The Montana Land Board recently adopted the first major revision to the state’s land-exchange policy in roughly 20 years.
The previous two times Montana substantially revised this policy, the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation led the process and gave Montanans 30 days to review the proposed changes and comment.
This time, neither happened.
Rather, the proposal from State Auditor James Brown, one of the five statewide elected officials who make up the Land Board, was made available to the public less than a week before the vote. DNRC issued no public notice, conducted no public scoping and provided no meaningful opportunity for hunters, anglers, or Montanans to understand what was changing – or what those changes could cost us.
At the meeting, stakeholders requested a 30-day extension. Gov. Greg Gianforte moved to grant the extension, confirming that the request was neither unusual nor unreasonable. His motion failed, and the Land Board adopted the policy anyway, with the governor abstaining.
The Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana Sportsmen Alliance and Public Land Water Access Association later filed suit, arguing that the Land Board adopted a policy without adequate public notice, meaningful public participation or compliance with Montana law.
Our lawsuit centers on that failure of process. But the policy changes – who controls the narrative in a land exchange, how independently a proposal is evaluated and who defends the public’s interest – also matter.
Land exchanges can be a useful tool. Trading isolated state parcels for land with better access could help consolidate ownership, improve management and address the more than 3.1 million acres of inaccessible public land. Done well, exchanges can open new places to hunt, fish and recreate while continuing to generate revenue for our public schools.
But the public must receive a fair trade.
Under the previous policy, DNRC was the first line of defense for Montanans’ interests. If the department determined that a proposal was not in the state’s best interest, DNRC would simply deny it.
Now, DNRC cannot stop an exchange from moving forward. The authority to trade away state lands rests entirely with the Land Board, meaning consultants and lobbyists have to convince only three people. That creates more opportunity for political interference in decisions involving public assets.
Applicants and their consultants will also have a larger role in developing the record used to evaluate a proposed exchange. Consultants may help prepare environmental information, obtain surveys, assist with timber estimates, organize public hearings, summarize public comments, and even select the appraiser and surveyors.
When applicants pay the people assembling much of the case, Montanans have reason to question whether the process protects the public interest. The policy also makes it harder to determine whether the state is receiving comparable value, allowing a poor exchange to be presented as a public benefit.
The policy could also threaten access to public waterways. Publicly accessible state land may provide the only practical route to a river and miles of public water. Yet the policy no longer requires an exchange involving water-accessible state land to return comparable water-accessible acreage. Once that access is traded away, it may be impossible to replace.
None of this is necessary. A landowner who considers an exchange unfair can always walk away – they’ve always held the upper hand in these negotiations. Now, they may hold the only hand.
Montanans should demand that elected officials follow the public process and reject one-sided rules governing state land transactions.
Mike Mershon is the Board Chair of the Montana Wildlife Federation. Joe Perry is part of the Leadership Group of the Montana Sportsmen Alliance. Dylan Pipinich is the President of the Public Land Water Access Association.