The MT Lowdown is a weekly digest that showcases a more personal side of Montana Free Press’ high-quality reporting while keeping you up to speed on the biggest news impacting Montanans. Want to see the MT Lowdown in your inbox every Friday? Sign up here.
On New Year’s Eve, heading into 2019, I took a leap of faith. I packed most of my worldly possessions into a beat-up old car, cleaned out a room I was renting in Missoula and drove across the Continental Divide to move into a cramped studio apartment in Helena. Two days later, as that year’s session of the state Legislature geared up, I reported for duty at a scrappy little nonprofit news startup: Montana Free Press.
At the time, I was an underemployed freelance reporter, on the verge of throwing in the towel on a five-year career in Montana journalism. MTFP’s founder, John Adams, had scraped together enough donations at screenings of Kimberly Reed’s “Dark Money” documentary to hire the organization’s first dedicated reporters. He told me he could pay me to cover the 2019 Legislature “half-time.” Combined with a project grant we secured for some economy reporting, I determined that was enough to make rent in Helena — and took the plunge.
I remember doubting that MTFP, then a shoestring operation propelled almost entirely by John’s dreamy-eyed gumption, was going to survive for more than a couple of years in a punishingly tough world for digital journalism. As it turned out, my skepticism was misplaced.
Over the subsequent years, we managed to draw in an extraordinary array of journalistic talent — bringing on Brad Tyer as a full-time editor, luring Helena native Mara Silvers back to Montana from New York media, hiring Amanda Eggert for environmental coverage and Alex Sakariassen for an education beat, among too many others to name here.
We scrambled to cover the COVID-19 pandemic and its ongoing consequences for public health policy, housing affordability and property taxes. We built a reputation for writing about complicated but essential issues with a level of nuance that isn’t always possible for commercial media outlets. We innovated, publishing podcasts, email newsletters, data visualizations and election guides. Unexpectedly — at least to me, if not to our numerous faithful supporters — we found that we could build Montana a digital news outlet that is in many ways a national success story for independent media.
Along the way, John stepped back from the fun work of writing and editing to focus on the behind-the-scenes grind of raising the money necessary to keep our wheels turning. He and the rest of our business team have been remarkably successful in that domain, too, building a rare news organization with the financial wherewithal to take care of its people. This is the only newsroom I’ve worked in where colleagues are routinely buying houses and having children, rather than delaying those life milestones out of fear of layoffs.
It’s bittersweet, then, that after seven years and 500 stories with our remarkable team, it’s time for me to take another leap — to try my hand at a different sort of work in a nonpartisan job at the state Capitol. Today is my last day as part of the MTFP newsroom — and my last, at least for the foreseeable future, as part of Montana’s storied press corps.
Among the many, many small things I’ll miss: nerding out over local budgets with JoVonne Wagner, Lauren Miller’s swear jar for off-color newsroom comments and Jacob Olness’s reflexive enthusiasm for any data story I suggest he chase (my bad pitches included). Also: Stephanie Farmer’s extraordinary patience for late-night edits, Nick Ehli calmly correcting my punctuation, Brad Tyer angrily correcting my punctuation and Zeke Lloyd’s chagrin every time I catch him hoarding the office tea kettle. Not to mention having a job that occasionally encourages me to shoot social media videos with my dog.
I’ll miss big things, too, most too big to put in words here. One big thing: our readers, especially those of you who email encouragement or questions or suggestions when I publish a good story — and also those who are polite about pointing out mistakes when I let errors slip past. Those exchanges are as important to good journalism as any of the bylines. I treasure them greatly.
And with that, it’s time to sign off.
— Eric Dietrich
The Gist 📌
Last week, MTFP visual journalist Lauren Miller and I wrapped up a multi-hour interview with Laurel residents whose properties border land slated to be the new home of a state psychiatric facility for people in the criminal justice system. As we stood around on a dead-end street and in residents’ backyards, we heard a litany of frustrations about the facility itself and how Laurel came to be selected as its new host.
We got back in our rental car, closed the doors and let out a big exhale.
Whoa, we said to one another. These folks are mad.
I’d been occasionally monitoring Laurel City Council meetings, local Facebook groups and other community chatter for the past several months, ever since state officials from Gov. Greg Gianforte’s administration announced in November that Laurel would be home to a new 32-bed psychiatric facility. At first, I mostly observed confusion about the state’s process. Then, in the fall, the local sentiment seemed to be heating up.
