Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Montana First State to Ban Federal Government Land Purchases
Sierra Times ^ | 05/08/2003 | Montana Legislative Staff

Posted on 05/12/2003 12:49:51 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative

HELENA- Montana became the first state in the nation to prohibit the sale of state owned land to the federal government.

“This is an accomplishment I am very very proud of,” said Representative Rick Maedje (R) – Fortine about his amendment to House Bill 223.

House Bill 223 authorizes the state land board to sell school trust lands that are not producing income from grazing, timber, mining, or oil and gas. The measure was dubbed “the state land banking bill” and it also allows the land board to purchase more productive lands in its place.

“I don’t disagree with the underlying purpose of the bill at all. It’s entirely appropriate for the State Land Board to look for better timber, mining, and grazing lands for the schools,” said Maedje, “but there was a serious unintended consequence- the present state lands could wind up in the hands of the federal government, and that is entirely inappropriate in Montana.”

There are approximately six million acres of school trust lands in Montana. These lands were originally granted to the state by the federal government when Montana agreed to statehood. Congress mandated the lands be used solely for generating income for schools.

In the hearing on HB 223 before the House Natural Resources Committee, Bud Clinch, Director of the DNRC, said, “It is my fiduciary responsibility to generate income for our schools from these lands.” Director Clinch added, “This bill allows the Department the flexibility to increase income for the schools.”

Representative Maedje, who sits on the House Natural Resources Committee said during executive session deliberations on the bill, “I am not prepared in any way, shape, or form to see a single acre of state land wind up in the federal government’s hands. Not only does the federal government fail to pay taxes on land it holds, but even the PILT payments (Payments in Lieu of Taxes) it promises us never come through. Worse yet, Montana has had nothing but serious problems in the last 30 years with virtually every acre the federal government claims to have jurisdiction over in this state. Selling the feds our state land is like rubbing salt in a wound.”

Representative Maedje, an outspoken opponent of federal land ownership in Montana, believes the federal government has overstepped its Constitutional authority in the last 30 years, and offered his amendment as a means to reign in federal agencies in Montana.

“House Bill 223 came through the Natural Resources Committee, and I saw the real opportunity to add a friendly amendment to the bill to begin to stop federal land acquisitions in our state,” said Maedje.

Maedje referred to Article I, Section 8 of the federal Constitution, which restricts Congress: “to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dockyards and other needful Buildings.”

Maedje’s amendment to HB 223 amends Montana Code Annotated 77-2-306 to read: “State land may not be sold to the federal government or to any agency of the federal government, except for the purpose of building federal facilities and structures.”

The bill made it to the Governor’s desk with Maedje’s amendment intact, but not without a fight.

Representative Chris Harris (D) – Bozeman, blasted Maedje’s amendment on the floor of the House arguing that “Iraq could buy this land. North Korea could buy this land, but our own red white and blue federal government can’t buy this land. This is wrong.”

“Frankly,” Maedje said afterwards about Rep. Harris’s comments in the floor debate, “And I say this within the tangible and real context of unabashedly asinine decisions made by federal agencies which unnecessarily hurt rural natural resource dependent communities-- Representative Harris might have been unintentionally right. I indeed wonder if the constitutional rights of Montanans could be any more abused by a North Korean dictator than they are by our own federal agencies. That may sound stunning to those who haven’t suffered because of federal land policies, but it is closer to the truth than one might want to contemplate.”

Maedje offered the following remarks after Governor Martz signed HB 223 into law:

“The Constitution never intended the federal government to increase its land holdings or jurisdictional influence without the consent of the people of a state. Regrettably, over the last 30 years the federal government has overstepped its authority, and its abuse of that authority directly conflicts with the economic vitality, character, and traditions of the people of Montana. Montanans have been patient. We have tried to work with federal agencies, but we have intelligently arrived at the conclusion that federal agencies have little or no incentive to abide by the federal Constitution. So, we're now going to help them get back on track.”

“This amendment to HB 223 is the first step in a calculated effort not only to put the brakes on federal land acquisitions, but in future legislative sessions, we will take intelligent, lawful steps such as this to roll back federal land holdings and jurisdictional authority,” Maedje said.

“Montana is the first state in the nation to prohibit the federal government from purchasing state lands. This is an historic step for any state to take, and federal agencies should be well aware that Montana will continue to assert our rights as a state, and we take this issue very very seriously.” Maedje added.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: Montana
KEYWORDS: constitution; landgrab; tenthamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 05/12/2003 12:49:51 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
Hell, it looks like the Feds already own half of it.


