Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-402 (2026)

Changes In Appropriation Rights -- Definition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 85. WATER USE

CHAPTER 2. SURFACE WATER AND GROUND WATER

Part 4. Utilization of Water

Changes In Appropriation Rights -- Definition

85-2-402. Changes in appropriation rights -- definition. (1) (a) The right to make a change in appropriation right subject to the provisions of this section in an existing water right, a permit, or a state water reservation is recognized and confirmed. In a change in appropriation right proceeding under this section, there is no presumption that an applicant for a change in appropriation right cannot establish lack of adverse effect prior to the adjudication of other rights in the source of supply pursuant to this chapter. Except as provided in 85-2-410 and 85-2-429, an appropriator may not make a change in an appropriation right without the approval of the department or, if applicable, of the legislature. An applicant shall submit a correct and complete application.

(b) If an application involves a change in a point of diversion, conveyance, or place of use located on national forest system lands, the application is not correct and complete until the applicant has submitted proof to the department of any written special use authorization required by federal law for the proposed change in occupancy, use, or traverse of national forest system lands for the purpose of diversion, impoundment, storage, transportation, withdrawal, use, or distribution of water.

(c) The applicant is not required to prove a lack of adverse effect for any water right identified on a written consent to approval filed pursuant to subsection (16) in connection with an application.

(2) Except as provided in subsections (4) through (6) and, if applicable, subject to subsections (1)(c) and (15), the department shall approve a change in appropriation right if the appropriator proves by a preponderance of evidence that the following criteria are met:

(a) The proposed change in appropriation right will not adversely affect the use of the existing water rights of other persons or other perfected or planned uses or developments for which a permit or certificate has been issued or for which a state water reservation has been issued under part 3. For purposes of this section, adverse effects analysis is specific to the proposed change in appropriation right and a determination that water is not legally available pursuant to 85-2-311 does not necessarily mean that an adverse effect will occur.

(b) The proposed means of diversion, construction, and operation of the appropriation works are adequate, except for:

(i) a change in appropriation right for instream flow pursuant to 85-2-320 or 85-2-436;

(ii) a temporary change in appropriation right for instream flow pursuant to 85-2-408; or

(iii) a change in appropriation right pursuant to 85-2-420 for mitigation or marketing for mitigation.

(c) The proposed use of water is a beneficial use.

(d) The applicant has a possessory interest, or the written consent of the person with the possessory interest, in the property where the water is to be put to beneficial use or, if the proposed change involves a point of diversion, conveyance, or place of use on national forest system lands, the applicant has any written special use authorization required by federal law to occupy, use, or traverse national forest system lands for the purpose of diversion, impoundment, storage, transportation, withdrawal, use, or distribution of water. This subsection (2)(d) does not apply to:

(i) a change in appropriation right for instream flow pursuant to 85-2-320 or 85-2-436;

(ii) a temporary change in appropriation right for instream flow pursuant to 85-2-408; or

(iii) a change in appropriation right pursuant to 85-2-420 for mitigation or marketing for mitigation.

(e) If the change in appropriation right involves salvaged water, the proposed water-saving methods will salvage at least the amount of water asserted by the applicant.

(f) The water quality of an appropriator will not be adversely affected.

(g) The ability of a discharge permitholder to satisfy effluent limitations of a permit issued in accordance with Title 75, chapter 5, part 4, will not be adversely affected.

(3) The applicant is required to prove that the criteria in subsections (2)(f) and (2)(g) have been met only if a valid objection is filed. A valid objection must contain substantial credible information establishing to the satisfaction of the department that the criteria in subsection (2)(f) or (2)(g), as applicable, may not be met.

(4) The department may not approve a change in purpose of use or place of use of an appropriation of 4,000 or more acre-feet of water a year and 5.5 or more cubic feet per second of water unless the appropriator proves by a preponderance of evidence that:

(a) the criteria in subsection (2) are met; and

(b) the proposed change in appropriation right is a reasonable use. A finding of reasonable use must be based on a consideration of:

(i) the existing legal demands of water rights on the state water supply, as well as projected legal demands of water rights for future beneficial purposes, including municipal water supplies, irrigation systems, and minimum streamflows for the protection of existing water rights and aquatic life;

(ii) the benefits to the applicant and the state;

(iii) the effects on the quantity and quality of water for existing uses in the source of supply;

(iv) the availability and feasibility of using low-quality water for the purpose for which application has been made;

(v) the effects on private property rights by any creation of or contribution to saline seep; and

(vi) the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed use of water as determined by the department pursuant to Title 75, chapter 1, or Title 75, chapter 20.

