I agree Sytes, but let’s be sure to keep this on the Easement. This is far too important to Eastern Montana and the precedent this could set with this land board to let this thread be derailed.
True, it did start to slip. apologies.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agree Sytes, but let’s be sure to keep this on the Easement. This is far too important to Eastern Montana and the precedent this could set with this land board to let this thread be derailed.
My take--let's give the members of the Land Board a chance to get their heads wrapped around the mineral/surface rights issue rather than automatically assuming the worst. Five days is not much time. Bullock and Fox are both attorneys, so it's no surprise to me at least that they have an easier time understanding these things on an expedited timeline.
It seems like some HuntTalk members are too eager to jump to the worst possible conclusion (perhaps playing politics) rather than taking the Land Board members at their word. They said they needed more time. Let's reserve judgment until at least the next meeting and see if the Board will vote to move forward with the easement after time to review the new information or if this is just a political maneuver.
For better or worse--this is what the composition of the Board will be for the next 2 1/2 years, so it would behoove us as conservation advocates to do our best to "work with what we got" rather than looking ahead to a distant election for salvation.
The problem three on the land board are just the latest iteration in what is now multiple generations of cookie cutter tea party GOP politicians. These men and women have repeatedly proven that they have no interest in common with MT public land sportsmen/women. Tough to "work with" someone who has no real interest in working with you.
Just one opinion from one who has been around and in the middle of these same political games in MT for about 25 years now. It has not gotten better for "us" in that time.....
Schuyler, One of the three had enough info on Feb 9th. to tell the landowners he would be voting No on the Easement and that it wasn’t even going to make it out of the commission.
It was strictly due to the pressure that we got a delay.
Well good on you guys then! I assume this was the SOS who said he was a no since he seemed to have the most resistance to the idea of a permanent conservation easement (can't for the life of me figure out what his hangup is with the concept). As AG Fox pointed out--if you're paying this much for a conservation easement, it better damn well be a permanent one.
Good opinion piece from MWF & The Mule Deer Foundation in today's IR:
http://helenair.com/opinion/columni...al&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
Both the surface and mineral owners in a split estate have property rights. However, courts have held that the mineral right has no value unless the oil or gas can be removed from the ground. That means that mineral owners have the right to reasonable use of the surface, regardless of whether or not the surface owner grants permission. State and federal regulations further define this relationship. Surface and mineral owners are encouraged to open a line of communication as soon as possible to discuss plans and needs. This can happen before drilling is planned. If the surface owner leases the land to another party, the surface owner is encouraged to include the lessee or any others who may have an interest in the surface use in discussions about the use of the property.
Schuyler - lots of good advice here, but one thing to note - at least from my experience - past actions are an indicator of future votes.
That is so true; and the best way is through providing them with good information which supports the position you advocate. However, it has been my experience that some are so entrenched in ideology and/or partisan planks, that they cannot see what is clearly in the best interests of the folks who they are supposed to be representing. In that case, the only thing that seems to sway them is some type of political or public media pressure which they recognize as about to result in adverse consequences to their standing as an official or as a candidate (as is the case for Rosendale). Otherwise "working with" may merely be spitting into the wind!...we should do our best to work with the public servants who are in office.
Unfortunately, the split mineral and surface rights on this property really do complicate things. As much as I want this easement to go through, there may actually be some prudence involved here. Because the mineral rights are separate from the surface rights in this case, a conservation easement by the surface owners could not prevent a well from being drilled on this property (or other mineral extraction such as coal, etc). Theoretically, at least, if the mineral rights owner wanted to develop this property, the surface rights owner could not entirely prevent them from doing so. Typically, what happens if a well has to be drilled on land leased by the mineral rights owner, but not agreed to by the surface rights owner, is that a court will decide a level of compensation due the surface rights owner. So the worst case scenario here, is that the easement is approved, this area becomes a hotbed of oil and gas activity, and the mineral rights owner leases their rights, which allows wells to be drilled in spite of the conservation easement.
I encourage everyone to read http://www.leg.mt.gov/content/publications/Environmental/hb790brochure.pdf and see how little protection this easement would actually provide against mineral development.
Now, with modern technology, it's easier to reduce the surface footprint from subsurface mineral extraction (long lateral wells), but that doesn't guarantee there wouldn't be surface disturbance. $6 million is a lot of money to spend on a conservation easement that doesn’t actually guarantee the land cannot be developed.