The Montana Legislature this week heard testimony on two high-profile bills seeking to assert lawmakers’ views on hot-button federal land management issues. On Monday, dozens of Montanas spoke in opposition to a proposal to back Utah’s attempt to assume control of 18.5 million acres of federal lands. On Tuesday, a resolution on another prominent federal land management issue — the fate of Montana’s wilderness study areas and inventoried roadless areas — drew scores of comments.During a hearing on House Joint Resolution 24, bill sponsor and freshman lawmaker Rep. Tom Millett of Marion outlined Utah’s attempt to assume control of federal land and urged his colleagues to support his reading of the matter: that “Western states are deprived basic and fundamental sovereign powers over their territory” given that the “perpetual federal retention of unappropriated public lands [is] unconstitutional.” Although Millett, a Republican, insisted that the resolution does “absolutely nothing” to the ownership of federal lands inside Montana’s borders, he referenced Montana’s 8 million acres of unappropriated federal lands and highlighted the $55 million of royalty payments they generate for federal coffers annually during his 24-minute bill introduction. “Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to hold vast unreserved swaths of unreserved territory in perpetuity over the states’ express objection,” he argued. “The U.S. generates significant revenue from these unappropriated lands — millions of dollars annually that would go toward our counties and schools. But instead, we get but a pittance, leftover crumbs from what should be our lands.”No proponents spoke in favor of HJ 24 on Monday. Nearly 50 people registered their opposition to the resolution. Committee Chair Rep. Gary Parry, R-Colstrip, gave each opponent one minute to testify and frequently admonished opponents to “stick to the bill.”Some opponents refuted Millett’s interpretation of the Constitution, others argued they appreciate federal land management and prefer it over state management, and others described the resolution as setting a “terrifying precedent” that bucks Montana values.Several opponents pointed out that there is no active lawsuit to support right now, though the resolution title references support of one. The Supreme Court in January declined to take up the matter before a lower court has weighed in, and Utah has not yet filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. Millet said his sources in Utah have indicated a filing is in the works.The issue of government budgets also surfaced in opponent testimony.“Each year $4.7 billion dollars come into the state [from the federal government],” Kali Wicks with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition said. “If we were to follow Utah down this road and we were to somehow take control of our federal lands, we don’t actually have the revenue or the resources to support them, which would lead to them being sold to the highest bidder.”Nick Gevock, speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club, described Utah’s lawsuit as a “harebrained legal theory that has no real merit” and argued HJ 24 is similarly “full of factual errors.”“Nobody wants this, as evidenced by no proponents today,” he said. “This is a sell-off.”Committee members engaged in limited discussion on HJ 24. The House Energy, Technology and Federal Relations Committee did not take immediate action on the resolution.On Tuesday, the Senate’s counterpart to the House energy committee heard testimony on another land management proposal sponsored by another freshman Republican. Sen. Tony Tezak, R-Ennis, is petitioning Congress to release dozens of wilderness study areas in Montana, following in the footsteps of lawmakers who’ve introduced similar resolutions in the past decade. Senate Joint Resolution 14 enumerates Montana’s dozens of wilderness study areas, large and small, administered by the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM, that have become “defacto wilderness.” Congress’ lack of action on their fate has impeded their use by “multiple-use interests” and hurt “Montana communities and Montanan families economically supported by those activities,” according to the resolution.Tezak is joined by 17 other Republican lawmakers in sponsoring the bill. He argued that without more management, WSAs near his community will turn into wildfire “infernos.”“We have got to get these areas managed,” he said. “Right now, you put them into a wilderness study area — there’s no management at all.”Proponents for the measure included Citizens for Balanced Use, the Prairie County Commission, the Montana Association of Counties and the Montana Stockgrowers Association.E.J. Redding with Citizens for Balanced Use pointed out that the Forest Service in a memo to U.S. Sen. Steve Daines called for the release of several WSA it administers and the partial release of a couple of others. Other proponents, including Big Hole Valley rancher Frances Strodtman-Royer, argued that the fate of these WSAs should have been decided decades ago. If the West Pioneer WSA in her vicinity was released and multiple-use management reentered the equation, “the federal lands would continue to be managed properly,” she told committee members.Centennial Valley resident Mel Montgomery argued there is already plenty of wilderness in the state and there is a “vast menu of options” available to land managers to tailor a management approach to specific landscapes, such as “primitive” designations that preclude motorized use.“We need to release these WSAs because it’s a limbo situation,” he said. “We can’t afford to lock up land that could be used for other purposes.”Dozens of opponents testified on the measure, including representatives from Wild Montana, the Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Trout Unlimited, Montana Conservation Elders, Helena Hunters and Anglers Association, Montana Audubon, the Montana Conservation Voters Education Fund, Back Country Horsemen of Montana, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, North Fork Preservation Association and the Sierra Club.Noah Marion with Wild Montana described SJ 14 as “the largest-ever rollback of federal land protections in Montana” that affects some 7 million acres of wilderness study areas and inventoried roadless areas.“We’ve seen resolutions like this, I believe, the past five sessions I’ve been here and they’ve done nothing to move” Washington, D.C., he said, arguing that “collaborative, place-based solutions” are more appropriate.Kearstyn Cook, speaking for the Montana Conservation Voters Fund, described a release without a firm management plan in place as “reckless.”“Also the bill seems to focus on the forest asset that we are not extracting and making money off of, but with rising tourism and public land use in Montana, some of our WSAs are already a vital contributor to our state’s economy. In 2023, outdoor recreation contributed the third-highest percentage to the state GDP in the country.”The Senate energy committee did not take immediate action on SJ 14.HJ 24 and SJ 14 come as federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Interior have announced “historic actions” to give industry groups like oil and gas companies, coal mines and logging companies greater access to natural resources on federal lands. The resolutions also come as politicians and policy insiders weigh in on the prospect of a transfer of federal lands to state management or ownership.On Feb. 27, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte told Montana Free Press that he would like to see state management of federal lands because Montana agencies manage land better than their federal counterparts.Pressed on whether he would like to see the state assume ownership of those lands, Gianforte hedged.“We’ve had no discussion with the administration about deed transfer to the state,” he said. “Our focus has been expanded management responsibility, particularly of lands in the wildland-urban interface.”In order to continue making their way through the legislative process, HJ 24 and SJ 14 must advance to the opposing chamber by April 23.The post Bill to support Utah in ‘landmark public land lawsuit’ receives hearing appeared first on Montana Free Press. ...read more read less