Senate committee hears bill to parcel small state trust lands for homesteads (SB 381)

Senator Daniel Emmerich, sponsor of Senate Bill 381, told the Senate Natural Resources Committee the bill would direct the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) to identify and sell qualifying state trust lands in parcels of about five acres for homesteading.

"The bill you have before you today is Senate Bill 381, an act making certain state lands available for homesteading," Emmerich said, describing limits in the draft that parcels would be taken only from undeveloped tracts of fewer than 100 acres and that buyers must be Montana residents for 10 years.

The bill would require purchasers to demonstrate a bona fide homestead within about five years by building a home on a permanent foundation, require the department to sell homestead deeds at full market value, and give DNRC rulemaking authority for implementation.

Proponents framed the bill as a response to Montana’s housing shortages. Emmerich said the measure would "give Montanans the opportunity to own a chunk of land themselves" and generate state revenue from land sales.

Opponents urged the committee to reject the proposal. Nicole Rolfe, representing the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, said many state trust parcels are currently leased for grazing or agriculture and said the bill would remove protections in existing sale procedures, referring to state sale rules that allow a lessee to match a competitive bid: "Many of those leases could be impacted by a bill like this because many of these have current lessees on them," Rolfe said, and she asked the committee to "vote no on this bill."

Ellie Bridliton, representing the Montana Association of State Grazing Districts, said small parcels under 100 acres can make up a significant portion of grazing lands and urged keeping the lands in production agriculture. Rayleigh Honeycutt of the Montana Stock Growers Association warned that if homesteads fail or are left with foundations and wells, lands could be removed permanently from agricultural production.

Tribal representatives also opposed the bill. Patrick Yawake, speaking for the Blackfeet Tribe, Fort Belknap Indian Community and the Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy, called SB 381 "an attack on public lands" and said the bill did not account for required tribal consultation and co‑management tied to treaties and tribal hunting and gathering rights.

The Montana Wildlife Federation, represented by Frank Szollosi, cited impacts to wildlife habitat and migration and noted polling the group cited showing public opposition to public‑land sales.

Sean Thomas, DNRC division administrator for Forestry and Trust Lands, provided the committee with DNRC’s inventory estimate under the bill’s definitions. He told the committee his initial review identified roughly 1,745 individual tracts that could fall under the 100‑acre threshold, representing about 26,000 acres in total, with an estimated 6,670–7,000 acres classified as forest land. He also gave a rough breakdown that about 11,000 acres were classified as agriculture and more than 79,000 acres as grazing in the department’s broader inventory; Thomas described these as department classifications and approximations.

Committee members asked how often parcels under 100 acres are currently leased. Thomas said most small tracts, especially those classified as grazing or agricultural, are under lease and that a sale under the bill could terminate existing leases: "Leases can be terminated for a variety of reasons and so, and land sales are one of the ways that a lease could be canceled," he said.

Members pressed the sponsor about the bill’s effect on the DNRC’s constitutional duty to produce maximum return for the school trust. Thomas said the bill provides for appraisals and "full market value compensation through an appraisal" but noted the draft did not specify a public auction process or other advertising that exists under current sale procedures; he flagged questions about whether an appraisal alone would capture full market value.

In closing, Emmerich said the bill gives "pretty broad rulemaking authority" to DNRC to ensure lands are used for "highest and best use" and that the department would account for obligations such as tribal consultation during implementation. He said he is willing to work on amendments and urged a do‑pass vote.

The committee did not take a final vote during the hearing. The record contains extensive public and organizational opposition focused on impacts to existing lessees, grazing operations, wildlife habitat and tribal rights, and several committee members asked DNRC staff to clarify inventory figures and how sales would affect leases and school trust revenue.