Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deq Petition Review Period topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Hears Proposal to Extend DEQ Petition Review Window from 60 to 180 Days
Summary
House Bill 684 would change the statutory deadline for DEQ’s review of petitions to modify the impaired waters list, replacing a 60‑day requirement with a 180‑day review period if the committee adopts the sponsor’s amendment.
Get email alerts on the Deq Petition Review Period topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Fitzpatrick introduced House Bill 684, which would remove the current 60‑day statutory deadline for the Department of Environmental Quality to review data submitted in petitions to add, remove or reprioritize water bodies on DEQ’s impaired waters list. Fitzpatrick said DEQ requested more time and that he planned an amendment changing the 60 days to 180 days.
Lindsey Krivaruchka, Water Quality Division administrator at DEQ, testified in support and explained the agency’s workload constraints. Industry organizations including the Montana Mining Association, Montana Coal Council and Montana Rural Water also supported the amendment to 180 days as ‘‘reasonable’’ and more workable with permitting and other DEQ duties.
Opponents—Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, Montana Environmental Information Center, Flathead Lakers and individual community members—urged keeping a firm deadline. Guy Olson (Upper Missouri Waterkeeper) and others said removing the deadline would undermine timely, science‑based decision‑making and could conflict with the federal Clean Water Act’s goals. Several opponents said they would accept a 180‑day statutory deadline but opposed eliminating the requirement entirely.
Representative Fitzpatrick told the committee a 180‑day amendment had been drafted and asked the panel to adopt it in executive action; DEQ witnesses said 180 days was the product of an attempt to balance staff capacity and responsiveness.
The hearing closed with proponents and opponents identified and committee questions about how the 180‑day figure was chosen; no committee vote is recorded in the transcript.
