Leveling the Playing Field Isn't Montana's WayŠYet

Emily Stonington

Following a year or more of dealings with J.M. Huber Corp., I determined to carry legislation to level the playing field between surface property owners and mineral owners. When J.M. Huber Corp. leased 18,000 acres for coalbed methane development on Bozeman Pass, property owners in the area became concerned. They feared their property rights were not respected, that land values were dropping and would be uncompensated. Many property owners struggled to figure out who owned their minerals and found in many cases their deeds did not indicate. Courthouse records were tricky to follow, leaving landowners nervous about a future with coalbed methane development on the horizon.

I introduced three bills in the '03 Montana legislative session, each designed to better ensure surface owner rights.

€ Senate Bill 240 required mineral developers to reach written agreement with surface owners prior to entering land for mineral development.

€ Senate Bill 248 required stricter bonding for coalbed methane development to ensure reclamation of surface damage

€ Senate Bill 261 established a process for abandonment of "dormant" (unused for 20 years) mineral rights so surface owners could begin to reclaim mineral rights beneath their land.

I am disappointed. None of these bills were voted out of Senate Natural Resources Committee. In my view, we have a problem in Montana. Mineral developers have the upper hand when dealing with surface owners, and they don't want to give it up. Under current law, with 10 days notice and the delivery of a workplan, mineral developers can enter your land and begin work. If the developer is willing, you can negotiate a surface use agreement, but the developer is not required to do so.

Some mineral development companies try to do right by the surface owners. Fidelity, which has begun coalbed methane development in southeastern Montana, has surface use agreements with landowners. They care about their relationship with the surface owner. They want the land to be in good shape when they're done. Still, they oppose giving landowners more say in what is in the surface use agreement. They claim it will lead to expense, delay and difficulty for the mineral developer. And so far, they have sway in the Montana Legislature.

Times are changing. More landowners, not agriculturally based, purchase land for scenic views, recreational opportunities, open space and proximity to a wonderful town like Bozeman. They don't want mineral development on or near their land. People across the state need to acknowledge changing attitudes. I was encouraged that Senate Natural Resources Committee at least voted to draft a study bill. Hopefully the Legislature will study surface owner and mineral owner rights, whether a better balance can be struck, and how to make ownership of mineral rights more easily known to surface owners.

I respect property rights of mineral owners. Mineral rights are as significant as surface owner rights, and mineral owners deserve to develop their minerals. On both sides of this issue, we must learn to talk with one another. Mineral developers stand to gain little by fighting with surface owners. There must be room for negotiation. We need to mutually determine where and how is the right way to develop minerals.

I hope we can reach agreement that Bozeman Pass is not the right place for coalbed methane development. J.M. Huber Corp. needs to work with the people of the Gallatin to find what works for all of us. In the meantime, the Montana Legislature needs increasing pressure to support leveling the playing field between surface and mineral owners.

Emily Stonington is a Democratic state senator from Bozeman.

Reader Comments