HELENA — The Legislature’s chief lawyer raised legal questions about Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s decision to slap a stream-access amendment on a county bridge bill before the governor took the action, but Schweitzer remains confident it’s legal.

Asked Thursday if Schweitzer’s amendments to House Bill 426 fell within the title of the bill as required, Greg Petesch, the legislative branch’s chief lawyer, said in an interview, “Not in my opinion. They’re not germane to the bill, and they change the original purpose.’’

On Wednesday, Schweitzer’s attorney, Ann Brodsky, e-mailed Petesch to ask if the amendment from the governor’s office could be drafted and sent to the governor’s office by 1 p.m., according to e-mail provided by Petesch at the Lee Newspapers State Bureau’s request.

“This isn’t even close to being germane to the bill,’’ Petesch replied to Brodsky in an e-mail.

Brodsky replied, saying, “Greg — I disagree and we want to move forward. Thanks. Ann.’’

With his amendatory veto issued later Wednesday afternoon, Schweitzer put some stream access provisions in HB426, an previously obscure bill that lifted the present $500,000 cap on a county’s road and bridge capital improvement fund.

The Schweitzer language requires that before county commissions can spend money from these capital improvement funds, they must certify that the roads and bridges they are building and repairing offer public access to the streams.

The amendment basically puts into law a 2000 opinion by then-Attorney General Joe Mazurek that the public may gain access to streams and rivers by using a county road and its right-of-way and that bridge and its abutments are part of the public highway and subject to the same public easement as the highway to which the bridge is attached.

To become law, both the House and Senate have to approve the Schweitzer’s amendments.

HB426’s sponsor, Rep. Jack Ross, R-Absarokee, was unhappy about the amendment Wednesday, telling some Republican colleagues, “We just got hijacked.’’

Schweitzer said in an interview Thursday he has plenty of faith in his legal staff, given its track record defending past amendatory vetoes.

“I have a pretty good legal staff and a lawyer who’s done the case law study too,’’ Schweitzer said. “I think I’ll go with my quarterback. It’s within the title of the bill. Clearly it is.’’

Schweitzer said the phones started ringing early in his office this morning, with the calls overwhelmingly supporting his amendatory veto. The callers, he said, included a number of Republicans and independents who said they were baffled at House Republicans’ refusal to pass the stream-access bill that has been tabled.

Likewise, he said, his office has received a number of e-mails supporting what he did.

Meanwhile, stream access supporters, both Democratic legislators and sportsmen, staged a rally in the Capitol.

Sen. Lane Larson, D-Billings, said he is still holding out for his bill, SB78, which passed the Senate on a bipartisan 34-16 vote but which was tabled in the House.

“I’m real disappointed the Republicans in the House have chosen to kill SB78,’’ he said.

Supporters pan call for committee

By ALAN SUDERMAN - Associated Press Writer

HELENA — Supporters of guaranteed public access to Montana’s rivers and streams Thursday panned a Republican lawmaker’s efforts to form a committee to study the issue.

‘‘It’s just putting it off a little bit longer,’’ said Sen. Lane Larson, D-Billings, who sponsored a stream access bill that was tabled by the Republican-controlled House Fish and Game Committee.

A resolution by Rep. Mike Milburn, R-Cascade, that would form an interim committee to study stream access and make recommendations for lawmakers to consider next session, was heard by the same committee.

Milburn said the resolution was necessary to bring all interested parties together to discuss the issue. He said the concerns of landowners, who generally opposed Larson’s bill, have been ignored.

‘‘Our responsibility is to protect their rights,’’ Milburn told the committee.

After the hearing, Milburn said the stream access issue had become too political and his resolution would provide some time for all parties to examine the issue clearly. He added that he had received threatening e-mails from anglers for his opposition to Larson’s bill.

Craig Sharpe of the Montana Wildlife Federation said in a statement that Milburn’s resolution was an attempt in the ‘‘11th hour to provide political cover for those legislators who have consistently opposed public access at county bridges.’’

Milburn said there was ‘‘no credibility’’ to Sharpe’s statement.

At a news conference earlier in the day, Larson said one of his major concerns was landowners’ rights.

He said his bill would clarify the rights and responsibilities of both the public and landowners with regard to stream access: The public would be able to use all county bridges to access streams, and landowners would be permitted to attach certain kinds of fences to the bridges.

‘‘This is for everybody in the state,’’ Larson said, while flanked by supporters with signs reading ‘‘I fish and I vote’’ and ‘‘Save our streams from the GOP.’’

Democrats said they will attempt to ‘‘blast’’ Larson’s bill, which passed the Democrat-controlled Senate 34-16, out of committee to a full floor debate in the House on Friday. Such a measure would need 60 votes in the House, where Republicans outnumber Democrats 50-49, with one Constitution Party member.

Added to the stream access mix is an unrelated bill with proposed amendments made by Gov. Brian Schweitzer that effectively mirror Larson’s bill. The governor’s amendments still have to be approved by both chambers of the House.