As the calendar flipped to 2026, the city council meetings I was watching online appeared to be boiling over — in part because of the 114-acre site, just to the west of Laurel, where state officials said they would be building. Opponents decried the facility’s proximity to homes and an elementary school. I told my editors that, very soon, I had to get down to Laurel.
But it wasn’t until I spent hours with local opponents of the facility that I began to truly understand the specifics of their rage. Over the last week, I documented what I learned about Laurel in this story we published on Thursday.
Here are my top takeaways:
Growth path: Opponents of the state’s proposed facility say the 114-acre parcel, multiple times bigger than the size of the plot the state said it was originally looking for, lies in the path of Laurel’s future growth. They worry that stigma about a public mental health facility will deter future development, a point that some facility advocates dispute. Additionally, residents are frustrated that the state’s facility and grounds will not contribute property taxes to Laurel — a loss that they say will negatively impact schools, emergency services, sidewalks and other infrastructure.
Transparency: Locals say that state officials began exploring placement for the facility, first in Billings and then in Laurel, without seeking public input — a sort of original sin that continues to rankle. Supporters of the facility, as well as some city officials in Laurel, say that that sort of public discussion would have been inappropriate, given that city council members may eventually have to vote on an annexation request from the state, as the 114-acre parcel lies outside Laurel’s city limits.
Communication: For months, residents of Laurel have asked state officials to visit their city and present information about the proposed facility. So far, opponents say, those meetings haven’t happened. But on Monday, state health department director Charlie Brereton and the executive director of the Board of Investments, Dan Villa, spoke with lawmakers in Helena about misinformation circling about the Laurel facility. Some community members we spoke to said the presentation’s framing pushed their buttons even more.
So, what’s next? In short, we don’t know. Locals are circulating a petition to recall Laurel Mayor Dave Waggoner, accusing him of backroom dealing to bring the facility to town. Waggoner said he plans to try to block the petition in court. The city council may take action in the coming weeks to halt annexation requests in response to community concerns. State officials may even field questions about the controversy in person. If so, we’ll be tuning in.
— Mara Silvers
Verbatim 💬
“I do find an obligation to ensure that the purchased water is authorized by a legal water right. This could have been done, should have been done. There just is a heightened view of the irrigation of Crazy Mountain Ranch’s land here for the reasons we all talked about. It’s just a fact, and that’s the point of the consent decree.” — Montana District Court Judge Matthew Wald
Wald offered this assessment at the close of a two-hour hearing involving Crazy Mountain Ranch and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Attorneys for the two parties appeared before Wald March 12 to discuss a proposed penalty for Crazy Mountain Ranch’s use of water from an illegal well last August.
Crazy Mountain Ranch argued that it was being unfairly targeted by DNRC for pulling water from a city of Boulder-managed irrigation well that others had used without legal repercussion for decades. Peter Scott, the attorney representing Crazy Mountain Ranch, maintained that his client didn’t violate a court order — the consent decree that the ranch signed with DNRC last July — by entering into an “arm’s length transaction with the city of Boulder” to purchase water it had been led to believe was legally available.
DNRC attorney Jennifer Wells countered that by failing to confirm that the well in question was tied to a valid water right, Crazy Mountain Ranch had violated the agreement, which was designed to allow the ranch to keep irrigating its golf course so long as it demonstrated that it wasn’t “simply swapping one illegal water use for another.” She also argued the ranch’s conduct had been one of “persistent noncompliance and noncooperation.” She then highlighted the ranch’s unauthorized use of Rock Creek water in 2024 and 2025, which prompted a dozen downstream irrigators to file complaints and ultimately led to the consent decree.
Wald found the DNRC’s argument more persuasive. He determined that Crazy Mountain Ranch had violated the agreement since it irrigated its golf course with water from an unlawful source. But he stopped short of requiring the ranch to pay the $8,000 fine DNRC requested — $1,000 per day of violation — since he said he’d seen no information to suggest that Crazy Mountain Ranch knew that Boulder was operating the well illegally.
READ MORE: Judge warns Crazy Mountain Ranch to be more careful about vetting water sources for golf course.
