House endorses bill to require autism coverage

HELENA – The state House gave its initial approval today to a bill that would require insurance companies to cover a variety of childhood autism treatments. The vote was 77-23.

Senate Bill 234, carried by Rep. Kendall Van Dyk, D-Billings, would compel insurance providers to fund treatments that have been shown to improve the quality of life for autistic children.

“I stand here, as sure as I ever was, that we’re going to do the right thing by Montana families,” Van Dyk said.

The House Appropriations Committee originally placed a two-year sunset provision on the bill, meaning the mandated insurance coverage would end in 2011 if the next Legislature decides not to renew it. Rep. Walter McNutt, R-Sidney, said the sunset was not meant punitively, but as a safety valve in case insurance rates rise too high as a result of the mandated coverage.

“We don’t really know what this is going to do to insurance premiums,” McNutt said. “We just wanted to say we better take another look.”

But supporters of the bill said the sunset would prevent many families from getting benefits from their insurance companies because the bill would not take affect until 2010. In the end, the House voted 58-42 to strike the sunset provision.

Minority Leader Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, said though the bill has merit, the state cannot afford $1.4 million price it will cost to provide such coverage for state workers.

“At some point we’re going to break the bank,” Sales said. “That day is coming sooner than later.”

But supporters asserted the benefits of treating autistic children early on outweighed the future problems that could come with untreated children.

“We can’t afford not to do this,” said Rep. Jon Sonju, R-Kalispell.

-by CNS correspondent Molly Priddy

Senate approves coverage for autism treatments

HELENA – The state Senate approved a bill today that would require insurance companies to cover a range of treatments for children diagnosed with autism. The bill passed 36-14.

Senate Bill 234, sponsored by Sen. Kim Gillan, D-Billings, would compel insurance providers to fund treatments that have been shown to improve the quality of life for autistic children.

The bill, which faced a tough road in the current economic downturn, garnered emotional testimony during its hearings. Parents said they paid for these treatments out of pocket and could hardly afford to do so. Supporters told lawmakers that these treatments can help children assimilate into society at an early age and give them equal footing in the long run.

But opponents said forcing insurance companies to cover these treatments would prove costly because of rate increases. Insurers said a hike in insurance costs could make more Montanans drop their coverage and go uninsured.

SB 234 will move on to the House for approval.

-by CNS correspondent Molly Priddy

Senate rejects ban on cell phones while driving

HELENA – Montana's state Senate voted 31-18 Wednesday to kill a bill that would have made talking or texting on a cell phone while driving a punishable offense.

Senate Bill 278, sponsored by Sen. Christine Kaufmann, D-Helena, would have let law enforcement officers pull drivers over if they are doing anything on a phone that takes their hands off the wheel or eyes off the road. Drivers in violation could be fined up to $100.

While opponents agreed people should not be texting while driving, they said banning all cell phone use would be excessive.

“The cell phone adds a lot of productivity to small businesses,” said Sen. Bruce Tutvedt, R-Kalispell. He also said the $100 fine was excessive, and using a cell phone should not be a primary driving offense.

Sen. Kelly Gebhardt, R-Roundup, said the bill would actually make driving more dangerous, because drivers would pull off the road to answer their phones and may cause accidents rejoining traffic.

Kaufmann said her bill would have helped remove some of the dangerous distractions drivers deal with.

“It’s as dangerous to be talking on your cell phone as it is to be driving drunk,” Kaufmann said. She also said restricting cell phone use is only one example of how the law makes choices for drivers when it comes to safety.

“We accept certain limits on our freedom when we get behind the wheel,” Kaufmann said.

-by CNS correspondent Molly Priddy

Darby senator sinks his stream access bill

An angler tries his luck on Mitchell Slough near the Bitterroot River. Disputes over public access to the slough fueled a series of court cases over whether Montana’s landmark stream access law applies to waterways altered by man. (Photo by Michael Howell/ Bitterroot Star)

By LAUREN RUSSELL
Community News Service
UM School of Journalism

What was shaping up to be major fight over public access to Montana’s smaller waterways ended quietly last week when Sen. Rick Laible decided to kill his own bill.

The Darby Republican’s Senate Bill 314 would have effectively barred anglers and other recreators from most of the state’s smaller streams, according to state fish and wildlife officials.

