Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Lands Federal Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lengthy public comment opposes HJ 24, the resolution backing Utah land lawsuit
Summary
Representative Tom Millett asked the committee to support Utah’s lawsuit challenging perpetual federal retention of unappropriated public lands; dozens of public commenters and conservation groups urged rejection, citing risks of privatization and lack of a Montana plan.
Rep. Tom Millett opened debate on House Joint Resolution 24 as a statement supporting Utah’s legal challenge to the federal policy embodied in 43 U.S.C. 1701 (the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976). He framed HJ 24 as a constitutional question, saying the resolution seeks only to "get an answer" about whether the federal government may indefinitely retain unappropriated public lands.
The room overwhelmingly produced opposition during an hour of one‑minute public statements. Noah Marion of Wild Montana and representatives from Trout Unlimited, the Montana Wildlife Federation, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Backcountry Horsemen, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and other conservation and outdoor recreation organizations urged the committee to oppose HJ 24. Common objections included that the Supreme Court declined Utah’s request for expedited review, that the lawsuit had not been refiled in federal district court at the time of the hearing, and that supporting it could set a precedent encouraging land transfers or sales.
Speakers representing hunting, fishing and outdoor‑recreation groups warned of economic impacts if federal stewardship were replaced or if lands were sold. Matt Leo of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers cited federal payments to Montana (payments in lieu of taxes, wildfire spending and other federal outlays) and warned the state lacks personnel and funding to manage mass transfers of public lands. Several ranchers and local public‑lands users said unappropriated lands support livestock grazing, recreation businesses and wildfire response.
During committee questions, members pressed Millett on legal precedent and the enabling‑act language; he read portions of the enabling act and said the resolution does not itself transfer land or direct any state action — it is a signal of support for Utah's pursuit of litigation in the district court. Millett urged members to advance the resolution to prompt public discussion and planning should courts ultimately rule for Utah.
The record from the hearing shows strong organized opposition from conservation and outdoor‑recreation stakeholders and many individual Montanans; no legislative action on HJ 24 was recorded at the close of the hearing.
