The FACTS about Private Land in the Monument

FACT: 81,000 acres of private land were purposefully included in the boundaries of the Monument.

FACT: Landowners were never consulted about the prospect of having their lands included in a national monument and no one, including our county commissioners, state legislators, governor and congressional delegation, had any knowledge about the boundaries.

FACT: The Landowners' first preview of the boundary was when a map of the monument was published in a local newspaper the day after the monument proclamation was issued.

FACT: Virtually every landowner having private property in the monument has signed a statement calling for their land to be removed from the monument. Over 3,300 members of the public across Montana have signed the petition to Congress calling for removal of the private property.

FACT: Years after Monument designation, the BLM handed out a list of "protected objects," of which, a considerable number are on private land.

 

A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE - Problems with Private Property in the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument

The following is testimony before a U.S. House Committee on Resources. It is an excellent summary of the issue we are still facing today in this monument designation.  Please read on:

SEPTEMBER 30, 2003


Chairman Radanovich, and members of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, my name is Matt Knox and I am Chairman of the Missouri River Stewards. I am a landowner and operate part of the family ranch in the Missouri Breaks located 24 miles northeast of Winifred, Montana. I am grateful for this opportunity to give testimony before you in support of H.R. 1629.

Before I enumerate my reasons for supporting this legislation, I would like to give you a little background on this issue.

The concept for a new designation for the Missouri Breaks first surfaced in early 1999 when then Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, floated the Upper Missouri River and declared the area to be special and in need of additional protection. While we agreed with him that the area is indeed special, we felt strongly that the Wild and Scenic designation for the river, along with a myriad of Wilderness Study Areas, ACEC’s, and National Historic Trails, was ample protection for the area.

Those of us who own grazing allotments in the Breaks were already engaged with the BLM in watershed planning, which is a process to ensure range land health is being maintained and riparian standards are being met. The fact that this area remains special today is a testimony to the success of the resource management practices and the love of the land that has been in place here since early settlement days. Our opinion on the entire designation matter was that “if it ain’t broke, let’s not fix it.”

What followed, however, was a lengthy, heavily manipulated public process that was conducted through the Central Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC). Area land owners affected by the proposed designation actively participated in this public process in an effort to challenge the perceived need for additional protection for the area.

Throughout the public process, a source of constant frustration for us was the issue of boundaries. At no time were we shown a definitive map of the proposed designation. Landowners were never consulted about the prospect of having their lands included in a national monument and no one, including our county commissioners, state legislators, governor and congressional delegation, had any knowledge about the boundaries. Our first preview of the boundary was when a map of the monument was published in a local newspaper the day after the monument proclamation was issued.

Not even the RAC knew what the boundaries would be. In the RAC report to the Secretary of the Interior on December 30, 1999, it was stated that throughout the December meeting there was discussion concerning the area in question. It was not until the December 8th meeting that the RAC decided upon a tentative administrative unit. The RAC referred to this unit as the Expanded Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River and all of the RAC’s resolutions would apply to that area. It should also be noted that the RAC did not establish this administrative unit until after the public debate period had ended.

Shortly after the RAC submitted its final report to the Secretary of the Interior, it became evident that the entire public process was more form than substance. On February 17, 2000 at the University of Denver Law School, then Secretary Babbitt announced his true intentions about land designations in the West. He stated: “It would be great to get these protective issues resolved in the Congressional, legislative process. But if that’s not possible, I’m prepared to go back to the President, and not only ask, not only advise, but implore him to use his powers under the Antiquities Act and to say to him: Mr. President, if they don’t and you do, you will be vindicated by history for generations to come.”

In other words, the Secretary was committed to adding designated lands to former President Clinton’s Land Legacy Initiative by whatever means necessary. The Missouri Breaks would have to be nominated by Montana’s Congressional Delegation for some form of designation such as a National Conservation Area, as he favored, or the President would declare the area a national monument. In the end, the President did declare the monument in the Missouri Breaks.

With that historical backdrop, I would like to address the most compelling question before this subcommittee: Why should the private property be removed from the monument?

