Montana

Bill that would sell isolated state land to neighboring landowners nears Gianforte’s desk

Published

12 months ago

March 25, 2025

Bill that would sell isolated state land to neighboring landowners nears Gianforte’s desk

On a tailwind of Republican support, the Montana Legislature has advanced a bill that would facilitate the sale of isolated sections of state trust land.

House Bill 676 is a sweeping 22-page bill sponsored by House Speaker Brandon Ler, R-Savage, that addresses multiple aspects of water rights and the administration of state trust lands.

Although several components of the bill drew scrutiny during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, perhaps the most controversial aspect of HB 676 involves the potential for the noncompetitive sale of an estimated 1.5 million acres of isolated sections of state land.

HB 676 would also close the Montana Water Court, a nearly 50-year-old court created to quantify and prioritize hundreds of thousands of water rights that predate Montana’s 1972 Constitution. If HB 676 passes, an existing law specifying that the court cannot alter tribal water compacts would be struck as well. Critics argue it could invite federal intervention in decisions nearing resolution after decades of negotiation and scrutiny. One such agreement is the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Compact, which is currently before the Montana Water Court.

In their comments to lawmakers, HB 676 proponents referenced a controversial decision the Montana Supreme Court issued last year. They described HB 676 as a private property rights protection measure that will prevent the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation from “stealing” private water rights by dictating that in order to claim ownership of a water right, the water right must be used and diverted on state lands.

At issue is the Schutter v. Montana Land Board ruling the Montana Supreme Court issued in late April 2024 siding with the Land Board. The Land Board, which oversees state trust lands and is comprised of the top elected officials serving in state government, had asserted ownership over a portion of a private water right Gallatin County potato farmers developed on their private land to irrigate both their property and a neighboring property they leased from the state.

In an opinion siding with the Montana Water Court’s interpretation of the matter, Montana’s highest court argued that the state must exercise some ownership over the water right to act in accordance with its directive to “secure the largest measure of legitimate advantage” for state trust land beneficiaries — e.g., Montana’s public schools. State trust lands are sections of land the federal government turned over to the Montana government when it became a state.

The Schutter decision was vigorously opposed by the Senior Ag Water Rights Alliance, which described the DNRC’s stance as “government bureaucracy gone insane.”

Speaking as a member of the Senior Ag Water Rights Alliance on March 21, Jocelyn Cahill described HB 676 as a proposal to put “clarity and stability” into Montana law.

“Many ranchers are afraid to use their water on their state leases, fearing that DNRC will come after their right,” Cahill said. “This uncertainty discourages investment in the infrastructure needed to divert and deliver water. When ranchers stop improving their lease lands, the state leases — and the school trusts that rely on them — lose out on significant benefits.”

Cahill is steeped in water issues in other ways. She recently represented irrigation interests in a water policy stakeholder group that developed legislative proposals over the interim and her politically powerful family recently lost a legal dispute regarding the use of exempt wells to facilitate a Broadwater County development.

Other HB 676 proponents included the Rocky Mountain Stockgrowers Association and the Rocky Fork Decreed Users of Carbon County.

HB 676 opponents argued that the bill is a raw deal for public land access, for Montanans in the midst of the water rights adjudication process, and for public K-12 schools reliant on state trust lands for a healthy and sustainable revenue source.

The Montana Stockgrowers Association, the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, the Montana Water Resources Association, the Montana Quality Education Coalition, the Senior Water Rights Coalition, the Montana Wildlife Federation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Property and Environment Research Center, the Public Land Water Access Association and the Montana chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers spoke in opposition to the measure, along with other groups and individuals.

Matt Leow with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers acknowledged the access challenges posed by isolated sections of state land but argued that the solution is not to create a “fire sale of a state treasure” but rather to “figure out ways to open up public access to our public lands.”

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation lobbyist Charlie Booher echoed that assessment, arguing that facilitating “the non-competitive sale of state land” is the wrong way to address state land that public recreationists can’t access.

