Resolution Backing Utah’s Lands Lawsuit Fails on Montana House Floor
Rep. Tom Millett, R-Marion, framed House Joint Resolution 24 as a statement of support “for our sister state.” But the measure, which died April 1 on a 34-66 vote, ignited a firestorm of opposition from voters who interpreted it as a precursor to a “land grab.”
By Tristan Scott
As Republican leaders in Congress reportedly consider the sale of public lands as part of a strategy to advance a budget package central to President Donald Trump’s policy agenda, a Flathead Valley lawmaker’s resolution to support Utah in its endeavor to assume control over “unappropriated” federal land within its borders failed Tuesday by a nearly 2-1 margin in Montana’s Republican-led House of Representatives.
Although the local initiative’s sponsor, Rep. Tom Millett, R-Marion, said House Joint Resolution (HJ) 24 “does nothing to our public land” in Montana and described its intent as merely “saying we support Utah in filing their lawsuit against the federal government,” opponents said its failure sends a clear message: keep public lands in public hands.
“Montanans have overwhelmingly rejected transfer time and time again,” Rep. Debo Powers, D-Whitefish, told House members during debate on Tuesday, shortly before HJ 24 failed on a 34-66 vote. “In fact 87 percent of Montana voters considered the conservation — not the transfer, but the conservation — of public land to be influential in their voting decisions. That’s why so many political candidates in Montana from every political party pledged to keep public lands in public hands. Maybe you were one of those candidates who pledged to your voters to keep public lands in public hands. Now is your opportunity to show your constituents your commitment by voting against this resolution. And believe me, the voters are watching on this one.”
At the center of HJ 24 is Utah’s faltering effort to declare it unconstitutional for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to manage 18.5 million acres of “unappropriated land” without a formal designation. On Aug. 20, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Utah’s petition to the nation’s high court challenging the constitutionality of the federal government’s “indefinite retention of millions of acres within state borders.”
The state can, however, file another lawsuit with a lower district court, and Millett’s provision seeks to declare the Montana Legislature’s support for that lawsuit, should Utah proceed.
Despite the groundswell of attention the measure received, HJ 24 failed to muster a single proponent at a hearing before the House Energy, Technology and Federal Relations Committee on March 24, when 50 people testified against it. Given the resolution’s lack of support, it surprised stakeholders when the committee on March 28 gave the measure a “do pass” and sent it to the House floor for second reading.
During Tuesday’s debate in those chambers, however, two lawmakers who supported HJ 24 in committee — Rep. Tracy Sharp, R-Polson, and Rep. Larry Brewster, R-Billings — flipped their votes, while 64 other legislators opposed it. Among northwest Montana’s contingent of lawmakers, those who supported the resolution included: Rep. Ed Byrne, R-Bigfork; Rep. Braxton Mitchell, R-Columbia Falls; Rep. Neil Duram, R-Eureka; Rep. Amy Regier, R-Kalispell; Rep. Terry Falk, R-Kalispell; and Rep. Lukas Schubert, R-Evergreen.
Attempting to clarify “a lot of misinformation” surrounding HJ 24, Millett said Utah’s lawsuit, should it materialize, targets “unappropriated” public land. That doesn’t include Utah’s five national parks, or any of the state’s national monuments, national forests, or recreation or wilderness areas, which represent about half of the federal public land in the state.
Assuming control over lands now controlled by federal agencies has emerged as a key doctrine among some ultra-conservative lawmakers in recent years as flaws in federal management practices become more pronounced in the wake of devastating wildfire seasons, diminished timber harvests and economic harm. But the efforts to transfer ownership of public land in Montana and beyond have consistently failed to overcome resistance from a majority of voters across the Mountain West, who say they don’t want their public lands sold or transferred to states — a resounding message reinforced by a decade and a half of polling.
Across Montana, state and federal agencies, land managers and timber industry officials, including the Montana Wood Products Association, are unequivocal in their opposition to land transfers, due in large part because they say it is logistically and financially unfeasible.
Still, it continues to find support in Montana’s far-right flank. Rep. Paul Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, a vocal proponent of land transfers, said opponents of HJ 24 were misguided in their refrain, which he said had grown tiresome.
“They keep using the term public lands in public hands, but what it’s really about is keeping federal lands in federal hands,” Fielder said. “I kind of like managing the lands within my property boundaries, and I think the states should manage the lands within their borders. But this bill that’s being brought, it’s not about the transfer of public lands. It’s simply answering the questions: do our enabling acts when we became a state still stand?”
But opponents characterized the resolution as a cloak-and-dagger effort to normalize the idea of privatizing and selling public lands. Conservation and land advocacy groups cheered the demise of HJ 24, framing its unpopularity a referendum against the transfer, sale and privatization of federal lands.
Noah Marion, political and state policy director for Wild Montana, said HJ 24 is “a dangerous step toward selling the fiction that Montanans support transfer.”
“HJ 24 did one thing: lay the groundwork for privatizing our public lands. Utah’s lawsuit isn’t about answering a constitutional question; it’s about opening a back door to transfer,” Marion said in a prepared statement Tuesday. “By rejecting this resolution, lawmakers have aligned themselves with Montanans and made it clear that we will never allow our public lands to be sold off to the highest bidder.”
Meanwhile, western Montana’s top congressional delegate, U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke, the Republican from Whitefish who served as Interior Secretary during Trump’s first term, spared little time in broadcasting his support of public lands following news that Republicans are open to the sale of some public lands to help pay for a sprawling budget reconciliation bill that is key to advancing the President’s policy agenda.
“There’s no doubt our federal lands could be managed much better but selling off public lands is an absolute red line and nonstarter for me,” Zinke posted on social media Wednesday. “The idea we’re going to pay off debt by selling public land ain’t happening.”
Although the discussion is still in its nascent stages, according to POLITICO’s E&E News, which first reported the story, points under consideration include the sale of some lands girding western cities and national parks to build more housing.
In addition to the opposition to land transfers Zinke expressed yesterday, in January he reintroduced a bipartisan bill, H.R. 718, that would ban the sale of most public lands. Dubbed the “Public Lands in Public Hands Act,” it bans the sale or transfer of most public lands managed by the Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest service except under specific conditions and where required under previous laws. The bill also requires Congressional approval for disposals of publicly accessible federal land tracts over 300 acres and for public land tracts over 5 acres if accessible via a public waterway.
The Montana Conservation Voters hailed the failure of HJ 24, which also stated that the federal government’s management of 30% of the land in Montana “unconstitutionally deprives Montana of its sovereignty,” as “a major victory for Montana’s public lands and the future of outdoor access.”
“We are proud of the lawmakers who stood up for our public lands and denied this misguided attempt to privatize our shared resources,” Whitney Tawney, executive director of Montana Conservation Voters, said in a prepared statement Tuesday. “Public lands are the cornerstone of what makes Montana special, and today, Montana’s lawmakers listened to the people, not special interests.”