Congress should consider eminent domain for Weyerhaeuser land

The recent sale of 630,000 acres of Montana timberland to Southern Pine Plantations threatens many traditions that we once took for granted. What will happen to the tradition of free public access? As we ponder the gentrification of the forest we must also consider the effect on wildlife, water quality, local mills, and fire protection.

The recent land sale came as a complete surprise to most regional stakeholders that may have offered bids on the land. After all, the reported price of $230 per acre should have attracted many bids. There is nothing ordinary about this deal. The land has a controversial history and should be subject to considerable public debate. Most, if not all, of this land was part of the 1870 land grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad. The railroad was supposed to sell the land to pay back bondholders and others who financed the construction. When the rail line was finished in 1883 the Northern Pacific laid claim to about 20 percent of the land in Montana! As late as 1941 most of the land was retained by the railroad which violated the terms of the grant. Beginning in about 1988 the retained land was split off from the railroad and was part of the following sequence of ownership: Burlington Resources, Plum Creek, and then Weyerhaeuser.

The land transfers which began in 1988 seem to violate the spirit of the original land grant which was approved by congress in 1870. The law required the railroad to sell the land to settlers in maximum parcels of 160 acres at a maximum price of $2.50 per acre. Moreover, most of the land was supposed to be sold within five years of the completion of the transcontinental railway. There were too many other violations of the land grant law to list here (see www.landgrant.org). Of course, selling off the land in 160 acre parcels makes little sense today. But it seems obvious that congress wanted to encourage a broad ownership of the lands and encourage a productive use of land. The congress of 1870 sought to prevent the establishment of land barons such as those in Europe and South America. What would the 1870 congress say about the current pattern of forest ownership? What would they say about the raw logs from old railroad land in Washington State that are exported to Asia?

A summary of the story would say that the corruption of the Gilded Age in America allowed the railroad to make a huge windfall profit from the land grant. By 1924 a limited sale of lands provided $136 million which greatly exceeded the construction cost of $70 million. But in 1924 the railroad was still holding 40 million acres of extra land. Republican President Benjamin Harrison had previously signed the General Forfeiture Act which took back two million acres in 1890. However, an investigation during the term of President Coolidge revealed the depth of the fraud. Subsequently, the administration of President Herbert Hoover filed a suit in 1931 to force the return or sale of the land. Hoover was the third Republican president to seek return of lands gained through fraud. The case was not settled until 1941, on the eve of World War II. Northern Pacific paid the government $300,000 and was allowed to retain 39 million acres! However the presiding judge urged congress to review the settlement because the negotiating committee lacked full authority to violate the original law. A few months later America entered the war and congress dropped the matter.

Now is a good time for Congress to complete the work unfinished in 1941. Court interpretations of eminent domain have changed considerably since 1941. President Donald Trump has said that “eminent domain, when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good – I think it’s a wonderful thing.” Residents of Northwest Montana should heed the advice of Trump and find a way to preserve jobs the unique environment here. We need to put all options on the table to make sure the windfall of this land benefits all people in the region.

To manage the land purchase and subsequent operations, Congress could set up a semi-public corporation modeled after the Port Authority of New York or the Bonneville Power Authority. The new company, called the Northwest Forest Authority, would have a charter mandating a sustainable forest under multiple-use which gives priority to value-added lumber. It would have a more regional focus than the federal Forest Service (which would continue to operate). People from the region should be on the board of directors. The new company should also take a serious look at all the former railroad timberland in the West if that is what it takes to put an end to the export of raw logs and ensure public access.

—Dennis Brosten lives in Kalispell.