(5) The department may not approve a change in purpose of use or place of use for a diversion that results in 4,000 or more acre-feet of water a year and 5.5 or more cubic feet per second of water being consumed unless:

(a) the applicant proves by clear and convincing evidence and the department finds that the criteria in subsections (2) and (4) are met; and

(b) for the withdrawal and transportation of appropriated water for out-of-state use, the department then petitions the legislature and the legislature affirms the decision of the department after one or more public hearings.

(6) The state of Montana has long recognized the importance of conserving its public waters and the necessity to maintain adequate water supplies for the state's water requirements, including requirements for federal non-Indian and Indian reserved water rights held by the United States for federal reserved lands and in trust for the various Indian tribes within the state's boundaries. Although the state of Montana also recognizes that, under appropriate conditions, the out-of-state transportation and use of its public waters are not in conflict with the public welfare of its citizens or the conservation of its waters, the following criteria must be met before out-of-state use may occur:

(a) The department and, if applicable, the legislature may not approve a change in appropriation right for the withdrawal and transportation of appropriated water for use outside the state unless the appropriator proves by clear and convincing evidence and, if applicable, the legislature approves after one or more public hearings that:

(i) depending on the volume of water diverted or consumed, the applicable criteria and procedures of subsection (2) or (4) are met;

(ii) the proposed out-of-state use of water is not contrary to water conservation in Montana; and

(iii) the proposed out-of-state use of water is not otherwise detrimental to the public welfare of the citizens of Montana.

(b) In determining whether the appropriator has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the requirements of subsections (6)(a)(ii) and (6)(a)(iii) will be met, the department and, if applicable, the legislature shall consider the following factors:

(i) whether there are present or projected water shortages within the state of Montana;

(ii) whether the water that is the subject of the proposed change in appropriation might feasibly be transported to alleviate water shortages within the state of Montana;

(iii) the supply and sources of water available to the applicant in the state where the applicant intends to use the water; and

(iv) the existing legal demands of water rights placed on the applicant's supply in the state where the applicant intends to use the water.

(c) When applying for a change in appropriation right to withdraw and transport water for use outside the state, the applicant shall submit to and comply with the laws of the state of Montana governing the appropriation and use of water.

(7) For any application for a change in appropriation right involving 4,000 or more acre-feet of water a year and 5.5 or more cubic feet per second of water, the department shall give notice of the proposed change in appropriation right in accordance with 85-2-307 and shall hold one or more hearings in accordance with 85-2-309 prior to its approval or denial of the proposed change in appropriation right. The department shall provide notice and may hold one or more hearings upon any other proposed change in appropriation right if it determines that the proposed change in appropriation right might adversely affect the rights of other persons, except for any water right for which a written consent to approval has been filed pursuant to subsection (16) in connection with the application.

(8) The department or the legislature, if applicable, may approve a change in appropriation right subject to the terms, conditions, restrictions, and limitations that it considers necessary to satisfy the criteria of this section, including limitations on the time for completion of the change in appropriation right. The department may extend time limits specified in the change in appropriation right approval under the applicable criteria and procedures of 85-2-312.

(9) (a) On actual application of water to the proposed beneficial use within the time allowed, the appropriator shall notify the department that the appropriation has been completed. The notification must contain a certified statement by a person with experience in the design, construction, or operation of appropriation works describing how the appropriation was completed. The department shall review the certified statement and may inspect the appropriation to verify whether the appropriation was completed in substantial accordance with the terms of the change in appropriation right.

(b) For a change in appropriation right of an existing water right granted prior to issuance of a final decree in the basin where the existing water right is located, the department shall verify that the elements and conditions of the change in appropriation right are in substantial accordance with the elements of the existing water right as adjudicated in the final decree. If the notice of completion of the change in appropriation of an existing water right was verified prior to issuance of a final decree in the basin where the existing water right is located, the department shall verify that the elements and conditions of the change in appropriation right are in substantial accordance with the elements of the existing water right as adjudicated in the final decree. The department verification is subject to any modifications to the final decree based on an appeal under 85-2-235.

(c) For a change in appropriation right on a provisional permit granted before issuance of a final decree in the basin where the provisional permit is located, the department shall verify that the elements and conditions of the change in appropriation right are in substantial accordance with any modification or reduction of the provisional permit pursuant to 85-2-313. If the notice of completion for a change in appropriation right was verified by the department prior to an order reducing or modifying the provisional permit pursuant to 85-2-313, the department shall verify that the elements and conditions of the change in appropriation right are in substantial accordance with the reduction or modification of the provisional permit.

(10) If a change in appropriation right is not completed as approved by the department or legislature, if the terms, conditions, restrictions, and limitations of the change in appropriation right approval are not complied with, or if the elements of the change in appropriation right are not in substantial accordance with the elements of the existing water right in the final decree or with the reduction or modification of the provisional permit pursuant to 85-2-313, the department may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, require the appropriator to show cause why the change in appropriation right approval should not be modified or revoked. If the appropriator fails to show sufficient cause, the department may modify or revoke the change in appropriation right approval.

