Do mineral rights have anything to do with citizen initiated zones in Montana?

As noted earlier this month, the Stillwater County Commissioners have found that the group seeking to form a citizen initiated zone in southern Stillwater County has collected the signatures of over 60% of the landowners in the proposed zone, the minimum threshold required by law. That is a major accomplishment by a dedicated group of volunteers over a long period of time, and a tribute to the commitment of local landowners to preserving their community.

Map courtesy Bert Sperling,

However, the Commissioners have questioned whether the mineral rights holders in the proposed district should be counted toward the 60% in addition to the freeholders, or landowners. They plan to request an opinion from Montana Attorney General Tim Fox on whether this is the case, which could delay action on the zone for a significant period of time.

The fact that the Commissioners feel this is an open question made me wonder whether this is really an issue in practice in Montana. After all, citizen initiated zoning has been allowed by the Legislature since 1953 (see page 8), and the process, requiring the signatures of “real property owners,” is well established in Montana law.

If the law has been in place for 64 years, other counties in Montana must be using it. Are they struggling with the same issue? I took a look at the web site for every county in the state to find out.

The counties listed below provide links to citizen initiated zones on their web sites. They sometimes call them by different names — special zones, Part 1 zones, RFIDs — but the listings all refer to special districts created under MCA § 76-2-101. Other counties may have citizen initiated zones as well, but they are not identified on their web sites.

County (population)                Number of citizen initiated zones
Yellowstone (158,437)                                        6
Missoula (116,130)                                            31
Gallatin (104,502)                                             23
Flathead (98,082)                                              1*
Ravalli (42,088)                                                41
Park (16,114)                                                       6
Stillwater (9,406)                                               1**
Dawson (9,327)                                                  2

* Not listed on website, but per email from a Flathead County planner
** Not listed on website, but the West Fork Stillwater District was formed in 1979. Petitions were signed by landowners only, and approved by the Stillwater Commissioners.

That’s at least 111 citizen initiated zones formed under the same Montana law used by the Stillwater petitioners. How many, I wondered, were formed by petitions of both surface and mineral owners?

So I looked at the citizen initiated zoning process for the counties that posted them, talked to the planning department and clerk and recorder of a number of them, and could find no indication that a single one of the 111 required the signatures of mineral rights holders. Many of the zones are decades old, but no one I spoke to had ever been involved with a zone that included mineral rights holders in the petition process.

There are very good reasons for this, of course. First, it’s a practical impossibility to find out who the mineral owners are. There are no databases of Montana mineral rights holders. We’ve often discussed the research it takes to find out who owns the mineral rights to your land. Imagine having to do a title search for the 600+ properties in the Stillwater Zone, tracking down the contact information of every fractional owner, and obtaining their signatures. And if you were successful, how could the County Clerk validate the signatures without doing a similar search?

And what about the existing 110+ citizen initiated zones in Montana, created by dedicated volunteers concerned about protecting their own properties and approved by their county commissioners? If the Attorney General decides that mineral owners need to be included, will they have to disband because they didn’t get the signatures of mineral holders?

The Montana Legislature established citizen initiated zoning over 60 years ago and has updated the code several times since then. You have to imagine that if  they had wanted mineral rights owners to be a part of this they would have specifically said so.

If counties around the state have been enacting these zones for decades without considering this question, why should this be an issue now?


  • Ravalli County, which has the largest number of citizen initiated zones, has established a very clear process for landowners who seek to establish a citizen initiated zone. It does not include mineral rights holders. Download.
  • Missoula County information regarding the creation of citizen initiated zones. The document specifically refers to the collection of signatures of freeholders, and mentions nothing about mineral rights holders.
  • An example of a 1994 resolution to create a Ravalli County zoning district. Note that on Page 11 the document refers to “freeholders” rather than “real property owners.”
  • A citizens guide to forming a zone in Sweet Grass County created in 1999 clearly specifies that it applies only to landowners.

About davidjkatz

The Moses family has lived on the Stillwater River since 1974, when George and Lucile Moses retired and moved to the Beehive from the Twin Cities. They’re gone now, but their four daughters (pictured at left, on the Beehive) and their families continue to spend time there, and have grown to love the area. This blog started as an email chain to keep the family informed about the threat of increased fracking activity in the area, but the desire to inform and get involved led to the creation of this blog.
This entry was posted in Community Organization and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Do mineral rights have anything to do with citizen initiated zones in Montana?

