Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federal Cooperative Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate cooperative agreement strategy with federal agencies, seek local liaison and advisors
Summary
The board discussed pursuing a ‘Good Neighbor’ cooperative agreement with federal land agencies, debated cooperative vs. collaborative approaches, and directed staff to pursue input from regional advisors; commissioners emphasized the importance of a local liaison backed by technical advisers.
Carter County commissioners held an extended policy discussion about whether to pursue a Good Neighbor cooperative agreement with federal land agencies (BLM / Forest Service) as part of resource planning related to proposed energy and land-use projects.
Commissioners reviewed two approaches discussed with outside advisers: a cooperative agreement, which lawyers in the meeting said provides a formal, enforceable role for local governments in federal planning processes (including scoping and the ability to be a named cooperator on environmental analyses), versus looser “collaborative” arrangements, which advisers cautioned can lack legal ‘teeth.’ One county adviser — identified in the discussion as “Wally,” a lawyer who has worked on cooperative agreements elsewhere — joined the meeting by phone and advised the county that becoming a formal cooperator gives the county a seat in scoping, more influence on plan design, and procedural protections not usually present in purely collaborative processes.
Commissioners debated whether to hire a local liaison dedicated to representing county interests and whether to engage state or regional advisors on a contract basis; names discussed as potential local liaisons included Steve Summers and Bruce Ketchum, although both have constraints. The board considered contracting for an independent liaison or using regional resources such as the Montana Resource Council’s Nathan Deshmaker, and discussed the tradeoffs of hiring a contractor versus an employee.
The board agreed to place the item on the next meeting agenda (the March 30 meeting) for further discussion and asked staff to contact advisers Wally and Willie for follow-up. Commissioners emphasized that a local liaison who could attend scoping and advisory meetings on short notice would be important to protect local interests in any federal planning related to carbon sequestration, solar development or other resource uses.
No final agreement was executed at the meeting; staff were directed to draft a resolution and to invite advisers to provide more detailed guidance at the next meeting.
