Dueling measures were debated in the state Senate and House this week addressing the possibility of transferring federal land to the state.

State Sen. Jennifer Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, presented Senate Bill 274 to the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday. Her bill seeks to bar the federal government from selling its public land in Montana.

Separately, Rep. Ed Lieser, D-Whitefish, brought an opposing resolution before the House Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday. While not legally binding, House Joint Resolution 19 would oppose “any effort to claim, take over, litigate for, or sell of federal lands within the state of Montana” and reaffirm the Legislature’s support for federal land management.

“There’s been a lot of discussion about keeping public lands public,” Fielder said at the Senate hearing. “But what’s been missed is that Congress is 18 trillion in debt and … they have sold a number of public lands in the state of Montana and the rest of the country.”

She added there was no oversight or input from Montana citizens on such land sales, besides the state’s relatively small voice in Washington, D.C., and her bill would force transparency on those actions. Fielder said that a bill currently in Congress would sell off about 90,000 acres of federal public land in Montana.

Joe Balyeat of Americans for Prosperity was the sole proponent of the bill, testifying that the larger issue is a public land transfer to state control, not privatization of those lands.

Opponents representing several advocacy groups testified against the bill, citing constitutional and case law conflicts and condemning the larger drive toward a federal land transfer.

“This legislation is about as unconstitutional as we can get, and I think it’s a waste of time for this Legislature to pass it,” National Wildlife Federation spokesman Tom France said.

Julia Altemus of the Montana Wood Products Association also spoke against the bill, questioning the land transfer proposals as well as the measure’s constitutionality.

“There is no industry in the state of Montana that is more hurt [than the timber industry] by what has happened in the last 30 years on Forest Service land … but this is not the answer,” Altemus testified.

State Sen. Jebediah Hinkle, R-Bozeman, asked each of the conservation representatives to state whether they agreed with the federal government’s ability to sell public land, receiving positive responses from each of them.

Fielder attacked their testimony in light of a rally Monday at the Capitol

“We heard testimony from these organizations stating that it’s OK for the federal government to sell public land, they agree with that,” Fielder said. “But you know what, these same people organized … 500 raging people in this Capitol, being incited to ‘keep public lands public.’”

Committee chairman Sen. Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, joined Sen. Diane Sands, D-Missoula, in objecting to the constitutionality of the bill. Both said it appeared to violate of the federal Supremacy Clause.

Sen. Chas Vincent, R-Libby, said he would not support an obstacle to land privatization, noting that 70 percent of the land in Lincoln County is held by the federal government.

Before voting in favor of her bill, Fielder, the committee vice-chairwoman, referred to a document issued by Congress in 1938, which she said gives the state jurisdiction over public lands held in trust by the federal government. 

The committee tabled the measure after it failed with five votes in favor and seven against.

The House hearing opened with a statement from Lieser and supportive comments from a pair of state conservation groups.

Then Bill Avey, supervisor for the Helena and Lewis and Clark national forests, appearing as an informational witness, found himself answering a flurry of questions from representatives on both sides of the issue.

Brought up multiple times was the question of whether federal environmental laws would apply should the state take over management of public lands. Avey conceded he was a forester and not a lawyer but said he believed the state would have to follow federal environmental statutes such as the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Protection Act.

Critics of the decrease in national forest timber production over the past several decades frequently cite litigation as the primary obstacle to implementation of harvesting projects. Many of those lawsuits have hinged on habitat protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Rep. Kelly Flynn, R-Townsend, criticizes the Forest Service’s handling of noxious invasive weeks, implying that national forests were the biggest violators of Montana’s “good neighbor” policy, which attempts to limit the spread of those plants between adjoining properties.

Avey responded the weeds did not originate on federal lands.

One major criticism of the federal land transfer proposal is the potential cost to the state of taking over management of now-federal public land. Responding to a question from Rep. Mary Ann Dunwell, D-Helena, Avey stated that the his budget was about $23 million, down from roughly $30 million several years ago.

Rep. Bob Brown, R-Thompson Falls, noted that Lieser had admitted federal management had “room for improvement” and asked if he felt the state could better manage its national forest land. Lieser responded by pointing to wildfires, for which the federal government maintains a national firefighting force that can be shuttles between states based on needs. Brown disagreed.

“I believe that we can look at the hillside better and know what needs to be done than can an office in D.C.,” Brown said.

No executive action was set for the resolution.

Reporter Samuel Wilson can be reached at 758-4407 or by email at [email protected]