Summary#

House Joint Resolution 71 (HJ 71), titled “Study resolution of the impact of federal funding changes on DEQ,” proposed an interim study; it did not create or amend a law. Its stated goal was to assess how federal funding and workforce changes affect Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), its programs, and governments and residents. The bill failed, so it did not establish this study.

• If adopted, the resolution would have asked the Legislative Council to designate the Legislative Finance Committee to conduct the study.
• The proposed study would examine federal directives made since January 20, 2025, and their effects on DEQ budgets and operations, staffing, and federally funded programs.
• It would also examine how lost revenue and reductions in the federal workforce could affect DEQ operations and projects.
• The committee would present findings to specified interim committees and report final results to the 70th Legislature. The study was to conclude before September 15, 2026.

What it means for you#

• Montana residents, local and tribal governments: The proposed study would examine effects on them, but the resolution would not itself change services, funding, or programs.
• DEQ employees: The study would examine agency functions affected by staffing reductions tied to lost federal funding. It would not protect jobs or require the state to replace federal funding.
• DEQ and state government: If adopted, the resolution would have set a study and reporting task—not required any particular budget, program, or staffing decision.
• Because HJ 71 failed: It created no study requirement and made no direct change for these groups.

Money#

No cost figure is provided. No publicly available information.

• The resolution did not appropriate money or require the state to replace lost federal funding.
• It proposed assigning the study to an existing legislative committee, but did not specify staffing or other resources for the work.

What is unclear#

• The resolution did not identify which federal funding changes or directives the study would cover beyond the stated date range and their effect on DEQ.
• It did not set a study method, require specific data, or say how affected residents, governments, or DEQ employees would be involved.
• It did not say whether the study would receive extra staff or funding. No publicly available information.
• It proposed findings and recommendations, but did not require the Legislature or executive branch to act on them.

Case for#

• The resolution’s background says DEQ receives federal funding and has positions funded partly or fully with federal dollars. A study could help lawmakers understand which agency operations and programs may be affected.
• Examining both federal funding and federal workforce changes could give lawmakers information about possible effects on state programs and projects before considering responses.
• The proposed report to the next Legislature could provide a basis for later policy or budget decisions without requiring those decisions in advance.

Case against#

• The resolution would study possible effects but would not provide money, preserve jobs, or require a response to the findings.
• It did not specify how the study would measure impacts or include affected communities, so the usefulness of its findings would depend on choices left open in the text.
• The proposed study could require committee and staff time, but the resolution gave no estimate or resource plan.