“Over the last six years, Montana [Fish, Wildlife and Parks] and DNRC have worked through the [Public Access Land Agreement] program, as well as through the Block Management program, to open up access to over 1 million acres of state land that is currently isolated,” he told committee members. “We are supportive of that work and wouldn’t want to see it diminished by this bill.”

Brian Thompson with the Senior Water Rights Coalition described the dissolution of the water court as “problematic.”

“The water court has a job to do, and ending somewhat arbitrarily in 2031 leaves a lot of people in a lurch,” Thompson said during a hearing on the measure. “This is a system and a process that we set in place many decades ago. A lot of people’s water rights are dependent upon this system … They’re counting on the system to continue and to work to protect their rights into the future.”

Opponents also argued that losing more than 1 million acres of state land will jeopardize between $5-7 million of revenue annually, much of which supports public schools. They also pushed back on the notion that the state is “stealing” water rights.

Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras, a former University of Montana law professor with extensive experience in water law, spoke most forcefully on the latter point.

“The state has never and does not assert an ownership of the water used on [private] land. It only asserts the interest on the state trust land, which it’s obligated to do under its fiduciary duty,” said Juras, who was testifying on behalf of Gov. Greg Gianforte in his capacity as chair of the Montana Land Board. “It is absolutely not correct that the state Land Board, acting through the Trust Land division of DNRC, is taking anybody’s private trust rights.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet taken executive action on HB 676.

HOUSE BILL 379

Just after the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 676, the House of Representatives voted to advance House Bill 379, a twice-tabled and later revived measure that sought to combine two existing tools to facilitate the sale of state trust lands to developers.

Lawmakers’ lifeline to HB 379 was short-lived, though. After passing an initial vote on March 21, the measure failed, 42-54, after 10 Republicans flipped their third-reading vote on Monday.

Rep. Larry Brewster, R-Billings, said he was approached by the Forestry and Trust Lands Division of the DNRC to sponsor HB 379. During a Feb. 6 House State Administration Committee hearing on the bill, Brewster described it as a straightforward measure — “nothing slim shady” — that would alleviate Montana’s housing affordability challenges.

The sale of state lands that are “prime” for such residential development — those that communities have grown around, that have access to utilities and are no longer used for grazing, for example — would provide greater financial benefit to state trust beneficiaries like K-12 public schools if the state could enter into a commercial joint venture agreement with developers, Brewster told his colleagues.

Rep. Larry Brewster of Billings addresses his colleagues during the 2023 legislative session. Credit: Arren Kimbel-Sannit / Montana Free Press

Deidra Kloberdanz, who manages the Real Estate Bureau of the DNRC’s Forestry and Trust Lands Division, said HB 379 combines two existing programs under the DNRC’s umbrella — the commercial leasing program and the land banking program — to create a pathway for larger housing developments. The leasing program provides revenue to trust beneficiaries through commercial rent payments. The land banking program, which has been operational for 22 years, allows the DNRC to sell up to 250,000 acres of trust land in order to reinvest in other lands that will provide more financial benefit to trust beneficiaries.

Kloberdanz said the measure would allow a developer to initiate the subdivision and platting process as a property lessee and establish a framework for the later sale of individual home sites through the land banking program. She added that Land Board oversight is baked into the proposal.

“The idea is the state and the developer would be able to share in both the risk and the reward of the project,” Kloberdanz said.

Gale Heide with Habitat for Humanity of Gallatin Valley was HB 379’s other proponent during the committee hearing on the bill. He argued that HB 379 would make the development of state lands for affordable housing developments that groups like his have explored more financially feasible.

“Though I’m not encouraging the state to become real estate investors, you have proven the ability to use careful foresight in preserving your commitment to future generations and a growing education system,” Heide said. “Maybe some day there won’t be enough of Montana to go around, but for now, I think we can work together to create opportunities for working Montanans willing to bear the load with us.”

The measure drew no opponents during its hearing.

Democratic members of the House spoke in opposition to the bill during floor debate last week, arguing that they have concerns about “uncertainty and ambiguity” in the bill, particularly around a transition away from a public auction process to an online sales platform.

