© 2023 Concerned Citizens of Western Montana
Federalize: To subject to the authority of the federal government; put under federal control.
Conservation Easement: A conservation easement is created by a voluntary legal agreement between a landowner and another party — usually the government — which restricts the development of a piece of land.
Generally, sales pitches for conservation easements often include their tax saving “benefits.” For example the IRS requires the following conditions be met in order to cash in on their congressionally authorized conservation easement tax incentives:
- The easement must have a valid conservation purpose;
- The agreement must be completely voluntary
- The agreement must be legally binding and recorded as a Deed of Conservation Easement.
- The agreement is binding on both present and future owners of the property.
- The agreement must be permanent and irrevocable.
- The easement must be held by a qualified easement holder, i.e., a government entity or a land trust.
- The easement must restrict development of the land.
We have pointed out in several of our recent articles that something isn’t adding up with the state of Montana.
Montana’s endorsement and ongoing support of the water compact flies in the face of common sense or logic.
Why indeed would Montana support an agreement that violates its own laws and constitution, and causes harm to its citizens?
Our research points to the fact that the Flathead Water Compact is part and parcel of a much larger problem and indeed there are several parallel efforts currently underway that Montanans also need to be paying attention to.
While the compact effectively federalizes Montana’s water, a significant effort is well underway that is federalizing millions of acres of land throughout the United States, including the state of Montana.
Bonneville Power Administration’s Mitigation Program
We’ve been aware for a good long while of Bonneville purchases of land and conservation easements along the waterways of western Montana under the guise of “environmental mitigation.”
Here is a recap of the Bonneville purchases over the past 15 years since the program began:
Recap of Bonneville Mitigation Activities in Montana
This process appears to have been a pilot program that has helped pave the way for a much larger effort that is currently underway to significantly increase land acquisitions and conservation easements via state natural resource and wildlife agencies.
When summarizing the Bonneville Power related activity, we were taken aback to see that the beneficiaries of this mitigation program have not only been the CSKT, but also the United States and the state of Montana including the DNRC and Fish Wildlife and Parks. Our effort to get a better picture of what was going on also raised questions as to Montana’s State Land Board of Commissioners overseeing state trust lands, and who also appear to be benefitting from this program.
We also discovered that via its “partnership” with state and federal agencies, the Bonneville land acquisition and conservation easement program is connected to larger federal programs that have funded the acquisition of conservation easements on millions of acres of land in several western states.
Ryan Zinke’s Secretarial Order 3362
In 2018 Ryan Zinke signed Secretarial Order 3362 (SO3362), directing the Department of Interior to work in close partnership with the natural resource and wildlife agencies of 11 western states (including Montana) to enhance and improve the quality of big-game winter range and migration corridor habitat on Federal lands. This was to be accomplished “in a way that recognizes state authority to conserve and manage big-game species and respects private property rights.”
Isn’t it interesting how the government’s nicest sounding programs turn out to be the most destructive, or are used to accomplish something completely different than its stated intent? Who doesn’t want to conserve Montana’s amazing big game species?
Secretarial Order 3362 paved the way for vast amounts of federal funding to flow into Montana. This money has amped up the Conservation Easement acquisition feeding frenzy that is currently going on through the state of Montana with the help of Montana’s DNRC and Fish Wildlife and Parks.
The MFWP website provides this additional context:
State efforts were given a jump start in 2018 by the United States Department of Interior.
The department’s Secretarial Order 3362 sought to foster collaboration among federal agencies, states, private conservation groups, and landowners to identify, improve, and conserve winter range and migration corridors for mule deer, elk, and pronghorn.
The Secretarial Order directed Department of Interior agencies to work with 11 western states to conserve winter range and migration corridors for pronghorn, elk, and mule deer.
In response to the order, FWP created the Montana Action Plan, which outlines research needs for wildlife movement and migration, as well as five priority areas (shown here). FWP and partners have received millions of dollars from this initiative with $1.1 million received in just 2021 for work such as removing fences or securing long term conservation through easement programs.
Having already been involved with and benefitted from the Bonneville Power land and conservation easement program, Montana’s FWP very quickly got on board with the program.
Follow the Money
The Bonneville land acquisition and conservation easement program awakened us to the fact that their program is connected to larger federal programs that are actively funding the acquisition of conservation easements on millions of acres of land in several western states.
The USDA Forest Legacy Program appears to be a major source of funding for land and conservation easements by government agencies as well as the various trust organizations.
According to the USDA Forest Legacy website:
The Forest Legacy program was enacted through the 1990 Farm Bill’s Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act. This voluntary program (North Dakota is the only state that does not participate), has proved popular and crucial to aiding states in meeting their forest conservation goals.
Forest Legacy is highly leveraged through a cost share requirement – as of 2017, $669 million has secured land valued at more than $15 billion.
The purpose of the Forest Legacy Program is to identify and conserve environmentally important forest areas that are threatened by conversion to non-forest uses. Providing economic incentives to landowners to keep their forest as forests encourages sustainable forest management and supports strong markets for forest products.
The program is funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which invests a small percentage of federal offshore drilling fees toward the conservation of important land, water, and recreation areas for all Americans. The passage of the Great American Outdoors Act provides permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
As of 2021, more than $200 million dollars of federal money has been spent in the state of Montana affecting 290,000 acres.
We believe this list of Forest Legacy Projects is only the tip of the Montana’s conservation easement iceberg, and similar activities are happening all over the state:
List of Montana Conservation Easements and Land Acquisitions funded with USFS Forest Legacy Money
Here is a map of just one of many, many such projects that are taking place in both western and eastern Montana, this one for the Montana Great Outdoors Project, with an established goal of converting 114,000 acres of land in western Montana into conservation easements that happen to border a 152,000 acre Thompson – Fisher River Conservation easement.
A close look at this map shows the extreme level of coordination that is taking place between the feds, state, environmental groups, federally funded land trust organizations and private companies.
They are all working in concert to place private property productivity restrictions on Montana’s amazing abundance of land, forever into perpetuity, one parcel, one section at a time.
Montana FWP: Great Outdoors Conservation Easement Program
Through various phases of each of these nice sounding projects, very large sections of Montana’s lands are sucked up to federal control with the bought and paid for assistance of Montana agencies under the guise of preserving forest lands and protecting wildlife habitat corridors.
We also believe that through programs such as these, our state agencies have effectively been federalized, and are actively advancing the federal agenda that attorney Harriet Hageman was warning people about more than a decade ago.
But Wait, It Gets Worse
Wyoming’s newest Representative and attorney Harriet Hageman, has been calling out conservation easements for a good long while. We found this 2011 article from Tri-State Livestock news.
Harriet Hageman: Government acquisition of private property rights through conservation Easements
Here is an excerpt from the article:
“My concern is really quite simple; I am afraid we are federalizing our private property rights; stated Hageman of the major problem that results when conservation easements are placed on private lands.
“Think about that. What you have is a government that is using conservation easements to control private property rights without having to acquire those rights themselves. They recognize that there is a lot of political animosity toward the idea of government owning more and more land. So, this process is being manipulated for taking over private property rights without necessarily owning the underlying land,” Hageman continued.
“For many of these land trusts, what used to be a close working relationship with private landowners has now been replaced by a closer relationship with government agencies. In these troubling arrangements, land trusts have operated more like government agencies; acquiring easements from private landowners, only to tum around and quietly sell them, sometimes at an enormous profit, to state and federal governments.
You can read the rest of the article here.
This is EXACTLY what is happening in Montana. The state and federal governments are expanding their public lands base by acquiring private lands in many of these land and conservation easement transactions. They are often purchased by the Nature Conservancy or some other land trust organization and over time, ownership of the land is being shifted to government agencies such as Montana’s FWP, without the public ever being the wiser.
Our research on this issue has also raised concerns about conservation easements also being placed on state trust lands, and in some instances the United States FWS or BPA hold the easements. We would love to have the state of Montana answer these questions:
- How much money is flowing into Montana each year from the United States Government and Land Trust Organizations for land acquisitions and conservation easements?
- What are Montana’s annual statistics for conservation easements over the past 20 years?
- What are Montana’s annual statistics for private and public land ownership within the state and how has it changed over the last 20 years?
- Conservation easements diminish land values because of the loss of productivity and property rights. What impact has conservation easements had on the property tax base in each Montana County, and what effect does it have on local county governance?
- If conservation easements prohibit or limit the productivity of the land, doesn’t a conservation easement contradict Montana’s legal mandate to seek the maximum productivity of the state and trust lands for the benefit of our schools?
- If the United States holds the conservation easement on state trust lands, doesn’t this in essence allow the federal agency to dictate how our state trust lands are used?
- Have these federal funds, whether they come directly from the federal government or land trust organizations, served to federalize Montana’s state agencies such as the DNRC and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks?
- Have these agencies been weaponized in an effort to advance an aggressive and overreaching federal environmental agenda that is contrary to the best interests and private property rights of the people of Montana?
- What kind of “strings” are attached to all that free federal money?
- Why does Governor Gianforte oppose the American Prairie Reserve but support the Flathead Water Compact as well as the these conservation easements taking place on private and state lands?
- Is it the policy of the state of Montana to limit growth and development, or is this simply about the federal government revenue stream flowing into the state?
Perhaps it’s time to ask our state legislature to take a serious look into this issue.
This revenue stream of federal money benefitting the state and its agencies could very well help explain Montana’s willingness to federalize its water via the Flathead Water Compact.
We see this as one more example of the federal money laundering that we’ve been talking about for quite a while. These vast amounts of federal money are being used to assert federal and state government control over our land and water.
Montana has not only been a willing participant in the federalization of our water via the water compact, it’s agencies are up to their ears in the federalization of our land at an astounding pace.
Western Montana Water Rights 
Thank you so much for all your hard work and effort to keep us all informed.
Maybe off topic. Maybe not. But are you familiar with HB 726? It was tabled 2/27 in committee. 1 proponent, 7 opponents. No questions and the guy presenting the bill acted like he was forced into presenting it. http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_SESS=20231&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&P_BILL_NO=726&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=
We are aware of the legislation and believe it was an attempt to shift oversight of the Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission and the Water Compacts to the Montana Public Service Commission.
Unfortunately the legislation did not appear to be well thought out and was an oversimplification of what would have been a complex transfer of oversight responsibilities.
With its pro Flathead Water Compact bias, the Montana DNRC has proven it is not a neutral arbiter of the water rights or the resources of the state of Montana, and we believe that oversight by the Public Service Commission would restore accountability.
We appreciate the effort, and their goal of increasing government accountability. We sincerely hope the parties behind the legislation give it more thought and come back with far stronger legislation on their next go around.
Thank you.
Thanks to a friend for forwarding this FWP Announcement:
FWP hosting public meetings in northwest Montana to discuss mule deer management
KALISPELL — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is hosting a series of public meetings in northwest Montana to discuss mule deer management.
FWP Region 1 staff will discuss the ecology and management of mule deer in northwest Montana, the current status of populations in the region, and future management considerations.
The intent of these meetings is for FWP to hear various concerns, questions, and perspectives from interested members of the public. There will be no decisions made during these meetings.
The schedule of public meetings in northwest Montana is as follows:
March 15 – Thompson Falls High School, Thompson Falls, 6 pm
March 21 – Timbers Event Center, Eureka, 6 pm
March 22 – Libby Little Theater, Libby, 6 pm
March 23 – Flathead Valley Community College (Arts and Technology Building), Kalispell, 6 pm
To learn more about mule deer management in Montana, visit https://fwp.mt.gov/hunt/regulations/deer.
This is how they do it. They develop a plan and invite the public to hear about it and to comment on it. We seriously doubt that the meetings such as those listed above are widely attended by the public. The meetings mainly are used to check “public notification” off their due diligence list, and perhaps to give the illusion that there is “growing public support” for their plan.
Again, who doesn’t want to protect our wildlife?
FWP’s website says this about their STRATEGY FOR WILDLIFE MOVEMENT AND MIGRATION:
With the understanding that private lands, particularly working landscapes, are a vital component for wildlife habitat in Montana, Fish, Wildlife & Parks has developed a new strategy for wildlife movement and migration with a focus on habitat conservation.
The new strategy was developed over the last year in a partnership with conservation organizations, landowners and others in response to growing public interest in conserving habitat for wildlife movement and migration. This focus has heightened even more given expanding human development and a changing climate.
FWP will use the new strategy to further integrate efforts related to wildlife movement and migration into its existing policies and programs. The intent is to better highlight the work FWP staff already do related to wildlife movement and migration, and to strengthen that work where necessary.
The strategy specifically clarifies how wildlife movement and migration conservation is incorporated into the existing habitat conservation efforts of FWP. As the state agency statutorily assigned responsibility for the stewardship of Montana’s wildlife resources for present and future generations, FWP has long focused on a science-based approach to conserving and improving important habitats. The strategy outlines how FWP will continue its statutory role and science-based approach while emphasizing and enhancing programs to conserve habitat and improve landscape permeability for wildlife movements and migrations critical for their survival and life functions. The strategy, as a publicly visible part of FWP’s approach to wildlife movement and migration, explains to staff, stakeholders, and the general public how FWP work related to wildlife movement and migration will be organized, coordinated, and ultimately inclusive. FWP staff will develop work plans consistent with this strategy describing implementation efforts and plans to involve partners.
Buzzwords: science based approach, publicly visible, inclusive, stakeholders, partnership with conservation organizations, growing public interest in conserving habitat for wildlife movement and migration.
Sometimes their project proposals will even tout the “creation of jobs” and “economic benefits.”
Pingback: Does the Compact Entitle the CSKT to a Seat at Montana’s Water Policy Table? | Western Montana Water Rights
Pingback: Politicizing Our Water for Destructive Ends | Western Montana Water Rights
Pingback: Destructive Ends: Transfers of Wealth via Federal Infrastructure | Western Montana Water Rights
Pingback: The Bigger Picture: Please Don’t Lose Sight of It | Western Montana Water Rights
Pingback: The Avista on our Horizon | Western Montana Water Rights