Advocates for School Trust Lands v. State

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court considered a facial constitutional challenge to House Bill 286, codified at Montana Code Annotated § 85-2-441, concerning state ownership of groundwater rights developed or diverted on private land for use on school trust land. The Court held that the challenge based on an alleged reduction in trust-land value was unripe because it depended on future events and an undeveloped factual record. It also held that the claim concerning an alleged presumption against state ownership was ripe, but rejected that claim on the merits, construing HB 286 as a procedural mechanism that preserved due process.

Holdings

1. Advocates' claim that House Bill 286 creates a presumption against State ownership presented a sufficiently definite and concrete injury and was ripe for judicial review. The separate claim that the statute automatically reduced the value of school trust lands was unripe because it depended on future State action and additional factual development.
2. House Bill 286 is facially constitutional because its plain language neither establishes a presumption against State ownership of the affected water rights nor deprives Advocates of a constitutionally protected interest.
3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Advocates' motion to amend because the proposed as-applied challenges did not allege facts showing that House Bill 286 or § 85-2-306(1), MCA, had been applied in a manner that reduced or threatened to reduce the value of school trust lands.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court erred by granting summary judgment to the State on the ground that Advocates' facial constitutional challenge to House Bill 286 was unripe.
2. Whether House Bill 286 facially violates the State's trust obligations by creating a presumption against State ownership of groundwater rights used on school trust lands.
3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying Advocates' motion to amend the complaint to add as-applied constitutional challenges as futile.

Disposition

affirmed