— Amanda Eggert
Viewfinder 📸
MTFP freelancer John Stember went out in sub-zero temperatures before sunrise to photograph the addition of 219 bison to Fort Peck’s program, and the images were magical. This is one of them: Fort Peck’s buffalo roam the windswept plains at Turtle Mound Ranch near Wolf Point on Thursday, February 19, 2026. The program, which incorporates both a cultural and a livestock herd, contains about 1,100 buffalo and was started in 1999. It’s one of the longest-running and largest tribally owned herds in the country.
— Lauren Miller
Following the Law ⚖️
State District Judge Mike Menahan March 2 upheld a 2021 law that allowed insurance companies to factor in a person’s sex and marital status when calculating their rates.
The plaintiffs, made up of people who use insurance and advocacy groups, alleged that House Bill 379 violates the Montana Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and is unconstitutional because it carved out an exception for insurance companies from the state’s anti-discrimination law. They also say the law negatively impacts women.
But Menahan dismissed those concerns.
The Helena District Court judge wrote that being married or single is not a protected class, and because the state presented evidence that marital status can be correlated with risk, the law has a valid, constitutional application. He also said the law did not violate Montana’s constitutional “special legislation” provision, which bars laws tailored to a particular group, because HB 379 applies equally to all insurance companies.
Rylee Sommers-Flanagan, the executive director of Upper Seven Law representing the plaintiffs, said she plans to appeal.
“Importantly, the court did not address discrimination on the basis of sex, which the 2021 law separately authorizes,” Sommers-Flanagan wrote to MTFP. “Data following implementation of the law shows that allowing insurance companies to use information about sex to discriminate generally harms women.”
Upper Seven has brought numerous lawsuits challenging policies adopted by Montana’s Republican-controlled Legislature in recent years, sometimes drawing criticism from elected Republicans.
James Brown, the state’s commissioner of securities and insurance, whose office defended the state law, celebrated the outcome in a press release.
“This is another case where a special interest group ran to the courts to try to overturn a common-sense law passed by the Montana Legislature,” Brown wrote.
— Zeke Lloyd
By the Numbers 🔢
Days remaining for Montana landlords and property owners to apply with the Montana Department of Revenue for an exemption from the state’s pending second-home tax.
Most homeowners were automatically qualified for the exemption, which will, in theory, reduce their tax bills this fall, after receiving property tax rebates last year. As we reported last month, however, landlords with qualifying long-term rental properties must apply to avoid hefty tax increases. Gov. Greg Gianforte extended the March 1 deadline to March 20 due to technical issues with the state’s application portal.
— Eric Dietrich
Highlights ☀️
In other news this week —
• The state of Montana has stopped issuing permits for weekend rallies at the Capitol. “No Kings” organizers are undeterred.
• Some sort of shenanigans or an honest change of heart? Cascade County candidates swap parties.
• To subpoena or not to subpoena? A legislative committee wants answers from the secretary of state.
On Our Radar
Amanda — This provocative interview with Rebecca Solnit, whose most recent book is “The Beginning Comes After the End,” is well worth a listen. As someone who likes to contemplate a more expansive timescale during periods of tumult, I appreciate the way Solnit uses history to contextualize current events: “I often feel that a lot of pessimism, despair, doomerism, comes from not knowledge about the future — even though they think they’re thinking about the future — but from lack of knowledge about the past.”
Zeke — Local television recently reminded me why we still need journalists in the age of artificial intelligence. AI-altered videos of animal herds on the move spurred rumors on social media that wildlife was fleeing Yellowstone National Park ahead of a volcanic eruption. MTN News’ John Sherer debunked it.
Mara — As an amateur (read: very slow) trail runner, I’m mentally preparing for the time of the year when I begin spending many, many hours training for long-distance races. I’m on the hunt for great audiobooks to help pass the time, though some of my most recent choices (“The Body Keeps the Score,” “The Anxious Generation”) are quite academic and, ahem, a little dry. Other recommendations welcome.
Lauren — Crossing all my fingers and toes, sleeping with a spoon under my pillow and whatever else I need to do so that the snow actually comes.
Eric — One last time, I will tell you that this remains the best cat video on the internet.
*Some stories may require a subscription. Subscribe!
Lowdown is edited by Nick Ehli, with copy editing this week by Mara Silvers and Eric “Don’t Leave Us” Dietrich.