Dueling Bridge Access Bills & Why Does the Montana Stockgrowers Assoc. Hate Counties?

January 13, 2009 in 2009 Legislative Session, Montana

by jhwygirl

The legislature will see two bills associated with public access at county bridges this session – HB26, proposed by Rep. Ken Peterson, of Billings and HB190, proposed by Rep. Kendall Van Dyk, also of Billings.

How’s that for a showdown?

Van Dyk’s bill has gotten a large amount of press, for the tremendous amount of work that has gone into it, seeking compromise between recreational users, recent litigation, private property owners and special interest groups like the Montana Stockgrowers Association – in the Missoulian, in the Billings Gazette, and more recently, at Left in the West.

Me? I focused on Peterson’s bill in this post. It didn’t get a lot of love.

Today was the hearing on Van Dyk’s bill, which went late – but mainly due to a tremendous amount of testimony in support of the bill.

…but getting to the question: Why does the Montana Stockgrower’s Association hate counties?

The bill crafted by Rep. Kendall Van did include input from the Montana Stockgrowers Association – but they have problems with granting access at all county bridges. Some, they say, are only prescriptive in nature – roads that have been used for a length of time, but lacking any formal approval process by the county. At those bridges – presumably one of them is located at lobbyist for the Montana Stockgrowers Association John Bloomquist’s client’s property – the Stockgrower’s would want to see the width of the county road shrunk to the width of the bridge.

Now, I’m seeing that as problematic for a few reasons. One being that state law has set the width of county roads at 60 feet for more than a century – hell, for nearly 125 years. Many of these roads are shown on some of the first maps of the territory. Frankly, if an actual historic review was done of some of these roads, it is quite possible that the historic prescriptive use of these roads was much wider than the 60 foot standard. Wagons made ruts and huge holes that gathered water. Roads could get pretty wide in the old days to accommodate that stuff.

Secondly, shrinking that width to the width of the bridge – thereby cutting off public access – would hamstring counties for bridge maintenance and any future changes to transportation infrastructure in the future. Extra width is needed for maintenance. Need an additional lane for traffic? Want to add a bike lane? Add a center lane? Forget about it under the stance the Montana Stockgrower’s Association’s position.

Legislators should think carefully when contemplating any legislative action that might impact counties. Often we Montanans get legislation that ends up creating more (think gravel pits and the 2005 Legislative Session) problems than the fixes the original legislation intended to correct.

This access issue, and the attempts to add some sort of so-called prescriptive clause, is a prime example of a disaster-in-waiting.

Peterson’s bill is scheduled for Friday at 3 p.m. I see that bill as a weakening of the public’s and the county’s claim to public roadway mainly because it requires the public to pay for reconstruction of bridges that encroach in the public roadway. I don’t see any reason why the public should be footing private property located in pubic roadway. Frankly, I see it as a liability. Now, to be fair, Van Dyk’s bill allows for public funds to be used to reconstruct fences, but only after a mediation process with Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the affected property owner.

But why, pray tell, would the Montana Stockgrower’s Association want to weaken the public’s right to use public roads? Why would it want to hamstring counties into possibly having to pay for access to its own roads in the event of widening or maintenance?