Caribou Gear Tarp

more info about the land grab

howler

Active member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
200
Location
Glasgow, Mt.
here is some info I recieved today mostly about the state land issue..

OK... here is what I found out today:


Visited with Mary Sexton, Director of the DNRC which oversees all state land. The exchange of state land for BLM land is 20,000 acres - acres that are scattered throughout the reservation. She wasn't sure, but thought most of the spots did not have access for hunters (no road to them). They would be exchanged for BLM land that is adjacent to the reservation on the lower west side. This BLM land would become state land and be treated like any other state land. The state gets very little money off the state land presently in the reservation. They would exchange 20,000 acres for 20,000 acres.


I think one of the issues surrounding this is that ranchers who are leasing grazing on the BLM land that will become state land will have to pay more per AUM because they only pay $1.50/AUM on BLM but will have to pay $10/AUM on state land.


I then went and met with Bill Lombardi who is Tester's state manager. Here is what I learned from him:


This land exchange is a part of the water compact that is being negotiated with the Ft. Belknap Tribe. It is one of the last tribal water compacts to be negotiated.


Part of the issue is Phillips County will lose PILT (Payment in lieu of taxes) money fro the Fed. gov. when that BLM land goes to the state and the other 40,000 acres to the tribes. Not sure how much money that will be but plan to find out. The state pays VERY LITTLE for it's state land in each county. There are no longer PILT payments from the state. It is all included in a one-lump payment that the state sends each county... and it is minuscule!


The rest of the issue is that this BLM land that will become a part of the reservation has the Grinnell Knotch in it.


The Grinnell Notch is a very important peice of the equation and sportsmen can not afford to lose this land.. Its over 15K acreas in size
 
PILT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, is a federal program designed to "make whole" a counties tax base based on the acreage of federal lands within their boundaries. The concept is that if the land were private, the property taxes would fill the county coffers. A land swap where a county loses federal lands, but gains state (DNRC) lands means the county budget would suffer. IIRC.

http://www.doi.gov/pilt/
 
Last edited:
I have contacted Tester's office a couple of times and did so again today. What is going to keep this form of "payment" from being used to settle other "debts" our country has incurred? That is not a tinfoil hat and conspiracy theory question either.

You can argue that this is a unique case and blah, blah, blah but think about future dealings with tribes and other entities, especially during a time of budget cuts and belt tightening or economic hardship. Giving land in return for erasing a debt is like getting foreclosed on. You get kicked out of the house, never to own it again.

If democrats can come up with using public lands to fund settlements do you all trust republicans in the future to shy away from such types of arrangements? It is a bad way to make up for a past error IMO.



Nemont
 
Last edited:
I have contacted Tester's office a couple of times and did so again today. What is going to keep this form of "payment" from being used to settle other "debts" our country has incurred? That is not a tinfoil hat and conspiracy theory question either.

You can argue that this is a unique case and blah, blah, blah but think about future dealings with tribes and other entities, especially during a time of budget cuts and belt tightening or economic hardship. Giving land in return for erasing a debt like getting foreclosed on. You get kicked out of the house, never to own it again.

If democrats can come up with using public lands to fund settlements do you all trust republicans in the future to shy away from such types of arrangements? It is a bad way to make up for a past error IMO.



Nemont

Nemont, not defending the swap, but: it's been done for a long time. Doesn't make it right, just common.
 
Nemont, not defending the swap, but: it's been done for a long time. Doesn't make it right, just common.

How common is on this scale? I understand that lands are swapped and sometimes they result in additional access to the public.

How often are public lands used to pay off a debt incurred or settled to by our government?

Nemont
 
My understanding is that it's a common practice for water compacts/settlement issues with tribes. Could be wrong.

As was pointed out earlier, this is the last MT water compact to be settled, and I've not worked on, or been involved with others, so I'm not sure of the specifics of how often it's been used. Hopefully the Senator's staff gets us that information soon.
 
My understanding is that it's a common practice for water compacts/settlement issues with tribes. Could be wrong.

As was pointed out earlier, this is the last MT water compact to be settled, and I've not worked on, or been involved with others, so I'm not sure of the specifics of how often it's been used. Hopefully the Senator's staff gets us that information soon.


There is the problem, it has become way to common and then accepted to trade way public land.
 
So even if he was doing what was RIGHT before, now we should cut him slack?

If this is what it appears to be, he might lose his nuts in the process. :eek:

I'm not saying cut him some slack on the issue, just don't treat him like an SFW board member.
 
I am wondering how the tribe can be guaranteed this water when the siphons and diversion dam out of the Saint Mary's are close to failure. In addtion there is only water in the Milk during the summer to do that diversion out of the St. Mary's and into the Milk River. What happens to senior water right holders down stream when that water is guaranteed to the tribe, especially since nearly all those rights have already been adjudicated? The proposed bill promises 20,000 acre feet of water that is in lake Elwell but that water is almost assuredly already over allocated.

The Crow tribe didn't get extra land, instead they got cash to build a water system and guaranteed water.
http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/crow-tribe-to-vote-on-water-compact

Doesn't appear the Blackfeet got more land
http://www.blackfeetwaterrights.com/index.php?id=6&docid=1

Rocky Boys didn't get much except the water right and agreement to participate in future developments
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/85/20/85-20-601.htm

It is interesting that the Blackfeet and the Rocky Boys get water also from Lake Elwell

Fort Peck Tribes didn't get public lands but they did get enough water to irrigate some massive acres or develop other uses for that water.
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/85/20/85-20-201.htm


I am not very bright but I am unable to find another case where this many acres of public lands was used in a settlement of tribal water compacts, at least in Montana.

Nemont
 
Last edited:
I did think that the Crow got some land. Other tribes in other states have done this as well, as I understand it.

Again, I could be totally wrong on this.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
111,221
Messages
1,951,499
Members
35,081
Latest member
Brutus56
Back
Top