Summary#

HJ 74 is an enacted Montana joint resolution requesting an interim study of water reuse; it does not create a new water program or amend an existing Act. Its stated goal is to examine whether reuse could help Montana’s water supplies and what may be preventing it. The resolution asks the Legislative Council to designate a committee, complete the study by September 15, 2026, and report its results to the 70th Legislature.

• The designated committee is asked to examine state laws and rules, existing reuse infrastructure, and how other states use recycled water.
• It is asked to look at current and potential reuse by industry—excluding agriculture from that particular industry analysis—and across geographic areas.
• It is asked to identify legal, economic, and social barriers for industries and communities, and economic, environmental, and population factors that may make reuse necessary.
• The committee may propose legislation to encourage or make water reuse easier, if it finds that necessary. The resolution does not require the Legislature to adopt any proposal.

What it means for you#

• Residents, communities, businesses, and water users: The resolution does not directly change water rights, permits, treatment rules, or access to recycled water. It requests a study; it does not set up a process for applying to use recycled water.
• State government: The Legislative Council is requested to choose an interim or statutory committee to conduct the study. The resolution does not name the committee.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The resolution does not specify funding, staffing, or a budget for the study.
• It does not create a fee, tax, fine, or benefit.

What is unclear#

• The resolution requests that the Legislative Council designate a committee, but does not name one or set out how the designation will be made.
• It does not specify how the study will be staffed or funded.
• It does not set out public participation, evidence-gathering, or reporting procedures beyond the deadline and final report.
• It does not define “water reuse” in detail or set standards for treatment or allowable uses.
• It is unclear whether the committee will propose legislation; it is asked to do so only “if necessary.”

Case for#

• The study could give lawmakers a clearer picture of Montana’s existing reuse infrastructure, laws, and rules before they consider changes.
• Examining barriers for industries and communities could help identify why reuse programs are difficult to establish.
• Looking at other states and at economic, environmental, and population factors could inform any future proposals.
• The resolution leaves open whether legislation is needed, rather than requiring a particular policy change.

Case against#

• A study does not itself change water rules or make reuse programs easier to start; any action would require later decisions.
• The resolution does not specify study funding, staffing, or public input, which could affect how thorough or useful the work is.
• It asks for a broad review but does not set out detailed standards for judging potential benefits, costs, or risks.
• Agriculture is excluded from one requested analysis of which industries currently use reuse or may benefit, leaving that part of the study focused on other industries.