Family-owned Decker Truck Line Inc. of Fort Dodge, Iowa, confirmed that it has permanently closed its terminal in Missoula, Montana, citing findings from a thorough review of its operations and freight network as the main reason for the closure.

“This decision was not made lightly, but it is necessary due to the changing freight network patterns and the associated costs of operating a full terminal that is not being utilized sufficiently,” CEO Dale Decker said in a statement Tuesday about the closure. 

As many as 18 positions were eliminated at the Missoula terminal, according to NBC Montana.

Decker said a small group of drivers was also affected by the closure but added that the company will continue to utilize truck drivers in Montana to haul freight.

Montanans are witnessing an inexplicably vicious attack on the ruling by the state’s Supreme Court that the plain language of the constitution guarantees “a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”  

What we haven’t heard is why a dirty and unhealthful environment is good for anybody — or the future of our state. 

Truly, why would anyone think they or their kids or grandkids would be better off with a degraded and toxic environment?  Yet, the court’s decision has sparked a misguided rebellion against the environmental laws that protect all Montanans — and an attack on the judiciary as if it’s some kind of enemy of the people.  

But it seems pretty clear that enemies of the people don’t rule to protect the people.  And ensuring that the laws passed by the Legislature comply with the Montana Constitution is the primary job of the Montana Supreme Court.  It’s the foundational checks-and-balances upon which our system of government relies to ensure the executive and legislative branches stay within constitutional mandates to preserve the rights of the people.

Making war on the environment is a dead-end street — which we’re increasingly finding out as the tragedies driven by atmospheric pollution stack up along with the hundreds of billions of dollars to deal with the aftermath. So, where’s the wisdom in deciding to protect polluters at the cost to the rest of the populace?

How about this little truth: Pollution does not discriminate between Republicans and Democrats, nor Independents, Libertarians, or any other organizational clusters regardless of what they call themselves.  Nor does polluted air or water recognize any boundaries — we all need clean air and water, which is not only a shared resource, but a shared responsibility to provide those vital necessities to nourish, not poison, our people. 

The fact is, we have many good environmental and conservation laws on the books that serve all our people well. There’s simply no good reason why one political party or another should be against those laws, none at all.  

Perhaps one of the greatest mistakes of the “environmental movement” was attaching itself at the hip with the Democratic Party.  Yet, in Montana’s history, it has often been Democrat governors who have been responsible for some of the worst environmental decisions. 

In the mid-1980s, Democrat Gov. Ted Schwinden cut the coal severance tax in half to supposedly make Montana competitive with Wyoming.  He succeeded in losing hundreds of millions of dollars for the Coal Tax Trust Fund, but it didn’t save the coal industry because distance to market was the deciding factor. 

Democrat Gov. Brian Schweitzer morphed into the “Coal Cowboy” within one year of taking office.  His mission?  Save the coal industry by peddling economically ridiculous proposals for coal-to-liquids when fracking was producing record amounts of cheap oil and gas. 

Democrat Gov. Steve Bullock allowed radioactive waste from the Bakken fracking operations to be disposed of in Montana’s landfills — because it’s illegal to do so in North Dakota.

Of course Republicans have their own rogue’s list of bad decisions and policies — but there’s not room in one column to cover all those.  

There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever why a clean environment should be partisan.  The great attractions of Montana are our clean rivers, our blue skies, and an abundance of fish and wildlife that are the envy of the nation and world.  The Constitution plainly states: “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana” — and that’s a legacy worth upholding. 

By Emma White | UM Legislative News Service

The Montana House of Representatives is working under a new set of rules after voting Jan. 14 along party lines to approve an amended resolution that spurred an emotional debate from both parties. 

House Majority Leader Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls, sponsored House Resolution 1, which sets the rules for the House in 2025. But at issue was an amendment to the bill that lays out decorum – or rules of conduct – as well as what discipline members might face if they break those rules. 

“A lot of people have expressed interest in having a decorum amendment which would establish kind of policies and procedures. I guess this is kind of like a human resources, step-by-step progression on what will happen if we have breaches of decorum,” Fitzpatrick said.

Fitzpatrick said the amendment was an attempt to provide a more narrow definition of decorum for the representatives, but Democrats expressed worries that the amendment would be used punitively.

Under the amendment, a representative would get one strike, then face a three day censorship, then expulsion.

But Rep. Jonathan Karlan, D-Missoula, pointed out a clause farther down in the bill that allows the representative to be censured or expelled on the first offense, if there is a majority vote. 

“I think that of course we are well aware that we’re not in the majority, and we’d be relying on the majority to just uphold our rights because with not even a party-line vote, we could expel somebody and there’s no limit on that,” Karlan said.

Fitzpatrick replied that the bill simply seeks to clarify the behaviors that are considered unacceptable in the chamber, such as personal attacks against character and using profane language, to clear up some of the ambiguity that can arise during controversial debate.

“We’re not interested in being the word police. We’re going to have good, vigorous debate in this room, but we can do it professionally, we can do it in the type of discussion that honors the people of Montana, so this I think is an appropriate amendment,” Fitzpatrick said.

The amendment to the rules comes after a contentious debate and a public protest during the 2023 session that led Republican leadership to censure Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula. 

On the House floor Jan. 14, Zephyr pointed out that decorum standards were lowered from a super majority vote to a majority vote, which she said raises concerns about how the bill could be used.

“There is a risk we run when we lower to a simple majority, that the majority can deem at any time that if they think a certain stance is offensive, that they can silence dissent,” Zephyr said. “And to me that is inherently un-Democratic.”

Emma White is a reporter with the UM Legislative News Service, a partnership of the University of Montana School of Journalism, the Montana Broadcasters Association and the Greater Montana Foundation. White can be reached at emma.white@umconnect.umt.edu