Montana resolution backing Utah’s land-transfer demand gets no support
Laura Lundquist
(Missoula Current) No one showed up to support a Legislative bill seeking to back the state of Utah in a yet-to-be-filed lawsuit challenging federal land ownership.
On Monday evening, Rep. Tom Millett, R-Marion, spent 25 minutes explaining his research on federal land history and telling the House Energy, Technology and Federal Relations committee why his bill, House Joint Resolution 24, wasn’t what the opponents would say it was.
HJ 24 would give the support of Montana’s Legislature to the state of Utah in its lawsuit challenging the federal government’s ownership of “unappropriated” land.
“Before I begin, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. This resolution does nothing to our public land. Absolutely nothing. A resolution is just the sense of the Legislature. It’s just a statement that we’re making,” Millett said in his opening statement. “I needed to get that off my chest.”
Millett said East Coast states gave land to the federal government but then slowly got it back as they needed to raise revenue. But in the Western states acquired in the Louisiana purchase, the government kept land as regions entered statehood.
Utah claims Western states should get some of that land back, even though Utah’s own Constitution declares that it would “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands” within its borders.
Land is considered “unappropriated” if it doesn’t have a designated purpose like national parks, wilderness areas or monuments. Most of the unappropriated federal land is managed by the Bureau of Land Management, according to the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976.
Utah’s lawsuit claims that perpetual federal ownership and management of BLM lands is unconstitutional. So the state of Utah tried to take its case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case in January. If it wants to continue, Utah must file in federal district court. It has yet to do so, but Millett said his friends in Utah say they’re going to file.
“Does the federal government have the authority to hold this land in perpetuity? Utah says no. The federal government says yes. That’s what the court case is all about,” Millett said.
Committee chair Gary Parry, R-Colstrip, said he’d break with his tradition of asking for opponents to testify first and asked if there were any proponents in the room or online. When no one stepped forward, Parry blurted out a surprised “Wow!”
Conversely, there were so many opponents of HJ 24 filling the committee room and waiting online that Parry limited each to one minute of testimony and restricted total testimony to an hour. Unlike with many hearings, the majority of the 47 opponents were Montanans representing themselves.
Several questioned Utah’s reading of the Constitution and others said the bill would send the wrong message for Montanans.
Kurt Meyer of Bozeman said it’s a Utah thing, and since it’s going nowhere in Utah, Montana shouldn’t bother. Deb Louttit said Montana has enough problems without getting involved in the problems of another state. Ryan Callahan seconded that, saying Montana should stick to being Montana, regardless of the issue.
“What I see in the case of Utah vs. the United States is a blatant attempt to pervert the clear meaning of the words written in the U.S. Constitution,” said Carol Johns, a retired Ravalli County attorney.
“It’s disingenuous to suggest that HJ24 is just about a Utah lawsuit. It seems much more likely an attempt to make the transfer of public lands more palatable,” said Mark Good of Great Falls.
Several commenters said unappropriated federal lands were just as important as any other lands. Steve Held of Broadus said most ranchers in eastern Montana make their living on unappropriated land and his hotel depended on the hunters that take advantage of BLM land.
“Though the lands are unappropriated, the federal government has taken good care of the land for almost six generations and it’s up to us to continue that for another six generations,” Sally Schendel of Waterloo.
In anticipation of the hearing, Wild Montana created an online petition asking the Legislature to reject HJ 24 and any other legislation supporting Utah’s lawsuit. As of Monday afternoon, more than 2,700 Montanans had signed the petition.
“I think Montanans are happy that we’re not like the East Coast. We don’t want (only) 5% of our lands to be wild places and federal lands,” said Noah Marion, Wild Montana spokesman. “This lawsuit doesn’t even exist right now. I’m not sure why we would spend the Legislature’s time supporting a lawsuit in another state that doesn’t reflect Montana values.”
Merritt said he didn’t propose the resolution on his own - his constituents asked him to carry it. Yet none showed up to testify. He reiterated that Utah would file its lawsuit, because it’s already spent too much time and money putting the lawsuit together. So Montana needs to “get the ball rolling.”
“This doesn’t (take land). That is a conversation for another day. That is another policy the state of Montana is going to have to come up with eventually. We have plenty of time to start dealing with that,” Millett said. “But this is a good start. This is getting it on people’s radar so we start thinking about these things if we have the opportunity or they answer that question in Utah’s favor.”
The committee took no action on the bill.
Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.