  1. says:

    brilliant! don’t see how they could refute those facts in or out of court without opening a huge can of worms for the rest of the state including what they already allowed in swc…as always follow the money to find the truth and collusion… you do great work, thank you..

  2. lynnbob says:

    They are using it for a delay tactic till time will make the validity of the signatures in question. The Wilkes used the same tactic in Texas till they could pay to elect enough politicians to change the Constitution of Texas!

    Sent from my iPad


  3. Lana Sangmeister says:

    David, an excellent overview calling out the delay tactic that Stillwater County is using – and to what end?

  4. KnoxAnn Armijo says:

    Perhaps this is silly question and surely addressed but since property owners have to pay taxes on real property, doesn’t same apply to mineral right owners? If not, then how could they have legal standing? I grew up on small homestead farm in Fox near Red Lodge. I care about preserving the Beartooths and the terrible stuff going on near and around Belfry. Politicians seem to favor corporate over people and landowners have less and less control over their piece of earth. How does the mineral rights get purchased? Why doesn’t Montana know who owns the minerals? Dumb question?

    • davidjkatz says:

      Not a dumb question at all, and a complicated part of property rights law in much of the West. The short answer is this — over time, the surface rights and property rights have become separated, sometimes by inheritance (a parent leaves the surface to some and splits off the mineral rights) or in various other ways. Some surface owners own mineral rights, and many don’t.

      Once sold, the mineral rights get broken into pieces and sold and resold, so that on any given property, the rights may be broken into 16 or 32 pieces, owned by lots of different people. You hit on a key point — mineral rights holders don’t pay property taxes, so counties don’t keep track of them. You have to do a complicated title search to find out who owns minerals.

      So the bottom line is that mineral rights holders are very different from surface owners. Zoning has to do with land use, and they don’t own the land, so they shouldn’t be involved in zoning decisions.

      Thanks for reading. We look forward to having you back in the Beartooths!

  5. KnoxAnn Armijo says:

    I grew up in the Beartooths. I love them. I want to help in any way I can. I am moving home soon.

  6. Pingback: Beartooth Front zone update: Stillwater Commissioners turn their backs on locals who pay their salaries; support unknown outsiders | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  7. Pingback: ACTION ALERT: Please contact the Stillwater County Commissioners to stop them from taking landowner rights | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  8. Pingback: BREAKING: Beartooth Front landowners file legal action against Stillwater Commissioners | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  9. Pingback: Stillwater residents give County Commissioners an earful on proposed policy (video) | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  10. Pingback: Last chance to tell the Stillwater Commissioners how you feel about proposed zoning policy | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  11. Pingback: Why is Stillwater County spending tens of thousands of dollars on high priced out of state lawyers? | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  12. Pingback: Latest developments in Beartooth Front Coalition lawsuit against Stillwater County | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  13. Pingback: Action Alert: Please attend hearing on Stillwater County landowner lawsuit, Thursday, July 26, 1:30pm | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  14. Pingback: Landowners show up for hearing on Beartooth Front lawsuit | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  15. Pingback: Beartooth Front landowners win first round of lawsuit | Beartooth Front Coalition

  16. Pingback: Beartooth Front landowners win first round of lawsuit | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  17. Pingback: Beartooth landowners file motion for summary judgment in zoning lawsuit | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  18. Pingback: Stillwater County landowner lawsuit update: County runs out the clock on Judge Jones; hearing set for January 16 | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  19. Pingback: Action alert: New developments in landowner lawsuit against Stillwater County; what you can do to help | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  20. Pingback: Action alert: Your attendance needed at Stillwater County Planning Board meeting, July 3, 2019 | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  21. Pingback: Must attend! Stillwater County Planning Board: Wednesday, August 7, 7pm | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  22. Pingback: Action alert: Stillwater County Planning Board meeting, Wed, 9/4, 7pm | Preserve the Beartooth Front

  23. Pingback: Action alert: Watch court hearing on Zoom, Thursday, 2:00 pm | Preserve the Beartooth Front

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s