Montana House Bill 676 - This could sell off 1.25M acres of State Trust Lands - that's almost 25%!!! This is not the Homesteading Bill

[Nameless Range]

I hope the recent corner crossing ruling out of Wyoming gives folks another angle from which to look at this one. From my conservative friends to my more liberal ones, overwhelmingly it is the opinion of Montana‘s that corner crossing should be a legitimate way to access otherwise in accessible public/state lands.

It’s possible that many of the lands that might be sold under this bill might also give access to different landownerships at their corners beyond.

 

[Hot tent]

please show me the place in the bill that discusses sale of school sections, im debating this bill and my opponents are pushing me,

 

[Oak]

please show me the place in the bill that discusses sale of school sections, im debating this bill and my opponents are pushing me,

NEW SECTION. Section 11. Sale of isolated parcels -- water rights. Pursuant to 77-1-202, 77-1-301, 77-2-301, or 77-2-308, and at the request of a lessee, the board shall sell an isolated parcel with an appurtenant water right to the lessee.

 

[Southern Elk]

HB 676 has been assigned to Senate Judiciary. Bills are being scheduled pretty fast. It could be up this week at the earliest.

Start sending texts and calls to the committee members. Be polite and courteous, but ask them to please vote no on HB 676.

Committee Explorer

Explore, track, and stay informed on committee activity in Montana with the Montana Legislature Committee Explorer application. Access detailed information, monitor committee progress, and engage with the legislative process easily from your desktop or mobile device.

committees.legmt.gov

I just texted everyone on the committee using Ben’s link above. Everyone please do the same.

 

[Southern Elk]

please show me the place in the bill that discusses sale of school sections, im debating this bill and my opponents are pushing me,

State land and school sections are one and the same. This bill aims to sell state land.

 

[Hot tent]

thank you.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Any update on what happened with this on Friday?

 

[RandanP]

Any update on what happened with this on Friday?

Didn’t have the opportunity to listen straight thru. Only three proponents. I wasn’t familiar with any of the groups names. Diverse group of opponents including LtGov Juras on behalf of the governor in his position as a land commissioner but not on behalf of the commission. Awkward moment when Usher coarsely told Juras to ‘wrap it up’.

Ler is very much in favor of selling state lands. I believe he may have proffered the idea of selling state lands to reduce property taxes. Senator Ricci indicated no interest in selling lands. It’s a hearing worth listening too.

 

[mtnkid85]

Any update on what happened with this on Friday?

We had a good hearing.

Sponsor made some bold remarks, during his opening remarks, the sponsor stated he wants proceeds from the forced land sales to go towards property tax relief, not the schools, and not land banking. Not sure this is constitutional.
Then his closing remarks went something like,
“Sale of isolated parcels” Isolated pieces serve no purpose to the public because they are landlocked by private land owners. If we where to sell these parcels of state land that serve no purpose to the public of the state, it would benefit the state… you could keep the money in a trust to fund the state school system with the sale of these public lands.”

Proponents included:
- Senior Ag Water Rights Alliance (twice)
- Rocky Mountain Stockgrowers Association
- one landowner

Opponents included:
- Lt. Gov on behalf of the Gov. (Juras did a really good job opposing both the dissolution of the water court, and the argument about water rights belonging to landowners and not the state on state lands; Juras did not mention the forced sale of isolated parcels).
- Senior Water Rights Coalition (mostly argued about the dissolution of the water court)
- Coalition of Advocates for Montana Public Schools (opposed the sale of state lands b/c the sustainable funding of leased lands over time would be lost; this opposition came even while assuming state land sales would be benefiting the schools, though the bill sponsor made it clear he didn't want that to happen with the revenue from these forced sales)
- Montana Stockgrowers
- Montana Trout Unlimited (me too from Stockgrowers)
- Montana Water Resources Association
- Montana Farm Bureau
- Montana Grain Growers Association
- Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
- Montana Conservation Society (met too from RMEF)
- Anaconda Sportsmen Club
- PERC
- Montana BHA
- PLWA
- Clark Fork Coalition
- MSA
- MWF
- Advocates for School Trusts Lands
- Several unaffiliated individuals from across the state

 

[cgasner1]

We had a good hearing.

Sponsor made some bold remarks, during his opening remarks, the sponsor stated he wants proceeds from the forced land sales to go towards property tax relief, not the schools, and not land banking. Not sure this is constitutional.
Then his closing remarks went something like,
“Sale of isolated parcels” Isolated pieces serve no purpose to the public because they are landlocked by private land owners. If we where to sell these parcels of state land that serve no purpose to the public of the state, it would benefit the state… you could keep the money in a trust to fund the state school system with the sale of these public lands.”

