The rest — and where Black now stands — is 4 miles north and a point of contention in recent months, as a gravel mining company may soon begin a lucrative two-decade excavation on his property. 

“This option would potentially produce enough income to make major investments into the property,” Black said. “It allows us to keep the land for future generations… and that way, we don't have something like a subdivision there.”

Still, Black has faced vehement opposition as the sand and gravel company TMC Inc. moves forward with its application for the gravel pit. Nearby residents are lodging comments and raising concerns over the potential impacts on the local environment, traffic, water wells, air, their health and even the aesthetics of the area. 

But at the crux of the issue is a recent bill that neutered the impact of those public comments, codified a county’s inability to challenge gravel pits using emergency zoning, and — according to the legislator who wrote it — is being misinterpreted by Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality. 

***

In 2021, House Bill 599 passed amid a flurry of legislative action in the last days of the session. According to its sponsor, Rep. Steve Gunderson, R-Libby, the bill was only supposed to impact so-called “high and dry” gravel pits.

“Anything that [HB] 599 touches is high and dry,” Gunderson told the Chronicle. “What we want to do is make it easier and more streamlined for an operator to work with a ‘high and dry’ permitted area.”

Typically, “high and dry” gravel pits are located in a rural, isolated setting and away from residents and sources of water. They’re issued via a more easily attained dryland permit that allows construction crews quick access to gravel. But, according to DEQ’s interpretation of the law, HB 599 didn’t just create and alter regulations for “high and dry” pits — it did the same for standard permits, which TMC applied for.

Standard permits face a more rigorous application review process, but both types are impacted equally by HB 599 when it comes to minimizing DEQ’s regulatory authority.

“DEQ does not regulate noise, visual impacts, or hours of operation for either type of permit, and does not have the option to request a water resources analysis,” Moira Davin, a public relations specialist for the DEQ, said in an email 

The bill also made it harder for neighbors to raise concerns or request a public meeting with DEQ. Previously, it required 30% of surrounding neighbors, now it's 51% or at least 10 real property owners. Although residents can still submit comments, DEQ no longer regulates many of their concerns such as hours of operation and noise.

“HB 599 is unconstitutional,” said Tracie Gibbons, the president of the Gateway Conservation Alliance. “It removes individuals' voices from being heard, it handcuffs DEQ and it doesn’t allow for a thorough impact study to be done on the environment.”

Gunderson — the bill's sponsor — says that DEQ is misinterpreting the bill, and that HB 599 should only impact dryland permits. 

“Their interpretation of what it did differs from my interpretation,” Gunderson said. “It had nothing to do with the standard permit. They can still do exactly the same thing that they did before we passed 599…they're interpreting that it's separating [the permits] and I don't agree with that.”

DEQ refutes this.

“DEQ is applying the law, as written,” Davin said. “The law clearly establishes the requirements for dryland permits and the requirements for standard permits.”

*** 

As a 5th generation rancher, Black says that rising property values — and therefore property taxes — and inflation, have made it more difficult to live off traditional ranching alone. In 2022, the Blacks paid just under $11,000 in property taxes for all 2,546.48 acres. Black said his property value has increased dramatically in past years, as is the case for many others in Gallatin County.

“I don’t even own it,” he said when referring to his rising property taxes. “I’m just renting it from the government.”

Although property taxes are expected to increase, county property taxes will not rise at the same rate as property values.

Over the years, Black has turned to alternative revenue sources and now leases land to others to graze their cattle or to companies to plant crops. He’s allowed logging; and he also dabbled in photography and owns a clothing shop.

What Black doesn’t want to do is sell his land — which has an assessed value of more than $1.8 million but could easily be sold for tens of millions of dollars — believing that he and his generational connection to the land know what’s best.

“You have someone that comes along with unending pockets and they say, ‘I’ll give you $100 million for your place’…It’s a big incentive, [but] who knows what that person’s going to do with it,” Black said. “I’ve seen so many family farms disintegrate around us and be developed over my short life… there’s all this pressure to drive us out.”

Opponents have floated the idea of a conservation easement, but Black says he’s not interested.

Understandably, the gravel pit incentivizes Black and his family, who could receive between $5 million and $15 million without relinquishing ownership or control. Yet, the plan is somewhat contradictory as the gravel will support the very development that he opposes for his land, and that has caused property values to rise.

TMC’s permit is still pending since receiving deficiency letters from DEQ in early August that they’ll need to rectify before their application can be approved.

***

Driving by the 129.9-acre parcel on U.S. Highway 191, a sign across the road reads “Stop this pit” and points towards Black’s four-square of alfalfa and herbicide-resistant wheat in an otherwise serene landscape. To the southwest, Ted Turner’s conservation easement-protected Flying D ranch provides powerful imagery of Montana’s wilder past.

Despite his plans for a gravel pit, Black’s eventual goal — besides substantial monetary gains — is to return his land to its former glory. 

But to do so, he’ll have to destroy it before he can save it.

