Missouri River Stewards Intervene
CBU opinion: CBU is concerned as to the litigation filed against the BLM by the environmental groups. This litigation is a threat to private property rights, multiple use recreation, grazing, natural resource management and extraction, giving special interests power over the public and private lands management, and the cost of litigation to the taxpayers. click here:
On Tuesday, January 19th, the Missouri River Stewards (“Stewards”) along with Fergus, Phillips, Blaine and Chouteau Counties filed to intervene to defend the government in several lawsuits filed by environmental groups against the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) regarding the management of the Upper Missouri River Breaks Monument. The BLM issued a Resource Management Plan that the environmental groups oppose.
“Ranchers and other rural settlers have lived within or neighboring the Monument for over 100 years and a large part of the social, economic and cultural base of the four counties surrounding the Monument depends on ranching and agricultural endeavors,” Matt Knox, President of the Stewards, said in his declaration supporting intervention. “Plaintiffs requested relief could have profound negative impacts on the Stewards and our members.”
Knox also said, “Some of our members come from families and generations that have lived in the Monument area for almost one hundred years. Many of our members and their ancestors have had an abiding respect and love for the land that is now within the Monument for more time than the federal government has managed the land.” The Stewards contend that the planning process prescribed by the National Environmental Policy Act should protect them because they are part of local customs, culture, and traditions of the area.
The Stewards intervened to support the BLM even though they disagreed with the BLM many times during the planning process. Knox explained, “The final document is not perfect and the BLM could have done a better job of following the proclamation’s mandate to protect valid existing rights, such as livestock grazing, recreational access, and oil and gas development on existing leases. Yet, we are asking to be allowed into the case to defend the RMP because the restrictions sought by plaintiffs would harm the families that ranch and live within the Monument boundaries.”
To read the full story in Northern Ag Network click here.