Laible, whose district includes the greater part of Ravalli County, cancelled two hearings before the Senate Natural Resources Committee earlier this month for the bill, which attempted to define the terms “natural” and “natural water body” for purposes of Montana’s stream access law.

The bill officially died this week when it missed the deadline for passing from one house to another.

Laible said the bill was created to address concerns of farmers and ranchers over November’s Montana Supreme Court decision on the Bitterroot Valley’s Mitchell Slough. The court ruled that the slough was a natural waterway and therefore subject to the 1985 state law for stream access, overturning earlier court decisions stating that any water body manipulated by man was no longer a natural stream.

Laible said he had been asked to sponsor the bill by a constituent who was worried the Mitchell ruling would provide the public access to existing ditches. As the bill progress, Laible said he was unhappy with the broad implication of the measure’s language.

“I thought the original intent was to protect water rights of ranchers and farmers, but I was told the language was actually trying to overturn the Supreme Court decision,” Laible said. “I didn’t think it was the right thing to do.”

Laible would not say who wrote the bill.

“I did some more research and kept the bill going, thinking we could amend it,” Laible said. “But I talked to the attorney of (Department of) Fish, Wildlife and Parks, who said that even an amendment didn’t fix it. Turned out it reversed access for sportsmen, access which is our Montana heritage.”

Opponents of the measure included Fish, Wildlife and Parks and Montana Trout Unlimited.
Bruce Farling, executive director of Montana Trout Unlimited, said that since most streams in Montana have been modified by irrigators, many smaller streams would have been off-limits to public access.

“That bill would have radically undermined our 25-year-old access bill in the state and would have put hundreds of streams that are now accessible out of access for the public,” Farland said. “Once Rick talked to our guy in Helena and talked to legal counsel and realized he didn’t understand the implications of the language, he was a gentleman and a good guy and decided to abandon it."

Because no clear definition of what constitutes a “natural” stream will be determined in the Legislature this session, future issues of state public stream access will most likely be decided in the courts on a case-by-case basis.

Laible described the experience of sponsoring the contentious bill as one of the most challenging of his legislative tenure.

“It was not good,” Laible said. “I didn’t know it was going to be that controversial, I thought it was cleanup language. Sometimes bills don’t turn out the way you want them to, so you kill ‘em.”

Senate rejects seat-belt bill on final vote

HELENA – A bill that would allow police to pull drivers over for not wearing seat belts failed on its final vote Thursday after several state senators changed their minds from the day before.

Current Montana law allows law enforcement to ticket drivers for not wearing seat belts but only after they have been pulled over for another offense.

Senate Bill 237, sponsored by Sen. Dave Lewis, R-Helena, would have made the failure to wear a seat belt a primary offense. Senators voted 25-25 for the bill after a lengthy debate the previous day. The voting crossed party lines.

Supporters said the bill would cause more people to use their seatbelts, but opponents said the bill would impinge on Montanans’ liberties by giving police an excuse to pull drivers over whenever they feel like it.

Supporters plead for mandatory seat belt law

HELENA – State lawmakers heard emotional testimony Tuesday from supporters of a bill that would allow police to pull drivers over for not wearing their seatbelts.

“The ultimate goal of this legislation isn’t to arrest people,” Attorney General Steve Bullock said. “The ultimate goal is to get more Montanans wearing their seatbelts.”

Current Montana law allows police to cite a driver for not wearing seatbelts but only after the driver is pulled over for another offense. Senate Bill 237, sponsored by Sen. Dave Lewis, R-Helena (pictured), would make driving without a seatbelt a primary offense.

Department of Transportation Director Jim Lynch showed the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee a video about Jeremy Lugibihl, a man killed in a car crash. The video is used by driver education classes in several states.

Lugibihl's mother, Tina, said the bill will make more people think about wearing their seatbelts.

“It’s not about taking your right away,” she said. “It’s about families like us not having to go through the hell we’ve gone through.”

Many supporters who testified had lost family members in car accidents. Others included doctors, emergency personnel, insurance company lobbyists, and officers from the Fort Peck Department of Law and Justice.

Opponents to the bill said it would take away their rights and freedom of choice. Cindy Swank said she opposed the bill because “it seems like another example of government interference in my right to choose.”

Others said the bill was an attempt by the federal government to strong-arm the state by withholding federal funding if a primary seatbelt law is not passed.

The 2005 legislative session failed to pass a similar bill.

-by CNS correspondent Molly Priddy

Bridge access bill wins initial vote in the House

HELENA -A bill giving anglers, floaters and others the right to access Montana's rivers and streams at public bridges climbed over a major hurdle today, winning it's initial test in the House by a vote of 95-5.

“This is a vehicle to pass bridge access,” said Rep. Kendall Van Dyk, D-Billings and the sponsor of House Bill 190. “It sends a really important message of compromise.”

The bill would allow public access at bridges, while also allowing landowners to connect fences to bridges and abutments to contain their livestock. Landowners would have to modify those fences to allow access. The state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks would have to approve such changes, and FWP would pay for the work.

Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, failed persuade a majority to amend the bill to give the state's 56 county commissions the responsibility for overseeing ranchers' plans for allowing access through or over their fences.

But Van Dyk said such an amendment would disrespect the landowners, sportsmen and women, and conservationists who compromised to create HB 190. He also said his version of the bill had the support of county commissioners.

Rep. Wayne Stahl, R-Saco, said giving the county commissioners decision-making power would only create liability issues for the county, and taxpayers would be responsible for paying for lawsuits. “The last thing counties need is more liability,” Stahl said.

After his amendment failed, Peterson said he would vote for the bill anyway because stream access is important to his constituents.

The five votes against the bill came from Republican Reps. Joel Boniek of Livingston, Scott Mendenhall of Clancy, Lee Randall of Broadus, Scott Sales of Bozeman and Gordon Vance of Bozeman.

Disputes over stream access have been a legislative staple since 1985, when lawmakers enacted Montana’s landmark law allowing recreational access to the beds and banks of the state’s navigable waterways.

This year’s debate reflects a Madison County judge’s October ruling granting recreationists a right to access streams and rivers from bridges in the public right of way. But it also gave landowners a right to build fences up to those bridges to control their livestock.

-by CNS correspondent Molly Priddy

Compromise bill on "bridge access" moves ahead

HELENA – A compromise aimed at allowing recreationists to access Montana's waterways at public bridges took a step forward at the Legislature Tuesday.

By a vote of 16-2, the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee recommend passage of House Bill 190, sponsored by Rep. Kendall Van Dyk, D-Billings (pictured). The committee tabled a competing bill.

“This really is 16 months of work from sportsmen, from landowners, from conservationists and everyone in between,” Van Dyk said.

The bill would allow public access to waterways at bridges while also allowing landowners to connect fences to bridges and abutments to contain their livestock. Landowners would have to modify those fences to allow access. Such work would be administered and paid for by the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, voted no on HB 190 because he said it leaves too much power in Helena and none in the counties.

“A vote of no is not a vote against stream access,” Peterson said. “It’s a vote of no central control, no state control.”

In the same hearing, the committee voted 10-8 to table Peterson’s stream access bill, House Bill 26. Peterson said both bills offer the same kind of access, but differ on who would mediate disputes. HB 26 would give that responsibility to the 56 county commissions across the state instead of FWP.

But Van Dyk said HB 26 is the “wrong way to provide any sort of clarity to this issue,” because the 56 county commissions could handles such disputes 56 different ways.

Peterson offered his version of county control as an amendment to HB190, but the committee voted against it.

Rep. Mike Milburn, R-Cascade, said that while he agreed with Peterson on local control, he stuck with HB 190 because of the compromises and work put in by different organizations. “I can’t express how tough this was to bring forward to this level,” he said. “I think we probably can’t do a better job.”

When HB 190 was first heard before the committee on Jan. 15, opponents of the bill said it did not adequately address the issue of prescriptive easements. These easements are roads that have been used by the public for so long that the county gets right of way, whether or not it runs through private land.

In the hearing on Tuesday, it was clarified that the current stream access law in Montana does not create prescriptive easements and neither would either HB 190 or HB 26. The law states a prescriptive easement can only be issued on a case-by-case basis.

Disputes over stream access have been a legislative staple since 1985, when lawmakers enacted Montana’s landmark law allowing recreational access to the beds and banks of the state’s navigable waterways.

This year’s debate reflects a Madison County judge’s October ruling granting recreationists a right to access streams and rivers from bridges in the public right of way. But it also gave landowners a right to build fences up to those bridges to control their livestock.

-by CNS correspondent Molly Priddy