Opposition to HB285- MEPA going backwards

Dear Members of the Committee,

I am writing to strongly oppose HB 285, which seeks to amend the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). As a concerned citizen and advocate for the preservation of Montana’s environment and its constitutional protections, I find this bill not only a direct violation of our legal framework but also a detrimental step backwards for Montana’s environmental health and future. This legislation must be reconsidered, as it undermines key principles affirmed by both the Montana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Montana’s Constitutional Right to a Clean and Healthful Environment

In December 2024, the Montana Supreme Court ruled in Held v. State of Montana, affirming the youth plaintiffs' constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, a right enshrined in Article II, Section 3 of the Montana Constitution. This section states:

“The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”

This ruling, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, establishes an important precedent that protects the environmental rights of all Montanans. HB 285, however, seeks to erase this foundational principle by removing references to the Montana constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment from MEPA. By eliminating this vital language, HB 285 diminishes our state’s commitment to protecting the natural environment and future generations. This bill directly contradicts the Montana Supreme Court’s decision and disregards the ruling that Montanans are constitutionally entitled to a healthy environment.

The Role of the Judiciary in Upholding the Law

The judiciary has the essential function of ensuring that laws are consistent with constitutional principles. This includes safeguarding environmental protections, as the Montana Supreme Court did in the Held v. State of Montana case. It is crucial that all branches of government respect and uphold the rule of law, including judicial decisions. When the courts interpret the law, as they did in this case, their decisions become part of our legal framework and must be followed. HB 285 seeks to reverse that established law by promoting unscientific language and policy that ignores the science-based decision-making required by our constitution.

Impact of HB 285 on Environmental Protection.

HB 285 also attempts to roll back critical environmental protections by eliminating the requirement to address long-term environmental impacts in MEPA considerations. This omission will undermine careful and scientifically informed decision-making, leaving future generations exposed to environmental harm. The bill’s lack of acknowledgment of climate science—particularly the findings presented in Held v. State of Montana—is deeply concerning. We cannot afford to deny the reality of climate change and the need for responsible, science-based policy to mitigate its effects.

This bill does not only disregard the Montana Supreme Court's ruling, but it also sets a dangerous precedent for disregarding scientific evidence in environmental policymaking. It undermines our state’s commitment to the well-being of its citizens, especially the youth who were central to the Held case and who will bear the brunt of the environmental consequences.

It is also important to recognize the overreach of outside interests, particularly corporate entities, that seek to influence legislative decisions in favor of profit rather than the well-being of Montana’s citizens.

HB 285 is a clear example of how corporate greed can drive policy changes that benefit a few at the expense of the many. The bill seeks to dismantle environmental protections that have been carefully established through our legal framework, undermining the democratic process and the interests of the people of Montana. These outside forces—often motivated by profit and not by a genuine concern for the long-term health of our state—are working to override the protections that Montanans hold dear. The people of Montana have made it clear, through both the Montana Constitution and judicial rulings, that they want strong environmental protections for future generations. It is imperative that our lawmakers resist the influence of corporate interests that prioritize short-term gains over the health and sustainability of our land, air, and water.

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully urge the committee to reject HB 285. It contradicts the protections guaranteed by the Montana Constitution, disregards scientific evidence, and seeks to undermine the judicial system's role in upholding the law. The Held v. State of Montana ruling affirms the constitutional right of Montanans to a clean and healthful environment, and we must continue to uphold that right. The Montana Legislature should focus on enacting policies that protect our environment, not weaken them.

Presidential Mandates and Unconstitutional Prioritization of Destructive Industries

It is critical to highlight the broader context of federal influence and mandates that prioritize industries such as mining and energy extraction over essential environmental protections. Recent presidential mandates that push for the expansion of mining permits and the prioritization of coal and other environmentally destructive industries are in direct conflict with the Montana Constitution, which guarantees the right to a clean and healthful environment.

These federal directives not only undermine the values enshrined in our state constitution but also violate the environmental protections affirmed by both the Montana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court in Held v. State of Montana.

The Court's ruling underscores that Montana's commitment to environmental preservation is not negotiable, and it cannot be overridden by corporate or federal interests that prioritize short-term economic gain at the expense of long-term environmental sustainability.

The state's legal framework is clear: Montanans have a constitutional right to a healthy environment, and any attempt to undermine this for the benefit of harmful industries like coal mining is both unconstitutional and a direct violation of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which was designed to ensure that environmental considerations remain central in policymaking.