by Lyn Hellegaard

Please follow us on X and Telegram

There’s an old saying out West that stuck because it still fits – whiskey’s for drinking, water’s for fighting. Most of us would rather not fight at all. We would rather know the well that waters the garden, fills the stock tank, and runs the house will still be ours next year—without a new bill, a new meter, or a new permission slip from someone who does not live here.

That is not a radical demand. It is what Montana’s Constitution already promised.

Article IX, Section 3 says the waters of this state—surface, underground, flood, and atmospheric—are “the property of the state for the use of its people” and may be appropriated for beneficial use as provided by law. The same section confirms existing rights to that use. Article II, Section 3 names acquiring, possessing, and protecting property as an inalienable right. You do not own the aquifer. You do own the right to use the water you put to work under the law. For many people, that is the whole argument: follow the rules, keep what you built.

Since 1973, rural families and small landowners have done exactly that. An exempt well—up to 35 gallons per minute and 10 acre-feet a year—let a household, a few head of stock, and a garden get by without a full state permit. People drilled those wells in good faith. They paid the driller. They lived within the limit. They did not ask for a fight.

The rules for anyone trying to use that exception now are already tighter. House Bill 681, effective January 1, 2026, put a new gate in front of it. Before you can use that groundwater, you file Form 602I with DNRC and pay $400. That notice is not a water right. You then have five years—one five-year extension, another $250—to finish the project and file a $250 Notice of Completion. Skip the notice, and the completion form won’t be processed. A denial sends you into the full permit process. Combined appropriations are reviewed before you drill. The 2024 court case was about phased subdivisions. The new fee, clock, and permission slip landed on every new exempt-well user.

That is not a meter on Grandma’s kitchen tap. It is the state standing between a Montanan and a use the Constitution described as belonging to the people.

What comes next is the part that should bother anyone who does not like being managed from a distance. Senate Bill 358 would have gone further—closing or tightly limiting new exempt wells in valleys including the Missoula Valley aquifer, and requiring metering and annual reporting, with fines for noncompliance. The Senate killed it. The working group is still meeting. Some version is expected in 2027. Officials are no longer talking only about new lots. Drafts and working-group discussions have already eyed existing exempt wells—the ones families drilled legally under the 1973 law—for meters, annual reporting, and fines, with the owner paying to retrofit the well.

If you have ever balanced a household budget, you know what that feels like. First, the fee. Then the deadline. Then the device on the well you already paid to drill, plus a fine if the paperwork is late. At some point it stops looking like stewardship and starts looking like a revenue idea with a conservation label on it.

None of this requires pretending aquifers never run short. They do. Growth has a cost. Senior users have a right not to be harmed. That is why Montana has a Water Use Act, a Water Court, and first-in-time, first-in-right. We can hold two thoughts at once: water has to be managed, and the family that followed the 1973 statute should not be first in line to pay for everybody else’s growth.

If the problem is new subdivisions stacking wells on the same source, write a law about new development. If a particular aquifer is under documented stress, designate it openly, with science the public can see. If the state wants better data, it can pay for voluntary meters or drill its own monitoring wells. Making existing homeowners buy the hardware and mail in the readings is how a use right starts to feel like a license someone in Helena can shrink at their convenience.

Article IX did not hand the water to agencies. It reserved it for the use of the people, confirmed the rights already in use, and told the Legislature to keep records and run a fair system. Records are not the same thing as a watchman on a private well.

If you own land in this state, or that well is how your house and your operation survive a dry August, you deserve to know this fight is coming back in 2027—and that existing exempt wells are already being discussed as the next thing to meter. You deserve a representative who will treat that well as a property right, not as a cash cow.

The Constitution already chose a side. It chose the people’s use. Water’s for fighting only when somebody forgets that. I don’t intend to.

Lyn Hellegaard is a former Montana state representative and the Republican candidate for Montana House District 89