The state Land Board passed a resolution March 18 restricting natural resource development along the North Fork of the Flathead as part of an agreement between Gov. Brian Schweitzer and British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell signed one month earlier.
The resolution itself was uncontroversial, dictating that the state will not grant surface occupancy on mineral, oil and gas leases, nor allow gravel pits larger than 4.94 acres in size on the 17,000 acres of state School Trust Land within the North Fork of the Flathead River Basin.
“We got ‘er done on 17,000 acres of state land on the North Fork,” Schweitzer said in an interview following the vote. “It means that we’re going to protect the North Fork and the Flathead and Glacier National Park for generations to come.”
No gravel pits or mineral leases exist on the state land in question, making the resolution vote an easy one for the five-member, all-Democrat Land Board. But given the prominence of another item on the agenda that day, one board member, State Auditor Monica Lindeen, was prompted to oppose the North Fork resolution.
Earlier in the meeting, after a 45-minute delay caused by protestors, the board voted 3-2 to lease 570 million tons of state-owned coal in southeastern Montana’s Otter Creek Valley for $85.8 million. This controversial decision caused Lindeen and several others present at the meeting to question why Montana policy appears to prioritize environmental protection in one part of the state while allowing for fossil fuel development in another. As the board prepared to vote on Otter Creek, Lindeen noted that voting in favor of developing the coal there would force her to vote against restricting such development in the North Fork in the interest of consistency.
“Folks in southeastern Montana and eastern Montana in general give so much to the entire state of Montana, and I think that sometimes people don’t realize it. We have great riches in our natural resources. We may not have a lot of people, but those folks give a lot, not only in their majority support for the production of those natural resources, not only for their benefit but for the benefit of this entire state,” Lindeen said. “And I think that as a result of the fact that, unfortunately, sometimes people forget how much that side of the state does give.”
Lindeen’s comments illustrate a tension, common to those familiar with the Legislature, that political issues in Helena often pit the needs of Western Montana against Eastern Montana in ways sometimes more divisive than differences between Republicans and Democrats. This friction is most glaring when it comes to mining and drilling, particularly when Western Montana lawmakers are calling for natural resource development in districts hundreds of miles east to fund state coffers.
“There’s been this impression that has developed over the years that somehow or another, Western Montana doesn’t care as much for Eastern Montana. And whether that’s true or not, I don’t believe it is, there’s definitely a feeling that some folks have,” Lindeen said. “While I have great respect for the governor and the state and Canada and everyone who have put together this agreement with the North Fork, I also agree that there are times when it really does appear as though we are definitely willing to extract from the eastern side of the state and not the western side.”
“And so I want to represent everyone in this state and I try my best,” she added. “It’s not always an easy job to do but I will be voting no on the resolution, because I think that it’s only fair that everyone in this state has to fight and fight hard to have a decision made whether or not natural resources will be developed.”
Lindeen, at a meeting of insurance commissioners in Denver last week, was unavailable for comment. But several representatives of environmental groups, present to oppose leasing Otter Creek, echoed her sentiments even as they urged protection for the North Fork.
“This is a double standard,” Beth Kaeding of the Northern Plains Resource Council, said. “Why should the Flathead be protected from development of mining, oil and gas and coal projects, when all of those types of projects are so actively promoted in southeastern Montana? Why does southeastern Montana have to be the sacrificial lamb of the state?”
Clint McRae, a Colstrip-area rancher, railed against wastewater seepage from coal mine storage ponds near his home and pleaded with state officials not to trade any mineral leases along the North Fork for leases in Eastern Montana during future negotiations.
“Eastern Montana deserves the same protection as the Flathead deserves,” McRae said. “Anything less is favoritism at best and corruption at worst.”
Schweitzer defended the resolution, pointing out that the North Fork and Flathead watershed are largely pristine, and said his negotiations with a foreign government were easier than the dispute with Wyoming over pollution of the Tongue River from coal-bed methane drilling across state lines flowing downstream.
“Wyoming hasn’t been cooperative like British Columbia,” Schweitzer said. “Wyoming hasn’t said that they would like to protect their side of the border so we can protect our side of the border.”
Schweitzer added that the revenues from Otter Creek would help ease Montana’s strained budget. But in the end, Lindeen was unconvinced. During the roll call vote on the resolution, her response was, “Sadly, no.”