Recent Permitting Reforms Are Protecting Property Rights

"What property rights are unequivocally not, however, is a license to control what others do with their own property."

Over the past five months, Montana and the federal government have made changes to the permitting process. These reforms address longstanding issues that have made it nearly impossible to build anything—yet some critics mischaracterize them as “undermining property rights.”

Most of the focus has been on the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and its federal counterpart, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Both are procedural laws requiring environmental review for major government actions, but they leave key questions unanswered: How extensive must the review be? How deeply must agencies examine indirect, downstream, or speculative impacts?

What began as a good-faith safeguard has become a legal trap. Agencies and landowners are often sued not because they did something wrong, but because someone claims the analysis wasn’t “thorough enough.” The result? Reviews stretch for years, impacts grow more abstract, and compliance costs balloon. Projects stalled or died.

To illustrate the absurdity, imagine that before mowing your lawn, you had to study how the noise might affect your neighbor’s dog, how shorter grass could influence property values, how blade wear might affect global steel demand, and how clippings could worsen erosion. Miss a detail? You could be sued until you study it all.

This isn’t just hypothetical. In the case of the Uintah Basin Railway, opponents argued the agency failed to analyze not just the rail line, but also speculative effects—like increased oil refining or downstream carbon emissions. Never mind that these impacts would occur outside the agency’s jurisdiction.

Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court recently stepped in. In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the Court ruled that the 3,600-page environmental review for the railway was sufficient. It clarified that agencies are not required to analyze speculative, far-removed impacts that occur in different places or times.

Here in Montana, lawmakers took a similar step to limit MEPA abuse and return it to its original intent. A suite of bills, notably HB 285 and HB 270, clarified the procedural nature of MEPA and limited some of its most commonly abused aspects, which had allowed a small number of activist groups to file lawsuits aimed at vetoing projects they simply didn’t like. That’s common sense, and long overdue.

Yet that hasn’t stopped some claiming the sky is falling. In a recent column, Terry Punt argued that the MEPA reforms violate both property rights and Montana’s tradition of neighborliness. That criticism, while likely well-intentioned, reflects a misunderstanding of property rights.

Property rights aren’t granted by others; they’re fundamental, rooted in the belief that every person owns themselves. These rights are foundational to any free society because they secure the space in which individuals can live without being a servant of government or individuals.

What property rights are unequivocally not, however, is a license to control what others do with their own property. You don’t get to veto your neighbor’s project just because you dislike it, dislike them, or worry about some far-fetched hypothetical scenario. That isn’t property rights; it’s the opposite.

Of course, Montanans value neighborliness. It’s a good thing to communicate, compromise, and show consideration. But that doesn’t justify abusing procedural laws to take your neighbor’s rights. People aren’t left without recourse. When real problems arise, like nuisances or damage, neighbors still have legal tools to address them.

There’s a difference between being a good neighbor and surrendering control of your own property. MEPA was starting to blur that line.

These reforms help ensure Montanans can acquire, possess, protect, and, importantly, actually use their own property. While some will continue to oppose these changes, for the vast majority of Montanans who simply want to be left alone and have their rights respected, these are long-overdue victories.

This column originally appeared in Lee Newspapers