Montana’s Land Board approved a sweeping rewrite of the state’s land-swap evaluation process on Monday, voting to move forward with changes presented by State Auditor James Brown that he said would streamline decision-making and improve transparency for the public. Brown, whose office introduced the proposal, described it as a “red-tape reduction” effort aimed at eliminating “unnecessary bureaucracy,” while also seeking to better address disputes that can arise over water access and corner-crossing issues.
Brown told the board that the revisions would also open additional opportunities for interested parties to comment, framing the changes as a way to make the evaluation process more open. Opponents, however, focused on the timing and the amount of public notice, arguing that the proposal did not include a robust public comment period and that the Land Board should have delayed its vote to allow for more time to review.
The dispute over process played out during the Land Board meeting, where Gov. Greg Gianforte attempted to add a 30-day scoping and comment period. Gianforte’s motion failed on a 3-2 vote, and the Land Board then voted to approve Brown’s proposal in a 4-0 decision, with Gianforte abstaining from the final vote. The meeting discussion included tense back-and-forth as Brown outlined what he said were attempts to engage the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) during the revision effort.
Opponents said the limited notice contributed to what they described as a lack of transparency, pointing to how quickly the proposal reached the public. Kevin Farron of the Montana Wildlife Federation said the process was opaque, adding that the Land Board gave the public the proposal “seven days ago in its full form” and that “a 30-day scoping and comment period should be the very least that we should be getting out of this.”
The Land Board’s land-swap authority allows state land managers to exchange public trust land for private land that is “equal or greater value” to the state, with trust revenue used to support public schools and other government programs. The board, composed of Montana’s five elected officials, approves exchanges that are often used to consolidate land ownership in areas where public and private parcels are interspersed in a checkerboard pattern that can complicate access.
Brown’s proposal included shifts in how the state plans to evaluate land and determine value, including changes tied to when consultants may be used and how economic and recreational value can be considered. One section of the policy directs that trust land should generally be valued for its “highest and best use,” while also instructing decision-makers to account for “limiting factors.” It also directs DNRC to apply a “commercially reasonable discount” for state lands without documented legal access—an approach described as relevant in checkerboard situations.
The overhaul also narrows when a state law limiting swaps applies to lands with water features that have significant public use. Brown’s plan specifies that water resources must have a “documented history of being meaningfully used” for activities such as crop irrigation, livestock watering, fishing, recreational floating or waterfowl hunting in order to trigger the law’s restrictions, according to the description of the policy changes.
In public comments, multiple opponents pointed to the East Crazy Inspiration Divide Land Exchange as an example of what they said can go wrong when powerful landowners work through paid consultants to broker deals with public agencies. The Forest Service authorized that exchange in January 2025, and commenters cited it as evidence of outcomes they said may leave the public with less useful terrain and reduced recreational access.
One commenter, Russell Fruits with the Montana chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, argued that recent brokered land exchanges in Montana produced “deals where the public received high-elevation terrain of limited utility” while giving up “productive lower-elevation land and established recreational access,” and said those results were not accidental. Fruits also described the problems as a consequence of an absence of independent accountability to the public.
Supporters of the proposal included lobbyists and advocates who said the changes were designed to align more closely with Montana’s constitutional requirements for land swaps and to correct what they saw as process issues tied to public engagement. Tom Jacobson, a former Democratic lawmaker, said Montana’s constitutional guarantees remain unchanged, adding that land values must be at least equal and acreage should be as close to equal as possible, and arguing that land swaps are not inherently bad—while controversy arises when early public input is lacking.
During discussion among the all-Republican Land Board members, Brown described his attempts to engage DNRC in revising the policy and said he was frustrated by what he described as the agency’s lack of responsiveness. Attorney General Austin Knudsen supported the plan, saying Brown and his office had used “thoughtful outreach” to build support from groups with different interests, and said the proposal would shift power away from DNRC’s bureaucracy toward the Land Board itself.
Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen and Susie Hedalen, with the Office of Public Instruction, also voted to approve the change, with Hedalen arguing that issues tied to consultants “can always be proposed for us to review again.” The Land Board’s approval completes the Monday vote over Brown’s proposal, despite the earlier motion to extend the public comment window failing and despite opponents’ calls for a longer scoping period before any final switch in the land-swap process.