Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to replace 'authorization to degrade' with 'feasibility allowances' draws sharp testimony
Summary
HB 685 would revise Montana's Water Quality Act terminology to 'feasibility allowances.' Industry proponents said the change aligns with federal language and preserves protections; environmental groups warned the draft shifts burdens and omits a clear definition, urging the committee to clarify statutory language.
Rep. Steve Fitzpatrick opened House Bill 685 by saying the measure replaces the phrase "authorization to degrade" with "feasibility allowances" in Montana's Water Quality Act. The sponsor and industry proponents said the change aligns state statute with federal phrasing and that existing protections for outstanding or high‑quality waters would remain.
Matt Vincent (Montana Mining Association) and other industry witnesses said the proposed term mirrors federal practice and would not remove opportunities for public participation or monitoring requirements tied to any allowance. "It's simply not accurate to call this process by its existing name an authorization to degrade... the process requires assurances that over time the conditions of any allowance granted remain protective of beneficial uses and water quality," Vincent said.
Opponents pressed a different interpretation. Derf Johnson (Montana Environmental Information Center) said the bill is more than a name change: it substitutes an undefined term and could shift the legal burden toward permitting lower water quality. "This name change is really talking about what kind of pollution can we put into the stream rather than how can we prevent pollution in the first place," Johnson testified.
Caroline Canarios (Northern Plains Resource Council) and Sam Carlson (Clark Fork Coalition) warned language on page 15 (lines discussed in testimony) would exclude social and environmental costs from consideration and instead prioritize benefits of development. They proposed alternatives such as explicitly labeling the change an exemption from non‑degradation standards or including clearer definitions and cost‑benefit requirements.
DEQ's Andy Ulvin and Director Sonia Nowakowski appeared as informational witnesses and said the department was consulted, does not expect the process to change materially, and that the proposed language more closely mirrors federal regulations cited in testimony as 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2).
Committee members asked whether "feasibility allowance" is defined in statute and whether the change would narrow public engagement; proponents and DEQ said implementation details would be part of the process but disagreed about whether statutory clarification is required now. The hearing was closed without immediate committee action.