Proponents included:
- Senior Ag Water Rights Alliance (twice)
- Rocky Mountain Stockgrowers Association
- one landowner

Opponents included:
- Lt. Gov on behalf of the Gov. (Juras did a really good job opposing both the dissolution of the water court, and the argument about water rights belonging to landowners and not the state on state lands; Juras did not mention the forced sale of isolated parcels).
- Senior Water Rights Coalition (mostly argued about the dissolution of the water court)
- Coalition of Advocates for Montana Public Schools (opposed the sale of state lands b/c the sustainable funding of leased lands over time would be lost; this opposition came even while assuming state land sales would be benefiting the schools, though the bill sponsor made it clear he didn't want that to happen with the revenue from these forced sales)
- Montana Stockgrowers
- Montana Trout Unlimited (me too from Stockgrowers)
- Montana Water Resources Association
- Montana Farm Bureau
- Montana Grain Growers Association
- Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
- Montana Conservation Society (met too from RMEF)
- Anaconda Sportsmen Club
- PERC
- Montana BHA
- PLWA
- Clark Fork Coalition
- MSA
- MWF
- Advocates for School Trusts Lands
- Several unaffiliated individuals from across the state

Do they have a list of land available? Curious how much “isolated” land would no longer be isolated with a corner cross

 

[Carnage2011]

We had a good hearing.

Sponsor made some bold remarks, during his opening remarks, the sponsor stated he wants proceeds from the forced land sales to go towards property tax relief, not the schools, and not land banking. Not sure this is constitutional.
Then his closing remarks went something like,
“Sale of isolated parcels” Isolated pieces serve no purpose to the public because they are landlocked by private land owners. If we where to sell these parcels of state land that serve no purpose to the public of the state, it would benefit the state… you could keep the money in a trust to fund the state school system with the sale of these public lands.”

Proponents included:
- Senior Ag Water Rights Alliance (twice)
- Rocky Mountain Stockgrowers Association
- one landowner

Opponents included:
- Lt. Gov on behalf of the Gov. (Juras did a really good job opposing both the dissolution of the water court, and the argument about water rights belonging to landowners and not the state on state lands; Juras did not mention the forced sale of isolated parcels).
- Senior Water Rights Coalition (mostly argued about the dissolution of the water court)
- Coalition of Advocates for Montana Public Schools (opposed the sale of state lands b/c the sustainable funding of leased lands over time would be lost; this opposition came even while assuming state land sales would be benefiting the schools, though the bill sponsor made it clear he didn't want that to happen with the revenue from these forced sales)
- Montana Stockgrowers
- Montana Trout Unlimited (me too from Stockgrowers)
- Montana Water Resources Association
- Montana Farm Bureau
- Montana Grain Growers Association
- Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
- Montana Conservation Society (met too from RMEF)
- Anaconda Sportsmen Club
- PERC
- Montana BHA
- PLWA
- Clark Fork Coalition
- MSA
- MWF
- Advocates for School Trusts Lands
- Several unaffiliated individuals from across the state

With Juras opposing this for the governor, is there any chance he would veto it?

 

[DP_PublicLands]

Solid showing of opposition yesterday

 

[Meteetse Trail]

Chairman made reference to "amendments" to the bill, but no specifics. Apparently discussed in executive session later. Keep watching. Best hope is they just table the thing and let it peacefully go away.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

Sponsor made some bold remarks, during his opening remarks, the sponsor stated he wants proceeds from the forced land sales to go towards property tax relief, not the schools, and not land banking. Not sure this is constitutional.
Then his closing remarks went something like,
“Sale of isolated parcels” Isolated pieces serve no purpose to the public because they are landlocked by private land owners. If we where to sell these parcels of state land that serve no purpose to the public of the state, it would benefit the state… you could keep the money in a trust to fund the state school system with the sale of these public lands.”

After this session I’m not sure how Ler ever became Speaker. He treats everyone that doesn’t believe exactly like him like they’re the dumbest people on the planet. He doesn’t speak well or articulate clearly and has an extremely narrow world-view, which is expected for someone who’s never experienced anything outside Savage, MT. That neck beard though.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

After this session I’m not sure how Ler ever became Speaker. He treats everyone that doesn’t believe exactly like him like they’re the dumbest people on the planet. He doesn’t speak well or articulate clearly and has an extremely narrow world-view, which is expected for someone who’s never experienced anything outside Savage, MT. That neck beard though.

The neck beard is what you might call dare I say "savage"

 

[Meteetse Trail]

Good story on Montana Free Press today, online. Bill apparently still in committee with no action. Still doesn't hurt to send a note to your senator to make sure it doesn't see the light of day.

 

[DP_PublicLands]

HB 676 Update - They just uploaded an amendment to the bill.

Link here:
https://docs.legmt.gov/download-ticket?ticketId=dfc16a4f-82fb-48d3-b328-046fa2729baf

Guess what - there isn't one word about selling public lands in this amendment!!!!

 

[Meteetse Trail]

Glad to see this. Bill is still flawed in that it gives a lessee permanent ownership of water rights on state land. That means if he surrenders the lease at some point, he can sell water rights to the next guy for big bucks. Should be simple. If a guy drills a well or makes a stock pond on state land, the water rights should remain in state ownership. Maybe the whole thing will just die. Hope so.

 

[Nameless Range]

This is a totally different bill now.

Whether in the end I agree or disagree with what it’s changed to, the change is both a good one, and another piece of evidence that so much of our legislative branch is a rigoddamndiculous pile of ideas, tactics, and politicians.

 

[Meteetse Trail]

Amended bill has passed the committee. I contacted my senator and asked him to vote against it when it hits the floor. No reason to give lessees any permanent ownership of water from state land.