Discussing conservation and natural resources

The Environmental Quality Council's (EQC) January meeting in Helena focused primarily on Global Warming and Conservation Easements. The oversight sub-committee had the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) up for review.

DNRC reported the progress of its implementation of the newly passed water bill (HB 831) from the '07 legislature. The impetus for the bill was that the Department had no ability to augment water in closed basins due to an '06 Supreme Court decision involving Trout Unlimited and the DNRC. The new water bill will allow water rights to be given if the applicant has a hydrological assessment showing that there are no adverse impacts to senior water right holders in the closed basin. At this point there have been no permits granted. The DNRC is still defining terms such as "net depletion" that will bill critical in the analysis required in the applicants' geological assessment. Close attention to this process is needed, as there is a fine line between disallowing permits to protect senior water right holders and disallowing them for the purpose of obstructing development.

The committee also received a presentation on the role of issue remarks in the water adjudication process in Montana from Judge Noble. Issue remarks are made by the department in the preliminary analysis of water right claims in a basin. While issue remarks are a useful tool in the beginning stages of adjudication, it seems they may soon prove to be an impediment to expediting the process that is estimated to take 15 years to complete.

Most issue remarks have historically been addressed through the negotiating process and deemed satisfied with the water court's decision. Any remarks that were not ruled as pertinent to the adjudication decision have been left alone barring any objections to them. The judge fears that if the legislature passes a bill that has spawned from the interim water policy committee, this process will change drastically. The bill is requiring that all issue remarks be investigated/settled regardless of whether it was objected to or not. He feels that it will place an undue burden on the process, as the issue remarks used in the water court are serving their intended purpose; to adjudicate water rights.

Last session the legislature also passed a bill allowing the state to contract out timber sales on Trust Lands as well as exceed the sustainable yield by 5 percent for fuel reduction purposes. With the extended fire season and DNRC's forestry staff working to get burnt timber cruised and out for bid for salvage sales, it hasn't had the ability to exercise their new flexibility in management. This spring should allow for some trial runs in contracting and fuel reduction for the committee to evaluate. In the meantime, Bob Harrington's (State Forester) staff will be working to get the salvage sales moving. The state currently has over 25 million board feet of salvage ready for bid. Harrington and his staff are very much deserving of our applause and encouragement for the immediate attention given to the health of our Trust Land's forests.

The committee of the whole heard more testimony on the EQC's only interim study bill, conservation easements on State Trust Lands. The presenters supporting the concept spoke to the success of many conservation easements on private lands, specifically the benefits easements give to sustaining traditional uses and open spaces.

While I fully support a land owner exercising his/her property rights and entering into a conservation easement, the issue at hand is not private land management, it's public. The management of these Trust Lands has been given to the State Land Board. The Land Board has the ability to enter state lands into conservation easements if they so choose. The legislature can also legislate lands into easement if they should have the desire.

So why the push to create another means? One only needs to look to legislation that failed in the '07 session to find the answer. There was an attempt to create a revolving public slush account managed by a board (appointed by the Governor) that would purchase development rights and hand enforcement of the easement over to another department or non-profit entity desiring the charge. We need not look far to know which entities would be standing in line with hopes of perpetuating their agendas using public dollars. Most of these entities are not friends of multiple-use practices, nor the traditional uses of our public lands. Conservation easements are achievable on state trust lands through two separate means at this time; let's leave well enough alone.

The EQC received a great deal of testimony regarding the Governor's Climate Advisory Council. The council has recommended 54 proposals for the EQC to consider. Some of the recommended actions would require legislation to be realized and is where our primary attention will be focused. All 54 of the recommendations are built upon the premise that climate change is being caused by mankind, and that it can be mitigated with mandated conservation policies. The impact of these policy discussions will be felt by every citizen of this state. While we as Montanan's can always improve ways to address the impacts of consumptive life, we need to be very careful not to create unintended consequences.

The economic analyst testifying on behalf of the proposal stated that there would be no net cost for the recommendations if all were implemented. The dollars in savings through conservation would backfill any costs of the measures. The same gentleman also asked for us to consider legislation that would create a new state department dedicated to the perpetuation of these conservation strategies. The paradox of this situation needs much more analysis. The EQC has opened all 54 recommendations to the public for comment. Please take the time to participate in the survey, and remember to provide comment in the space provided below each recommendation.

The link is http://leg.mt.gov/css/climate_survey.asp .