Billings Gazette Opinion - 6/17/2002
Opinion -- It's time to move beyond Breaks debate

If something isn't in, what's the point of taking it out?

When President Clinton signed the order designating 377,000 acres of federal lands in north central Montana as the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, the boundary was drawn around public property that fit the designation of breaks land. As in much of Montana, the federal lands are interspersed with some private lands. But the monument proclamation specifically excluded this private property, providing that it would only be part of the monument if the owner was willing to sell it someday.

Last Thursday, Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., long an outspoken critic of the monument, asked a U.S. House subcommittee to declare that the private lands are outside the boundaries of the national monument.

Rehberg said he is acting to protect the rights of private property owners who don't want their property to be within the monument boundaries.

"I do not oppose the monument, I oppose the process," Rehberg said after the subcommittee hearing. As Rehberg sees it, his bill would be "putting the burden back on the federal government to acquire the land."

We repeat: The private property isn't in the monument now. The monument designation doesn't change what private owners can do with their land in the Breaks. But moving the boundaries of a national monument requires an act of Congress. And if, Rehberg's Missouri River Breaks Boundary Clarification Act became law, it would create a roadblock to adding the land to the monument in the future, should any private owner ever wish to sell.

Nearly half of the land that Rehberg's bill seeks to remove has been part of the Upper Missouri River Wild and Scenic River for the past 26 years. These 35,800 acres of private lands have been within the 149-mile-long, federally designated wild and scenic river area for 26 years. The river has been protected, private property rights have been protected.

But local landowners who oppose the monument have Rehberg to fan the fires of their discontent and introduce legislation that would solve a problem that doesn't exist.

The majority of Americans, including Montanans, who commented before the monument was created, want this wild river country preserved. The upcoming bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition will bring throngs of visitors - and revenue - to this last, least-disturbed stretch of the historic route.

It's time to get ready for the stream of history buffs and river runners. It's time to figure out how to manage public resources while promoting respect for the privacy and rights of the monument neighbors.

This is a monumental task that will require collaboration among Montanans and funding from Congress.

Rehberg's bill isn't needed. But the more important issue is properly managing the monument. As the historic anniversary approaches, there is a tremendous opportunity to create jobs and commerce in central Montana.

If Rehberg truly supports the monument, he should aid the effort to plan for and manage this great American treasure.