Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Anti Degradation Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate Over Anti‑Degradation Language: Industry Seeks Alignment with Federal Rule; Environmental Groups Oppose
Summary
House Bill 685 would change Montana’s anti‑degradation statute by renaming a state allowance to a ‘‘feasibility allowance’’ and striking language that requires a demonstration that development benefits exceed societal costs of allowing degradation of high‑quality waters.
Representative Fitzpatrick introduced House Bill 685, which would change language in Montana’s anti‑degradation statute: proponents would replace a state phrase that permits degradation where certain conditions are met with a ‘‘feasibility allowance’’ aligned to the federal Clean Water Act anti‑degradation framework and remove language requiring a social cost–benefit balancing test.
Matt Vincent of the Montana Mining Association said the proposal ‘‘aligns Montana’s statute with what is already in place in the federal Clean Water Act’s anti‑degradation policy’’ and argued that the stricken language—requiring that ‘‘the benefit of the development exceeds the costs to society of allowing degradation of high quality waters’’—would have required an undefined cost‑benefit analysis that exceeds federal requirements. Proponents stressed the bill would retain safeguards requiring protection of beneficial uses and least‑degrading practicable alternatives and would preserve public participation.
Opponents including Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, the Montana Environmental Information Center, the Clark Fork Coalition and others countered that removing the balancing language is a substantive change, risks violating federal requirements and would reduce DEQ’s ability to weigh economic benefits against environmental and social costs. Andrew Gorder (Clark Fork Coalition) said existing state language reflects the Montana Constitution’s requirement to consider costs and benefits and warned the change would ‘‘move from pollution prevention…to pollution allowance.’’
DEQ staff testified that they are still reviewing the bill’s consequences and are consulting their attorneys about how DEQ would weigh social and economic importance under the proposed language. Committee questions focused on how often the existing high‑quality degradation provision has been used (witnesses said it is rare) and how the change would interact with EPA review.
The hearing closed with proponents insisting federal alignment reduces regulatory uncertainty and opponents warning of legal and environmental risks; no committee vote appears in the transcript.