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Missoula and Western Montana neighbors: Obituaries for March 11

Published

8 hours ago

March 11, 2026

Press Room

Missoula and Western Montana neighbors: Obituaries for March 11

State

Zip Code

Country

Source link

Montana

Montana AG letter alleges Helena violates law banning ‘sanctuary cities’

Published

20 hours ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

Montana AG letter alleges Helena violates law banning ‘sanctuary cities’

HELENA — On Monday, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen sent a letter to the City of Helena claiming the municipality is not in compliance with the state’s law banning “sanctuary cities.” The letter comes just under a month after the State of Montana launched an investigation into a city resolution on Helena Police policy and Helena’s involvement in federal immigration enforcement.

In the letter, Knudsen laid out the ways he believes the city’s resolution violated state law. The attorney general gave Helena 15 days to respond or reverse the policy. If the city does not comply, his office will pursue legal action.

“Helena’s resolution appears to contain blatant violations of this law,” wrote Knudsen.

MTN News

On January 26, 2026, the City of Helena adopted a resolution clarifying when and how the Helena Police Department will cooperate with federal immigration officials. The vote was 4 to 1. The Helena commission seats and the mayor are elected in non-partisan races.

In the letter, Knudsen alleges the resolution established “a broad sanctuary city policy” that seeks to protect every illegal immigrant, regardless of whether the individual had committed a serious crime or not. The state further claims the resolution gives illegal immigrants “special privileges” in plea deals and establishes a “free-for-all policy” where a police officer can request the unmasking of Department of Homeland Security and ICE officers.

Knudsen has requested that the City of Helena, in their response, specifically describe in detail how the resolution complies with Montana law, provide emails and correspondence from city staff and the commission regarding the resolution.

Helena City manager Alana Lake told MTN in a statement: “The City of Helena is aware of the issues being raised by the Attorney General’s Office and is reviewing the matter. While we cannot discuss the details of a potential legal issue, the City is committed to transparency and compliance with the law. The City takes these matters seriously and will continue to cooperate with the appropriate authorities while remaining focused on serving our community.”

Passed in 2021, Montana House Bill 200 prohibits a state agency or local government from implementing any policy that prevents employees or departments from communicating with federal agencies regarding immigration or citizenship status for lawful purposes. It also states governments must comply with immigration detainer requests if they are lawfully made.

HB 200 was backed by Republicans and passed with only Republican votes. Gov. Greg Gianforte signed the legislation into law on March 31, 2021.

Passage of the resolution by the Helena City Commission has drawn ire from conservative voices in Montana politics and on the national level.

The resolution said the commission supported the Helena Police Department avoiding “committing its resources to federal action for which it has no authority,” such as entering into an agreement with the federal government to directly enforce immigration laws. Under federal law, immigration enforcement is conducted by federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. However, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, state and local governments can voluntarily enter into 287 (g) agreements with the federal government that allow them to enforce immigration laws.

The commission further supported HPD’s policy not to stop, detain, or arrest a person solely on suspected violations of immigration law, including assisting other agencies in an arrest based solely on immigration law.

DEEPER LOOK: Helena has seen a growing debate over ICE and local police involvement

In the resolution, the commission also supported an HPD officer, using their own discretion, requesting the identification and unmasking of a Department of Homeland Security Officer if the HPD officer “feels it will not be interfering with the actions of federal officers exercising their jurisdiction.”

“This adversarial relationship by local law enforcement toward federal officers itself undermines public safety and forces immigration officers to fear for their safety when they are simply carrying out their lawful duties,” wrote Knudsen.

The resolution further supports the City of Helena’s policy not to consider immigration consequences in a plea agreement with a defendant.

The commission also supports the City of Helena not disclosing any sensitive information about any person – including immigration status, sexual orientation, or social security number – except as required by law.

“This is a restriction that directly conflicts with Montana’s prohibition on sanctuary jurisdictions, specifically ‘sending to, receiving from, exchanging with, or maintaining for a federal, state, or local government entity information regarding a person’s citizenship or immigration status for a lawful purpose,’” the attorney general wrote.

If a government is found to be violating Montana’s law banning “sanctuary cities”, the state could fine them $10,000 every five days, prevent them from receiving new grants from the state, and have their projects with the state re-prioritized. A government in violation can avoid penalties by becoming compliant with the law within 14 days of being notified of the violation.