“We can mine it and then reclaim it and turn it into a wildlife habitat…there’s a ton of runoff going into the Gallatin River every spring,” he says referring to his crops. “We can get rid of all that and any environmental issues that we’re having with the farm now… I could see… ponds, creeks, trees, some hills, doing some landscaping and providing some really nice habitat.”

Herbicide-resistant wheat has been linked to a depletion of biodiversity but opponents say there are other means of rehabilitating the property besides a gravel pit. What may be of bigger concern is the diminishment of elk habitat in Gallatin Gateway.

“I recognize that elk are not the main drivers of land planning in Gallatin County, but there’s not much ambiguity whether a hayfield or a gravel pit is better for elk if that’s the question,” said Dr. Scott Creel, an ecology professor at Montana State University. “But a well-reclaimed gravel pit could certainly be a good wildlife habitat in the future.”

Once permitted, TMC will remove several feet of soil and store it in roughly 15-foot berms around the property. They’ll then remove up to 40 feet of gravel below the surface. Residents worry they’ll impact groundwater but according to TMC’s application, they won’t dig within 10 feet of the groundwater — several feet higher than DEQ’s minimum separation limit. Once done, the soil is returned, the land graded, and Black will be able to begin his reclamation.

TMC says the gravel pit will operate for 10 to 20 years, so long as they don’t decide to extend the permit. According to Stoeber, the project will be done in sections, thereby beginning the reclamation process sooner.

Still, it could take years before that begins.

Opponents remain suspicious, worried that DEQ isn’t stringent enough and worried that in the end, all that holds Black accountable is his word.

“It’s 20 years from now, he’s going to be 63 years old, you have no idea what’s going to happen over 20 years,” Gibbons said. “Unless you’re going to put it into writing and put your money where your mouth is, then no, why should we trust you.”

Black denies any intentions for the property other than wildlife habitat.

***

One option that opponents have raised for putting an end to the proposed pit is by zoning the land, but HB 599 has all but tied the hands of the county commission. Proponents argue that it’s only right that a county can’t impose zoning on a business once it has been established, whether running or just an application in hand.

“Even if the county said, ‘Hey, we want to do emergency zoning in this area’, it could not hold up or impact that application,” Gallatin County Commissioner Jennifer Boyer said.

But Gunderson says that the very tool that the bill specifically banned is also the only tool available to counties so long as they don’t use it retroactively.

“You’re not going to stop it,” Gunderson said referring to the gravel pit. “Preemptive zoning is the fix to take care of that.”

With over 80% of its private acreage without zoning, however, the county and its residents — who are allowed to petition for new zoning — may not be left with anything short of a county-wide zoning spree.

This, of course, is unlikely to be successful as many rural residents, including Black, oppose any form of zoning, thereby deeming the pre-emptive endeavor a waste of time and resources.

“That can be very problematic… it’s going to be difficult to run around the county and in every zoning district say you can’t do any opencut mines,” Boyer said. “[It’s better] to have conversations with our industry partners and our community partners and figure out where are those resources and where are the places where we can do sand and gravel mining with limited impacts.”

Although emergency zoning is not an option, it’s not the first time Gallatin Gateway has flirted with the idea.

In 2008, the Gallatin County Commission created county-wide interim zoning specific to gravel pits. Although a Gravel Pit Task Force recommended permanent county-wide zoning, the commission rejected the proposal and decided to enact zoning districts for Belgrade, Manhattan, Amsterdam/Churchill, and Southern Valley (in Gallatin Gateway).

The districts would have compelled operators to receive conditional permits. At the time, a local environmental group, Gateway Opencut Mining Action Group, sued the county over the zoning’s protest provision believing it to be unconstitutional. The provision only accepted “written protests...from persons owning real property within the district,” and reportedly there were numerous protests to the creation of the Southern Valley Zoning District.

However, according to court files, before the case was decided, gravel pit operators and landowners — including Black’s parents, Doug and Linda — intervened and argued for dismissal, alleging that the county had allowed its 30-day action period to implement the district to expire.

The lawsuit was ruled moot and the zoning districts weren’t extended.

***

From inside his house, it’s hard to imagine that Black and his family will soon be living within a couple hundred feet of an industrial operation. Although separated by a berm, he says if anything goes wrong, he’ll be the first to know.

He drinks his coffee as his son watches cartoons in the background and his day begins defending the very thing so many people oppose, for whom, so few viable options exist.

According to Gibbons, the only real option left will be to sue DEQ and the county once the permit is approved, alleging that neither has done enough to protect their right to a clean environment as protected under Montana’s Constitution.

In the end, however, with DEQ continuing to interpret the law differently from the person who wrote it, the opencut mine on the four-square in Gallatin Gateway may soon come to fruition, and a clash between landowner rights and communally imposed standards will continue as Black offers the only reassurance he can: trust thy neighbor.

“I know you’re scared about it; I know you don’t want it; I know you don’t think that I’m going to reclaim it; I know you don’t trust me; I know you think I’m in it just for the money; I know you think it’s going to be the worst thing that ever happened to this area,” Bayard said. “But if it works the way that I have envisioned, who’s to say that it won’t be the best thing that’s ever happened to this area?”