Virtually every landowner having private property in the monument has signed a statement calling for their land to be removed from the monument. Over 3,300 members of the public across Montana have signed the petition to Congress calling for removal of the private property. Our Congressional Representative, one of our U.S. Senators, the Governor of Montana, the majority of Montana’s Legislators, and County Commissioners in the four-county area of the monument support the removal of private property from the monument.

I also believe that Congress, in passing the Antiquities Act of 1906, did not intend for the President to have indiscriminate powers to include virtually unlimited amounts of private lands in national monuments. I believe the intent of Congress was clearly articulated in the Antiquities Act by the provision that states that Presidents may establish national monuments to protect historic or scientific objects that are situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States.

I think everyone understands when incidental private property in-holdings are included in a designation. But when 81,000 acres of private property are purposefully included that is a matter that demands remedy, especially when private lands are being used to form substantial parts of the perimeter boundary of a national monument.

We could not understand why the BLM went on a land-shopping spree to select private property for inclusion in the monument, so we asked them. We were told that these were lands they wanted to acquire from willing sellers and if these lands were included up front in the monument they could be reserved, upon purchase, as part of the monument by the Secretary of the Interior. That way Congress would not have to be troubled to enact legislation to include these parcels as part of the monument.

We respectfully disagree with the BLM’s rationale in this matter. The United States Constitution establishes Congress as the sole authority over public lands and I firmly believe that Congress needs to be involved in deciding whether vast tracts of private property should be targeted for purchase and included in national monuments. If Congress abdicates that responsibility, the private land decision falls solely to the President.

The message from central Montana is clear: We want the private property removed from the monument. And there are several underlying reasons for that judgment.

For example, most of the ranches in our area are a mix of federal, state and private lands. Management decisions have in the past been typically made in a cooperative manner. If the private lands in the mix are targeted for acquisition, it would be very easy, and perhaps irresistible, for federal land managers to impose greater land use restrictions and over regulate grazing allotments to the extent that a “willing seller” is created. Heavy handed federal management could also have the unintended consequence of compelling landowners into sub dividing and selling to the highest bidder such as land developers or business entrepreneurs.

Whenever private property transitions to federal ownership, the community and its school system suffers from the loss of the tax base. The federal compensation for loss of tax revenues, known as PILT, represents minimal funding and the money goes to our county general fund and not to school districts.

The PN ranch, located at the confluence of the Judith River and the Upper Missouri River, is a property highly coveted by the BLM that they nearly purchased for over five million dollars. That ranch contributes approximately $15,000 a year in property taxes to the local school district and spends many more thousands of dollars with local merchants and businesses. The local community would suffer gravely with the loss of just one ranch.

The boundaries established for the western reach of the monument especially lacks justification and includes only the running river water that is owned by the State of Montana and property that is owned by ranchers. One can only speculate about the objects of antiquity that are being protected by the river flow and by the adjacent private land. To correct this matter, there seems to be only one solution – remove the private property from the monument.

An observation conveyed to me by a colleague best sums up the need to remove the private property from the monument. My colleague was camped on the Missouri River one evening when a number of people floating the river joined him at the campsite. He asked them what their impressions of the area were after their first day on the river. They replied that they found it rather strange to canoe all day on a river in a national monument and everywhere they looked and everywhere they wanted to stop, they were surrounded by private property.

It is my firm belief that removing the private property to clarify the monument boundary is the right thing to do. If it is true that monument rules do not apply to private lands, as federal officials have stated, than one should not expect there to be any adverse impact on the federal land in the monument by removal of the private land. Clearly, removing private land from the monument will greatly reduce inadvertent trespasses and conflicts between landowners and monument visitors and diminish the temptation for federal buyouts.

I urge this subcommittee’s full support of H.R. 1629 and I thank you for the privilege to testify before you on this matter that is so important to us in central Montana.
 

MATTHEW O. KNOX
CHAIRMAN
MISSOURI RIVER STEWARDS
TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION AND PUBLIC LANDS
HEARING ON H.R. 1629 – A BILL TO CLARIFY THE BOUNDARIES OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT