Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coal Permitting Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would require earlier public release of CHIA in coal permitting to reduce last‑minute litigation
Summary
HB 633 would require DEQ to release a draft cumulative hydrologic impact analysis (CHIA) earlier in the coal permit review, giving the public an earlier opportunity to comment.
Representative (name not read in hearing excerpt) presented House Bill 633 to require DEQ to produce a draft cumulative hydrologic impact analysis (CHIA) earlier in the coal permitting process so the public can review and comment on the CHIA before the department issues its acceptability determination.
Proponents (including Westmoreland Mining, the Montana Coal Council, Treasure State Resources Association, and the Montana Chamber of Commerce) said the CHIA is a technical document that informs DEQ’s written findings and that making a draft available earlier would let stakeholders comment on assumptions and data before DEQ issues its final decision. Daryl James (Westmoreland) described current timing as leading to litigation when commenters raise technical issues after DEQ’s final finding; HB 633 would "move that CHIA into a draft form up to the DEQ determination of acceptability" and allow earlier review.
DEQ’s Dan Walsh testified as an informational witness and described the current application review timeline: initial completeness review, public notice and comment on the application, DEQ acceptability review and written findings, then CHIA finalization. Proponents and DEQ said HB 633 would align the CHIA review with the acceptability determination, allowing a consolidated comment period and potentially limiting later legal challenges to issues raised during the draft-CHIA and acceptability notice periods.
Derf Johnson (Montana Environmental Information Center) said two weeks is insufficient for stakeholders to review technical hydrologic information and suggested a longer (60‑day) timeline for review; Representative Seckinger indicated willingness to discuss extension. Industry proponents said the bill provides meaningful early review and reduces litigation risk.
Ending: Sponsor urged a due-pass recommendation, proponents and DEQ said the change would improve transparency and reduce last‑minute litigation. Committee discussion included possible adjustment of the review period length.
