3/3/97

KUFM / KGPR

T.M. Power

Governor Raciot’s "Montana Initiative"

When the federal government offered to buy out the proposed New World mine on the edge of Yellowstone Park by exchanging valuable federal property for the mining claims and development costs already incurred, many environmental organizations supported that solution as the surest way out of a potentially disastorus situation for the park and the wildlands and waters surrounding it.

Some have suggested that environmentalists were naive in supporting this solution. They should have known that any federal exchange of resources to settle with the New World mine would just shift the environmental impacts to some other area, specifically to the lands that the federal government gave up in exchange. Obviously this would not necessarily reduce environmental impacts.

But the environmental organizations participating in the settlement did not have in mind trading other federal lands in Montana for the proposed mine. What was always discussed was the exchange of surplus federal property for the mine. Among the many things that were assumed to be available were surplus buildings and lots in various cities around the nation, surplus military base facilities in various states, and surplus equipment. In addition, since the federal government has long kept a "strategic reserve" of various minerals in the event of a lenghty Third World War, it was expected that a reduction in these largely unneeded stores of petroleum, copper, platinum, etc. could generate considerable cash with primarily a positive environmental impact since releasing those minerals would reduce current demand for additional mineral development.

It was Montana’s Governor who found this exchange of surplus federal property unacceptable and insisted upon an exchange that would privatize federal lands and resources in Montana. He labeled this a "Montana Initiative." His strong feeling was that Montana was losing something from the abandonment of the New World mine and the federal government sould act to see that we would get some other commercial extractive activities in exchange to offset this loss.

It is hard to fathom the economic logic of this position.

First, implicit in this view is the assumption that protecting Montana’s environment and Yellowstone Park from degradation has no economic value. Only the mauling of the environment to extract raw materials supports economic vitality, apparently. It is appalling to find this point of view guiding public policy at the very top of Montana’s government. This view sees our landscape only as a warehouse from which to extract commercially valuable raw materials. That is the brilliant economic strategy that produces Appalachias. High quality living environments are all ready the source of considerable economic vitality in Montana, certainly more than the economic vitality provided by metal mining.

Second, it is not clear how the Governor’s proposal actually increases the amount of natural resource activity in Montana. If U.S. Forest Service land is transfered to private hands, it will be removed from the Forest Service’s timber base and federal timber harvest will have to be reduced. The only way timber harvest will increase is if the new private owners manage the land with less environmental sensitivity that the Forest Service would have shown. That is, the governor must be hoping the new private owner will be more into "rape and ruin" than the Forest Service would be. But if the private owner does behave in that manner, the Forest Service will be required by regulations to reduce its harvest on adjacent lands to offset that private environmental damage. That is what the Forest Service had to do in the Lolo Creek drainage outside of Missoula. Again, timber harvest will not increase. Given a limited timber base in Montana and the need to harvest trees in a way that does not do permanent damage to our mountains and waterways, shifting land ownership will not increase timber availability unless something else is sacrificed.

Similar things can be said about selling federal coal lands or leases on federal coal. The federal government is now willing to lease coal lands to potential developers if minimal environmental constraints can be met. The federal government has leased large tracts of coal land already. If the land is available for lease already, it is not clear that transfering the land at fair market value will increase the likelihood of the land being mined. If the land has not been leased because there were environmental problems associated with coal development on those particular lands, then the point of the transfer is to consciously allow environmental damage that the American people through their government previously had rejected. Again, the Governor’s "Montana Initiative" must be premised on dodging federal environmental standards. That is hardly a noble objective and not one that is likely to stimulate economic vitality in Montana.

The proposed Montana Initiative is based on seriously flawed economic reasoning. We should not morn its demise.