2 posted on 05/12/2003 12:51:26 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
Representative Chris Harris (D) – Bozeman, blasted Maedje’s amendment on the floor of the House arguing that “Iraq could buy this land. North Korea could buy this land, but our own red white and blue federal government can’t buy this land. This is wrong.”

This is a great start, now how do we get the rest of the west back, they own most of it.

3 posted on 05/12/2003 12:53:07 PM PDT by Mister Baredog ((They wanted to kill 50,000 of us on 9/11, we will never forget!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
This map should be required study! The easterners seem pretty happy about our plight out here in the west, maybe the govt should try for a better balance around the country, right?
4 posted on 05/12/2003 12:56:48 PM PDT by Mister Baredog ((They wanted to kill 50,000 of us on 9/11, we will never forget!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
Can just the imagine the hue and cry that environmentalists like Robert Redford, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, etal, will make when they won't be able to set aside any more state land for feds to control.
5 posted on 05/12/2003 1:03:33 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Baredog
This is a great start, now how do we get the rest of the west back

We can't - it's what is backing up the value of Treasury securities and the US dollar. The Feds need western land as indirect collateral to keep foreign investments flowing, or the markets will go south in a hurry. Besides, the environmentalists are hoping the Feds will donate the whole package to the UN as a biosphere reserve some day - selling it off would ruin their plans and make a lot of them vote Green instead of Democrat.

6 posted on 05/12/2003 1:05:57 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
You know, the Federal government would probably make a lot of money selling the land back to us.
7 posted on 05/12/2003 1:17:24 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
It looks like nobody owns land in Alaska 'cept for the government.
8 posted on 05/12/2003 1:21:38 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; Carry_Okie; backhoe; Black Agnes; countrydummy; newriverSister; brityank; forester; ...
Land Rights Bump.
9 posted on 05/12/2003 1:28:51 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
It looks like nobody owns land in Alaska 'cept for the government.
Check out NV.
10 posted on 05/12/2003 1:31:21 PM PDT by wjcsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mister Baredog
they own most of it.

No kidding, look at my home state - NV.

Just color me yellow!!!

LVM

11 posted on 05/12/2003 1:44:50 PM PDT by LasVegasMac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
Wow, how does Iowa do it? Looks like only indian reservations, and not much at that.
12 posted on 05/12/2003 1:47:56 PM PDT by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
You know, the Federal government would probably make a lot of money selling the land back to us.

They create the money in the first place. They can make as much as they wish.

13 posted on 05/12/2003 1:50:55 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
Almost right on the Alaska thing. Private land ownership in Alaska is 1/2 of 1 percent. (.005) Pretty sad since its the biggest state in the Union huh? Rhode Island makes more off it's shore line than Alaska.
14 posted on 05/12/2003 2:41:54 PM PDT by vpintheak (Our Liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mister Baredog
Keep doing things like this and start rolling back Fed Lands and you will change it. The only thing that scares me is if they (The Feds) decide to get heavy handed. People out here won't take that and you will most likely see bloodshed before it's all over.
15 posted on 05/12/2003 2:50:14 PM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (I AM the NRA and I VOTE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
"The only thing that scares me is if they (The Feds) decide to get heavy handed."

No if about it.The FED will get heavy handed.

Watch for them to start cutting off federal money to Montana for starters.
16 posted on 05/12/2003 2:58:08 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
You know, the Federal government would probably make a lot of money selling the land back to us.

Yes they would, but that isn't going to happen, they can't sell the collateral on the National Debt.

17 posted on 05/12/2003 2:58:16 PM PDT by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
Hell, it looks like the Feds already own half of it.

You think that is bad? The Feds own over 90% of the land in the county I live in. Lots of it is Military, which is authorized by the Constitution, but there is a vast amount controled by the Bureau of Land Management.

18 posted on 05/12/2003 3:02:40 PM PDT by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
Wow, how does Iowa do it?

There is some Corp of Engineers land that isn't showing up. We do not have an Indian Reservation. I think our Indians are a Sovereign Nation and own their own land.

19 posted on 05/12/2003 3:19:17 PM PDT by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
Besides, the environmentalists are hoping the Feds will donate the whole package to the UN as a biosphere reserve some day - selling it off would ruin their plans and make a lot of them vote Green instead of Democrat.

And what's the downside to that? More Republicans get elected to Congress when lefties vote Green instead of RAT.

20 posted on 05/12/2003 6:38:50 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson