Montana wildlife groups oppose House Bill 676's proposal to sell state school lands

The Montana Senate Judiciary Committee convened on March 21, 2025, to discuss House Bill 676, which has sparked significant opposition due to its proposed changes regarding the sale of state land. The bill's most contentious aspect is Section 11, which would allow for the non-competitive sale of state lands, raising concerns among various stakeholders about the potential loss of public access and revenue.

Several representatives from conservation and sportsman organizations voiced their opposition during the meeting. Chris Marchant, a board member of the Montana Wildlife Federation, emphasized the importance of maintaining a competitive process for state land sales, arguing that the proposed changes would undermine public interests. He highlighted the ongoing efforts by Montana's Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP) and the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) to improve access to isolated state lands, which he believes should not be compromised by this bill.

Matt Leo, representing the Montana chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, described Section 11 as a "fire sale" of state trust lands, warning that selling off these lands would not address the issue of public access but rather exacerbate it. He and other opponents argued that the bill would lead to significant financial losses for the state, estimating annual losses between $7 million and $9 million in revenue.

Opponents also raised legal concerns regarding other provisions in the bill, particularly those affecting water rights and the authority of the water court. Andrew Gorder from the Clark Fork Coalition warned that the bill could create legal complications by allowing the water court to alter previously negotiated water compacts, which could lead to costly litigation for the state.

Margaret Byrd, president of Advocates for School Trust Lands, urged the committee to consider the long-term implications of the bill, emphasizing the need to honor the state's fiduciary duty to maximize revenue from school trust lands. She cautioned that the proposed legislation could undermine the financial stability of public education in Montana.

The committee heard a range of testimonies from various stakeholders, all echoing a common theme: the need to protect public lands and ensure that any changes to land management prioritize the interests of Montanans. As the discussion continues, the future of House Bill 676 remains uncertain, with many calling for it to be tabled to prevent potential harm to the state's natural resources and public access rights.