Guest Editorial

Van Dyk Misses Mark On Montana Livestock Industry

By Errol Rice, Guest Writer, 8-22-07

Recently, Representative Kendall Van Dyk from House District 49 questioned the rural values of the Montana Stockgrowers Association. I’m pleased to respond with clarity our position on the difficult pieces of legislation mentioned by Rep. Van Dyk. 

Rep. Van Dyk questioned the stance taken by the Stockgrowers on three bills: 1) bridge access to streams; 2) groundwater permitting; and 3) S.B. 407. 

S.B. 78, the so-called bridge access bill, was opposed by Stockgrowers because it was not a “compromise” approach to access to streams at county bridge crossings as Rep. Van Dyk stated.  The bill failed to meet the terms of Stockgrowers policy and the bill involved no landowner participation in its development. The bill, if passed, would actually increase litigation, increase liability for ranchers and counties, and create, rather than resolve controversy.  In fact, after the House Committee hearing, both Democrat and Republican legislators expressed serious doubts about the bill and it died.

In regards to the groundwater permitting in Southwest Montana, Stockgrowers position on H.B. 831 was again guided by policy developed by membership. As introduced, the bill missed the mark badly. Ultimately, the bill passed with several amendments offered by Stockgrowers which were designed to make groundwater permitting actually fit within the principles of Montana’’s prior appropriation doctrine. Additionally, it would allow responsible groundwater permitting to move forward provided no existing water rights are affected.  Due to drought and other circumstances, access to groundwater for agricultural producers in Montana has become absolutely critical.  As a result of litigation filed by Rep.Van Dyk’’s employer, Montana Trout Unlimited, the groundwater permitting program was at an absolute standstill.  Contrary to Rep. Van Dyk’’s assertions, the bill, as introduced, would have made groundwater permitting virtually impossible, and at a cost which would preclude any farmer or rancher from participating.  Stockgrowers and other agricultural groups worked to modify the bill to hopefully allow producers in agriculture access to groundwater.

On S.B. 407, Stockgrowers did support the bill, which would allow ranchers access to coal bed methane produced water in emergency circumstances to water their livestock without requiring complex permitting.  With all of the safeguards on water quality which exist in current law, and which were specific to the measure, Rep. Van Dyk’’s assertion that “livelihoods” on thousands of acres of irrigated lands were at risk is nonsense.  In fact, the many ranchers who came to Helena to support the measure needed help badly and Stockgrowers provided them support.

As to the issue of Stockgrower’s attorney and lobbyist John Bloomquist also representing landowners in litigation in Western Montana regarding stream access, there is nothing “shady” about the matter. In that particular case, Mr. Bloomquist represented over 20 landowners and ranchers and three ditch companies, some of whom are several generation ranchers along the Mitchell Ditch in the Bitterroot Valley.  In that case, access advocates sought to confiscate private property under the guise of the stream access law.  The litigation effort was largely funded by the Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks and required private citizens, the Stockgrowers, the Montana Farm Bureau Federation and others to spend thousands of dollars to defend private property from confiscation.

As to the Farm Bill and Trade I am glad Rep.Van Dyk is aware of the importance of the subject of Country of Origin Labeling. The concept of which was initiated by Stockgrower members in Western Montana and ultimately presented to Congress after Stockgrowers diligently pressed national organizations and members of Congress to ensure that proper passage would benefit all producers. The language passed out of the U.S. House of Representatives recently was due in part to Stockgrowers push to change paperwork requirement language that put fewer burdens on producers and placed more accountability at the processor level. Rep. Van Dyk’’s support for a resolution to not reauthorize Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) was interesting since Montana cattle producers face tariffs of near 38.5 percent and 40 percent, respectively; in Japan and Korea. In addition the EU is the world’s largest user of beef export subsidies. The most effective way to eliminate those barriers and unfair trade practices is through determined negotiation and one way to accomplish that is through TPA.

The livestock industry faces these issues and many more in Montana every session of the legislature.  Sound legislation, like sound policy, requires careful consideration of the facts underlying the issue at hand.

Stockgrowers will continue to represent all of its members, who are in fact, the backbone of Montana’s ranching heritage, based upon the direction they provide its leadership and based on the facts surrounding the issue.  Neither mischaracterized personal attacks, nor ungrounded accusations of who the Association represents will change the fact that Stockgrowers has been serving Montana’s cattle industry since 1884 and will continue to do so each and every legislative session. 

Errol Rice, Executive Vice President, Montana Stockgrowers Association.

Errol Rice’s column is a response to a piece published on NewWest.Net by Rep. Kendall Van Dyk, D-Billings. Click here to read Van Dyk’s piece.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.