Gianforte has real Montanan values related to access

Posted on

Fly Fishing on the Boulder by Clyde Hurst, Flickr

By Hertha Lund

Often times the first casualty in politics is the truth. Currently, the Democrats are using out-of-state dark money to bastardize the truth relating to Greg Gianforte and stream access issues. In reality, Gianforte’s approach to stream access is the ideal balance between public access and property rights, which is where most Montanans position themselves.

Yes, it is correct that in 2009 Gianforte filed to Quiet Title against the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (“FWP”) due to a factual and legal discrepancy of where the public access should be on Gianforte’s property. This type of suit is a common tool for landowners to use in order to allow the courts to sort out these types of factual and legal issues. Instead of serving the suit, Gianforte’s attorney sent FWP letters and emails. FWP corrected their mistake, moved the access point, provided fencing and worked with Gianforte to allow public access and protection of private property rights.

Instead of being against public access, as the Democrats are alleging in ads, and as proclaimed by Governor Steve Bullock, Gianforte actually worked to provide the public with better access while protecting his property rights. This the real Montanan position.

It is Governor Bullock who is out of touch with Montanans. In 2012, Governor Bullock used his position as Attorney General to bully a rancher in White Sulphur Springs to provide public access over his private property where public access does not exist. This issue is still being litigated. It is Governor Bullock who has sided with out-of-state interests and money to work against rural Montanans who are part of Montanans’ agricultural tradition. Agriculture is still the number one contributor to the economy in Montana.

Enviro groups attempting to destroy Eastern MT ag

Posted on

The Yellowstone River

A cadre of  radical environmental groups have set their sites on farmers and ranchers along the Yellowstone River in Eastern Montana in an attempt to eliminate irrigation projects in at least five locations on the river.

The first attack is against the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project between Glendive and Sidney where the out-of-state environmental group Defenders of Wildlife has sued the Army Corps of Engineers to remove a 107-year-old diversion wier.  That wier is the starting point for a massive irrigation project that serves nearly 60,000 acres in Montana and North Dakota, and is the backbone for a $10 million sugar industry that supports hundreds of jobs in Sidney.  There are at least four other irrigation projects on the Yellowstone that environmental groups plan to target.

These attacks are nothing more than a shameless abuse of the Courts and federal administrative processes.  And it’s just one more example of the widening War on Ag being waged by environmental groups intent on driving agriculture out of Montana.

If you’re in Billings on June 30 you can do something about it.  The Army Corps is holding an EIS hearing at 5:30 pm at the Lincoln Center.  You can go to submit your public comment, which will be come part of the official record and help guide the Army Corps decision..  If you are unable to attend a meeting, you can send your comments via email to

Another SCOTUS win for property rights

Posted on

Mud puddles like this will fall under EPA jurisdiction due to the WOTUS rule. Photo Ccredit: peasap on Flickr

Since it’s implementation the Clean Water Act has developed a reputation as being ambiguous and arbitrarily implemented, and has plagued property owners and agriculture producers across the U.S.  The EPA is now attempting to expand the scope of that Act through the controversial Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which would place all bodies of waters—including puddles and stock ponds—under federal regulatory jurisdiction.

But a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has added a degree of clarity to the Clean Water Act, and more importantly an opinion by Justice Kennedy in the case signals good news on a multi-state challenge to the WOTUS rule.

One June 1st, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously to allow landowners the ability to challenge in Court the EPA’s Clean Water Act “jurisdictional determinations,” which are used by landowners to determine if their project falls under Clean Water Act jurisdiction before going through costly permitting.  The government contended that jurisdictional determinations did not constitute final agency action, and therefore landowners should not be able to sue for relief in Court.  The Court unanimously ruled against the EPA in the case, enabled landowners like Andy Johnson to successfully challenge the EPA.

Fergus County asks to be left out of Upper Missouri River Heritage Area designation

Posted on


Opposition is growing to a proposal to designate a huge area of land as the Upper Missouri River Heritage Area.  Recently, the Fergus County Commission unanimously voted to be left out of the proposal being pushed by Cascade County Commissioner Jane Weber.

National Heritage Areas are designations connected to the National Parks Service.  Though administered locally, and not by the NPS, Heritage Area designations can have implications on private property rights for landowners in and near the Area designation.  Examples from other Heritage Areas around the country show that local governments are often pressured to change land use policies after a Heritage Area has been designated.  Additionally, the Heritage Board, the new layer of government set up to administer the Heritage Area, has the authority (and funding provided by the federal government) to make land purchases, which eliminate those properties from the tax rolls.


The Fergus County Commission discussed the Upper Missouri River Heritage Area at their April 22 meeting.  “It’s alarming to me that someone draws a circle around Fergus County and no one here is consulted or asked to give input,” said Commissioner Ross Butcher.

“We already have a Monument boundary and the Wild and Scenic River designation.  Why do we need another designation on top of what’s already there?” added Commissioner Carl Seilstad.

The proposed Area boundaries include land in Fergus, Chouteau, Cascade, and Lewis & Clark counties, most of it private property.