(11) The original of a change in appropriation right approval issued by the department must be sent to the applicant, and a duplicate must be kept in the office of the department in Helena.

(12) A person holding an issued permit or change in appropriation right approval that has not been perfected may change the place of diversion, place of use, purpose of use, or place of storage by filing an application for change in appropriation right pursuant to this section.

(13) A change in appropriation right contrary to the provisions of this section is invalid. An officer, agent, agency, or employee of the state may not knowingly permit, aid, or assist in any manner an unauthorized change in appropriation right. A person or corporation may not, directly or indirectly, personally or through an agent, officer, or employee, attempt to change an appropriation right except in accordance with this section.

(14) The department may adopt rules to implement the provisions of this section.

(15) The department shall accept and process an application for a change in appropriation right for instream flow to protect, maintain, or enhance streamflows pursuant to 85-2-320 and this section and to benefit the fishery resource pursuant to 85-2-436 and this section.

(16) The department may not conduct an adverse effects analysis on a water right if the water right holder files a written consent to approval of an application for a change in appropriation right.

History: En. Sec. 28, Ch. 452, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 238, L. 1974; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 338, L. 1975; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 416, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 89-892; amd. Sec. 15, Ch. 448, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 573, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 535, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 432, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 658, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 308, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 9, Ch. 805, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 370, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 460, L. 1993; (14)En. Sec. 5, Ch. 460, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 322, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 487, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 353, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 18, Ch. 497, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 42, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 132, L. 2001; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 381, L. 2001; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 161, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 85, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 18, Ch. 213, L. 2007; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 448, L. 2007; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 86, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 424, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 29, L. 2011; amd. Sec. 11, Ch. 335, L. 2013; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 192, L. 2015; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 243, L. 2017; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 78, L. 2019; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 317, L. 2021; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 171, L. 2025; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 453, L. 2025; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 679, L. 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Clinch, 2007 MT 63 (Mont. 2007).
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Clinch, 2007 MT 63 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 170× “¶ 10 The Tribes respond that their reserved water rights are senior to all state appropriative water rights on the Reservation and, further, that all state appropriative claims are merely "claims" and not "rights.”
Hohenlohe v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2010 MT 203 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 72× “The Department cancelled the scheduled contested case hearing on Lahti's objection on June 6, 2007, and remanded the matter to the Helena regional office to analyze whether Hohenlohes had complied with § 85-2-402, MCA. ¶ 12 The Department issued a Statement of Opinion on January…”
In Re the Application for Change of Appropriation Water Rights Nos. 101960-41S & 101967-41S, 816 P.2d 1054 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 14× “Did the District Court err in holding that the Roystons, as applicants for *428 a change of appropriative water rights, had the burden of proving lack of adverse effect on other appropriators, adequate means of diversion, and beneficial use of the water? Changes in appropriation…”
State Ex Rel. Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, 712 P.2d 754 (Mont. 1985). · cites it 3× “) Section 85-2-402, MCA, includes extensive provisions which are to be applied in the event of a proposed change in use or in appropriation right.”
City of Helena v. Cmty. of Rimini, 2017 MT 145 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 8× “The district court affirmed the DNRC’s denial, finding that under a 1985 amendment to § 85-2-402, MCA, the applicant for a change of appropriation right has the burden of proof as to the nonexistence of adverse impact.”
In re the Beneficial Water Use Permit Nos. 66459-76L, Ciotti 64988-g76L, Starner, 923 P.2d 1073 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 4× “The Tribes have challenged DNRC’s jurisdiction to issue new water use permits pursuant to § 85-2-311, MCA, and its authority to authorize changes of existing appropriation rights pursuant to § 85-2-402, MCA. Because an applicant’s burden of proof is essentially the same under…”
Town of Manhattan v. Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2012 MT 81 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 13× “PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In 2008 the Town filed an application with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation pursuant to §85-2-402, MCA, seeking approval for proposed changes to its municipal well water rights.”
In Re the Crow Water Compact, 2015 MT 353 (Mont. 2015). · cites it 3× “Section 85-2-402, MCA. Thus, under Article IV of the Compact, which establishes the proper judicial channels for changes in use, the Tribe may not enter private fee land without the owners’ permission or the appropriate legal authority otherwise acquired from a state agency or…”
Confederated Salish Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation v. Mark Simonich, 29 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994). “” Mont.Code Ann. § 85-2-402(1) (1991). The Water Use Act also establishes an administrative procedure by which the DNRC is to consider such applica-.”
Bozeman v. DNRC, 2020 MT 214 (Mont. 2020). · cites it 16× “The [Montana Water Use Act] does not require a change applicant to prove lack of adverse effect for interests outside of the categories of interests enumerated in § 85-2-402(2)[,] MCA.” Further, the District Court reasoned that, even if the City could demonstrate it possessed an…”
In re Establishment & Org. of the Ward Irrigation Dist., 701 P.2d 721 (Mont. 1985). · cites it 3× “The Fosses may if they choose, convey their Camas and Hayes Creek water rights in the same manner and amount established prior to 1938.”
Kingsbury Ditch Co. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 725 P.2d 1209 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 8× “Kingsbury Ditch Company filed an application with the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) to change the *380 point of use of a water right as required by the Water Use Act of 1973, Section 85-2-402, MCA (1983). Pondera County Canal and Reservoir Company and…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-402(1) — 2 cases
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Clinch, 2007 MT 63 (Mont. 2007). “¶ 10 The Tribes respond that their reserved water rights are senior to all state appropriative water rights on the Reservation and, further, that all state appropriative claims are merely "claims" and not "rights.”
Confederated Salish Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation v. Mark Simonich, 29 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994). “” Mont.Code Ann. § 85-2-402(1) (1991). The Water Use Act also establishes an administrative procedure by which the DNRC is to consider such applica-.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-402(14) — 1 case
Town of Manhattan v. Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2012 MT 81 (Mont. 2012). “PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In 2008 the Town filed an application with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation pursuant to §85-2-402, MCA, seeking approval for proposed changes to its municipal well water rights.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-402(2) — 5 cases
Hohenlohe v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2010 MT 203 (Mont. 2010). “The Department cancelled the scheduled contested case hearing on Lahti's objection on June 6, 2007, and remanded the matter to the Helena regional office to analyze whether Hohenlohes had complied with § 85-2-402, MCA. ¶ 12 The Department issued a Statement of Opinion on January…”
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Clinch, 2007 MT 63 (Mont. 2007). “¶ 10 The Tribes respond that their reserved water rights are senior to all state appropriative water rights on the Reservation and, further, that all state appropriative claims are merely "claims" and not "rights.”
In Re the Application for Change of Appropriation Water Rights Nos. 101960-41S & 101967-41S, 816 P.2d 1054 (Mont. 1991). “Did the District Court err in holding that the Roystons, as applicants for *428 a change of appropriative water rights, had the burden of proving lack of adverse effect on other appropriators, adequate means of diversion, and beneficial use of the water? Changes in appropriation…”
Town of Manhattan v. Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2012 MT 81 (Mont. 2012). “PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In 2008 the Town filed an application with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation pursuant to §85-2-402, MCA, seeking approval for proposed changes to its municipal well water rights.”
Bozeman v. DNRC, 2020 MT 214 (Mont. 2020). “The [Montana Water Use Act] does not require a change applicant to prove lack of adverse effect for interests outside of the categories of interests enumerated in § 85-2-402(2)[,] MCA.” Further, the District Court reasoned that, even if the City could demonstrate it possessed an…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-402(2)(a) — 3 cases
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Clinch, 2007 MT 63 (Mont. 2007). “¶ 10 The Tribes respond that their reserved water rights are senior to all state appropriative water rights on the Reservation and, further, that all state appropriative claims are merely "claims" and not "rights.”
Hohenlohe v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2010 MT 203 (Mont. 2010). “The Department cancelled the scheduled contested case hearing on Lahti's objection on June 6, 2007, and remanded the matter to the Helena regional office to analyze whether Hohenlohes had complied with § 85-2-402, MCA. ¶ 12 The Department issued a Statement of Opinion on January…”
Bozeman v. DNRC, 2020 MT 214 (Mont. 2020). “The [Montana Water Use Act] does not require a change applicant to prove lack of adverse effect for interests outside of the categories of interests enumerated in § 85-2-402(2)[,] MCA.” Further, the District Court reasoned that, even if the City could demonstrate it possessed an…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-402(8) — 1 case
Hohenlohe v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2010 MT 203 (Mont. 2010). “The Department cancelled the scheduled contested case hearing on Lahti's objection on June 6, 2007, and remanded the matter to the Helena regional office to analyze whether Hohenlohes had complied with § 85-2-402, MCA. ¶ 12 The Department issued a Statement of Opinion on January…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-402(a) — 1 case
Bozeman v. DNRC, 2020 MT 214 (Mont. 2020). “The [Montana Water Use Act] does not require a change applicant to prove lack of adverse effect for interests outside of the categories of interests enumerated in § 85-2-402(2)[,] MCA.” Further, the District Court reasoned that, even if the City could demonstrate it possessed an…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.