Legislative roundup

House hears infrastructure bill funded by gas tax

The House Transportation committee heard a bill last week that would institute a new gas tax, which would go toward funding Montana road and bridge projects.

House Bill 473, introduced by Rep. Frank Garner, R-Kalispell, is the latest bill to address Montana’s infrastructure, a subject named a priority by both Democrats and Republicans.

“You’re not gonna see a report that says everything is wonderful, because it’s not,” Garner said. “And you’re not gonna hear another long term solution.”

HB 473 would put a tax of eight cents per gallon on gasoline, which would be exclusively used for road and bridge projects. Garner said this ensures that those who use roads will be the ones who pay for their maintenance. He also said it would allow the state to capture revenue from out-of-state visitors and tourists.

“It would have been much easier for me to remain a spectator than to be the messenger,” Garner said. “But I would rather go home knowing we did our best to solve one of the state’s great problems and risk that criticism than go home and say we did nothing.”

The bill attracted 53 supporters, filling the committee room. Most of them were representing cities, counties and engineering firms.

“Our investments in critical infrastructure are woefully past due,” said Darryl James, executive director of the Montana Infrastructure Coalition, a group that has been heavily involved in other infrastructure legislation throughout the session.

James said the fuel tax proportionally affects those who use Montana’s roads the most.

“I ask the committee, can we afford to pass up an opportunity to capture an impact fee from those users?” James said.

Many supporters representing cities and counties listed infrastructure projects in their areas that needed completion. Mayor John Engen of Missoula said under current funding limitations, the 37 miles of Missoula roads that are in critical need would be completed in 77 years.

In contrast to the many supporters, the bill attracted three opponents, who argued against the bill primarily due to the gas tax.

“This is a tax that disproportionately hits those with limited needs,” said Brent Mead, executive director of the Montana Policy Institute, a free-market think tank.

Mead said low-income families would have a harder time paying for gas if the cost increases, and argued that it would lead to other financial burdens as well.

“When you increase the gas tax, you’re increasing the cost of consumer goods for everyone,” Mead said.

The committee didn’t take immediate action on the bill.

Legislation would prohibit pipelines from running under waterways

A bill to prohibit fossil fuel pipelines from being constructed underneath waterways was tabled by the House Energy, Technology and Federal Relations committee last week.

Introduced by Rep. George Kipp III, D-Heart Butte, House Bill 486 would have required that pipelines carrying fossil fuels like oil not run underneath navigable streams and rivers, instead requiring them to be located above ground.

Kipp pointed to recent oil spills like the one in the Yellowstone River, arguing pipelines located above ground would be easier to maintain in the event of a leak.

“This bill does not affect the actual construction, just the method and procedure,” Kipp said.

Representing Native Generational Change, Dustin Monroe showed representatives a bottle of dirty water to illustrate his concerns about how pipelines under waterways could affect water cleanliness.

“Montana has had some very high-profile pipeline disasters within the past seven years on the Yellowstone river,” said Derf Johnson of the Montana Environmental Information Center. Johnson said those spills had significant impacts on Montana wildlife and agriculture, and also polluted the area’s drinking water.

Jordan Thompson, a lobbyist for the Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, said that while that tribe was able to deny pipeline permits in the past, other Montanans do not have that ability.

Opponents of the bill argued constructing pipelines above waterways leaves them more susceptible to vandalism and even terrorism.

“It looks to me like that’s just a perfect invitation for somebody that’s willing to create an act of terror,” said Gary Forrester, representing WBI Energy.

Others said pipeline standards are already sufficient at preventing leaks, particularly those created through horizontal rather than vertical drilling.

“This would simply add more regulations ... and limit the opportunities we have for Montana,” said Webb Brown, representing the Montana Chamber of Commerce.

When asked by Rep. Adam Hertz, R-Missoula, if this bill would affect the construction of the Keystone Pipeline, Kipp said he only envisioned it could necessitate additional construction, and that difference in cost would be minimal.