Read the full letter from the Montana Attorney General to the City of Helena:

Source link

Montana

Dispatches from the Wild: Montana’s wild inheritance at risk | Explore Big Sky

Published

1 day ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

Dispatches from the Wild: Montana’s wild inheritance at risk | Explore Big Sky

Steve Pearce and the future of the BLM

By Benjamin Alva Polley EBS COLUMNIST

If you care about hunting elk in crisp October air, floating a clear-running river for cutthroat trout, or simply taking your kids camping beneath a sky unspoiled by drill rigs, you should be outraged that Steve Pearce was ever considered to run the Bureau of Land Management.

The BLM is the largest landlord in the West. It oversees nearly 245 million acres of public land—millions of those acres in and around Montana’s most cherished places. This land is the backbone of our elk and mule deer herds, our sage grouse leks, our pronghorn migration routes and our blue-ribbon trout streams. It’s also the stage on which Montana’s hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation economy plays out.

Putting someone with Steve Pearce’s environmental record in charge of that land is like handing your cabin keys to the arsonist who’s always hated it. In the four months since Pearce was first nominated, it emerged that, if confirmed, he and his wife would divest from more than 1,000 oil and gas leases in Oklahoma to address potential conflicts of interest. While some senators strongly support his “active forest management” approach, he still faces opposition from groups alarmed by his record on public land transfers. On March 4, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 11-9 to advance his nomination, despite concerns from conservation groups.

Pearce’s track record is no mystery. He has consistently sided with extractive industries at the expense of wildlife, habitat and public access. He has supported opening more public lands to oil and gas drilling, weakening bedrock environmental safeguards and undermining science-based management. His votes and public statements have signaled again and again that he sees wild country as an obstacle to be overcome, not a legacy to be stewarded.

For Montana, that posture is an existential threat. Our big-game herds rely on intact winter range and unfragmented migration corridors across BLM lands. Aggressive drilling, poorly planned roads and relaxed reclamation standards shred those habitats. Once you carve up a landscape with pads, pipelines and traffic, you don’t get solitude—or mature bull elk—back with the stroke of a pen.

Anglers should be just as alarmed. Headwater streams and riparian corridors on BLM ground are the life support system for native bull trout, cutthroat and wild trout. A BLM director hostile to environmental safeguards is far more likely to greenlight development that increases sediment, degrades water quality and depletes the cold, clean flows our rivers depend on.

If Pearce takes office, outdoor recreation—and the rural economies built around it—will not be spared. In Montana, hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation pump billions of dollars into local businesses, guiding operations, gear shops and main-street cafes. People travel here precisely because of the open space, healthy herds and functioning ecosystems that BLM lands help sustain. When those landscapes are sacrificed to short-term profit, we don’t just lose scenery; we lose jobs, identity and a way of life.

This is not a partisan issue, especially in Montana. Public lands are one of the few things we truly share: ranchers who graze allotments, tribal communities with cultural ties to these places, hunters and anglers who’ve long defended habitat, and families who just want a place to pitch a tent. A BLM director should be a careful, science-driven steward accountable to all Americans—not a politician with a history of dismissing environmental protections as red tape.

Montanans know what’s at stake. We’ve fought bad ideas before—land transfers, giveaway leases, rollbacks to bedrock conservation laws—and we’ve won when we stood together. Steve Pearce’s nomination should have been dead on arrival. The fact that he was even on the list tells us how vigilant we must remain.

Our outrage must translate into action: calling elected officials, packing public hearings, writing letters and voting as if our public lands are on the line. Truly, they are. The BLM needs a director who sees these landscapes the way Montanans do: as sacred ground, not a balance sheet.

Anything less is a betrayal of the wild inheritance we’re supposed to pass on.

Benjamin Alva Polley is a place-based storyteller. His words have been published in Rolling Stone, Esquire, Field & Stream, The Guardian, Men’s Journal, Outside, Popular Science, Sierra, and WWF, among other notable outlets, and are available on his website.