Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to remove DEQ petition deadline for water‑quality review
Summary
Rep. Steve Fitzpatrick opened a hearing on HB 684, which would strike a statutory deadline for DEQ reviews of citizen petitions to assess impaired waters. DEQ said the change would give needed flexibility; environmental groups urged preserving a finite timeline so the public gets timely answers.
Rep. Steve Fitzpatrick (House District 24) opened a hearing on House Bill 684, which the sponsor said was brought at the request of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to remove a statutory deadline for the agency's review of citizen petitions related to water‑quality assessments.
The bill's sponsor told the House Natural Resources Committee the change is intended to give DEQ additional flexibility to align petition reviews with the agency's two‑year integrated reporting cycle and related "calls for data." Andy Ulvin, DEQ's water quality planning bureau chief, testified as an informational witness and said the two‑year reporting schedule and interim data calls can make a fixed short deadline impractical.
Environmental advocates urged caution. Derf Johnson of the Montana Environmental Information Center said the citizen petition process gives communities a formal way to ask DEQ to consider listing a water body as impaired and that removing the deadline could create an "indefinite period" for agency action. "If there is an issue with how far out the DEQ needs, there could be an amendment to set a more reasonable timeline, but right now it would be an indefinite period of time," Johnson said.
Sam Carlson of the Clark Fork Coalition told the committee Montanans deserve the same prompt treatment afforded to permit applicants and asked lawmakers to oppose the bill or require a timeline that prevents disparate treatment between industry permitting and citizen petitions.
Committee members asked whether a middle ground was possible, for example extending the existing 60‑day window to 180 or 270 days; DEQ said additional time would be beneficial but that choosing a single date is complicated by the agency's reporting cycles and the timing of petition submissions. The sponsor said amendments might be more feasible on the Senate side, given the current transmittal schedule.
The committee closed the hearing on HB 684 without taking executive action.
