus of the committee was that adequate reclamation of strip mined land must be guaranteed, even though some persons say that this is a statutory matter best left to the legislature.***
    • During Appearance Before Con Con Committee: Metcalf Supports 'Right to Sue' in Environmental Proposal, February 12, 1972:
      • "'The public has an overriding interest in all land . . . when someone pollutes there should be some way to protect it,' Metcalf told the crowded Senate chambers at the state capital. Metcalf pointed to the heavy coal reserves in eastern Montana and urged flexibility to protect future surface mining in the area, at the same time praising a proposal on reclamation submitted by Art Kamhoot, R-Forsyth. Kamhoot's 'proposal says that the legislature 'must require that all lands disturbed by strip mining of coal be restored to as good a use, or to a better use, than it was before commencement of mining operations.'" ***
    • Resource Panel Toughens Reclamation Proposal, February 17, 1972:
      • A strongly worded proposal aimed at guaranteeing proper reclamation of strip-mined tend was adopted Wednesday by the Constitutional Convention's Natural Resources-Agriculture Committee. The proposal, passed by a 6-3 vote, says that "all lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources must be reclaimed to as good a condition or use as prior to the disturbance. The condition or use to which the land is to be reclaimed and the method of enforcement of the reclamation must be established by the legislature." Though the proposal did not specifically mention coal strip mining, earlier discussion by the committee centered on problems associated from this type of natural resource extraction. Committee member Jeff Brazier, D-Helena, one of the three delegates voting against the proposal, thought the entire issue should be left to the legislature. To go beyond this, he said would be legislating instead of adopting broad constitutional language. Committee members John Anderson, R-Alder, Louise Cross, D-Glendive, Erv Gysler, R-Fort Benton, C. B. McNeil. R-Polson, and A. W. Kamhoot. R-Forsyth, expressed alarm over present strip mining practices. Kamhoot said that as much as half a million acres in Montana may be strip mined. Braxier suggested that the 1973 legislature could enact new strip mining restrictions. 'We can't wait that log. We can't wait forever. Wait until they start mining your mountains and you'll have a different attitude,' Mrs. Cross, the committee chairman, said." ***
  • March 1972
    • Great Debate to Start on Montana Environment, March 1, 1972:
      • Besides directing the legislature to keep Montana clean, the proposed new article would require reclamation. *** A second section would require that all lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources must be reclaimed to 'as good a condition or use as prior to the disturbance.' ***
    • 12 Strong Words Omitted: Land Reclamation Section Clipped, March 3, 1972:
      • "After several hours of debate and amendments, Constitutional Convention delegates approved a land - reclamation section identical to a committee recommendation, except for the omission of a dozen important words. In part the section says: 'All lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources must be reclaimed.' Left off the end of this sentence were words saying the land had to be reclaimed 'to as good a condition or use as prior to the disturbance. *** Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee members originally recommended the stronger section but most bailed out when it reached the floor. In the morning, delegates adopted a section similar to the one finally approved but added an amendment by Jerome J. Cate, D-Billings, to require that lands be reclaimed 'to a beneficial and productive use.' The section was reconsidered later in the day and changed. Contractor R.J. Studer Sr., R-Billings, said the amended section would pose problems for highway builders. 'How can I make a rock slope beneficial or productive?' he asked. 'Haven't we gone too far?' Cate said the two adjectives he added, 'beneficial' and 'productive,' were about the most moderate words we could have used.' Supporting the motion to reconsider was Thomas F. Joyce, D-Butte, who said his Silver Bow County constituents depended on the mining industry for jobs and did not want to shut down the Anaconda Co. 'About 72 million tons of material have been taken out of the Berkeley Pit,' Joyce said. 'It's completely impractical to reclaim it.' Joyce also responded to hints by Donald R. Foster, I-Lewistown, that the convention had buckled under to Anaconda Co. pressure in the morning by turning down a stronger reclamation article. 'It's not a matter of buckling under to the company,' Joyce said. 'It's a matter of common sense.' In the morning, Foster had asked: 'If you delegates ran on the platform of supporting the company, I wonder how many of you would have been elected?' He also questioned how Butte Democrats could vote for the company and say they supported the public. 'I guess that's a way of life over there,' he said. Committee Chairman Louse Cross, D-Glendive, favored a strong reclamation article because of the rich coal deposits in eastern Montana that are being strip mined. 'Believe me,' she said, 'if you destroy the land, we will topple our number one industry [illegible word].' However, some delegates believed a strong section would cripple the hard rock mining industry in Montana. Wade J. Dahood, R-Anaconda, conceded that reclamation was needed bu opposed original committee proposal. 'I think the manner in which this is worded could have a disastrous effect on mining in Butte.' Douglas Delaney, D-Grass Range, favored deleting the entire section. Under the proposal, he said it could prevent him from having a small gravel pit on his ranch. Richard Roeder, D-Bozeman, wanted the original committee section. 'I grew up in Appalachia,' he said. 'I'd like to have the money to take you back and show you communities that would make Butte look like a garden spot.' most of the committee members spoke against their own section on the floor. They said the environment section passed yesterday was adequate to handle reclamation matters. Others, including Joyce, criticized the section for being legislative in intent. Joyce said [illegible word] legislatures ought to set the standards, not the convention. The motions to amend the committee section and reconsider passed by large margins.
    • Con Con Delegates Wide Apart on Ecology, March 3, 1972:
      • "The final environment and natural resources article, which is only 395 words, fails to include many provisions favored by environmentally-oriented delegates, including . . . 3. Tougher provisions to prevent eastern Montana from being desecrated by strip mining." Regional provincialism and delegates' occupations figure in some of the votes, as the environmental issues produced some of the most heated debate of the entire convention before packed galleries. A Billings contractor opposed a provision which would have required mined lands to be reclaimed 'to a beneficial and productive use' because this would pose problems for highway contractors. A Butte delegate, who told the convention he came to the convention to 'represent the people of Silver Bow County,' supported a weak reclamation statement to keep the Anaconda Co. in business and to protect the jobs of his constituents who work for the company. The delegate said it was impossible for the company to reclaim the huge Berkeley Pit in Butte. 'They cannot do it, they will not do it and no force on earth can make them do it,' he said."***
    • Courts May Carry Big Stick in Future Constitutional Clashes, March 8, 1972:
      • "A new argument has been advanced in the continuing controversy over what belongs in the constitution and what should be left to the legislature. It is that elevating a concept or right to the level of the constitution could have the adverse effect of turning it over to the custody of an unfriendly court. The point was made by Helena lawyer Geoffrey Brazier in the recent environmental debates in the convention, notably on the public trust doctrine, citizen suits, and reclamation. For example, in debate over a proposal to require that land be reclaimed to a use 'as good as possible,' Brazier suggested that a mining company might make a sloppy gesture toward reclamation and call it 'as good as possible.' The company might be upheld in the district court and then the State Supreme Court, warned Brazier, and then the environmentalists would find they had painted themselves into a corner. The couldn't go to the legislature for help because it's in the constitution. They couldn't go to the U.S. Supreme Court because it's a state matter. And they couldn't get a reversal until the philosophy of the court had changed, something Brazier fears might take some doing under the new Judicial proposals should a judicial appointment commission become dominated by special interests. In short, the only salvation would be to undertake constitutional revision. On the other hand, Brazier told the convention, id the legislature writes environmental provisions and the court gives them unpopular interpretations, the legislature can more easily make the needed statutory changes to regain control.*** At the same time it should be recognized that one of the reasons Montana environmentalists are pushing for constitutional rights is that they have been frustrated by the legislature.*** But whether Sax' thinking is valid or not, Applegate isn't convinced it was advanced in good faith on the convention floor. 'There's something quite different that was going on in there,' he says. 'They don't want to see standing, or environmental rights, or the public trust in the constitution, in the statutes, or anyplace.'"

History

[Interpretation includes cases, legislation, executive action, official speeches, and other materials applying the provision.]

[This section is not finalized, but the below information can be used as a starting reference.]

Cases

  • Butte-Silver Bow Loc. Govt. v. State, 235 Mont. 398, 768 P.2d 327 (1989).
  • Matter of Yellowstone River, 253 Mont. 167, 832 P.2d 1210 (1992).
  • Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Montana Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 2016 MT 9, 382 Mont. 102, 365 P.3d 454.

Legislation

  • See Montana Code Annotated Title 82, Chapter 4 - Reclamation:<ref name="test111">Mont. Code Ann. § 82-4. </ref>
    • Part 1. Strip and Underground Mine Siting
    • Part 2. Coal and Uranium Mine Reclamation
    • Part 3. Metal Mine Reclamation
    • Part 4. Opencut Mining Reclamation
    • Part 5-9 Reserved
    • Part 10 Penalties, Fees, and Interest

[Commentary includes post-ratification scholarship, reporting, and other commentary on the provision.]

[This section is not finalized, but the below information can be used as a starting reference.]

Scholarship:

  • Environmental and Natural Resources Provisions in State Constitutions, 22 "J. Land, Resources, & Envtl. L." 73, 160 (2002). <ref name="test131">Environmental and Natural Resources Provisions in State Constitutions, 22 "J. Land, Resources, & Envtl. L." 73, 160 (2002). </ref>

Resources

.

Launch UM virtual tour.