Arguing that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality is “flying blind without a plan in place” to mitigate nutrient pollution, a water-quality watchdog is asking the state to hold off on issuing wastewater permits.

The petition comes after the federal government said Montana can use “narrative” water quality standards, subjective criteria such as odor, color and the presence of undesirable aquatic life, instead of statistical metrics, to establish regulatory limits on nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. 

Upper Missouri Waterkeeper announced Oct. 29 that it is petitioning the state to hold off on wastewater permitting until a “lawful, science-based plan is in place to protect Montana’s waterways from nutrient pollution.”

Upper Missouri Waterkeeper is working alongside eight other environmental nonprofits to circulate the petition as part of an effort to ensure DEQ has a clear plan to mitigate nutrient pollution as it attempts to emerge from an extended period of permitting limbo wrought by a yearslong water quality tug-of-war between the state Legislature, environmentalists, industry groups and federal and state regulators.

Nitrogen and phosphorus can contribute to persistent algal blooms that deprive fish and other aquatic life of the dissolved oxygen they need to thrive. Wastewater from municipal treatment plants, mines and refineries is a common contributor of “point-source” nutrient pollution, but diffuse sources that are harder to regulate, such as poorly maintained septic systems, fertilizer runoff and livestock manure, can also contaminate rivers and lakes.

About one-third of the state’s waterways were considered “impaired” by nutrient pollution in 2020, when the DEQ last took a pulse check on the health of Montana waters.

Earlier this year, while testifying in favor of a bill to transition the state back to narrative water quality standards, DEQ told state lawmakers it had stopped issuing new wastewater discharge permits and allowed some of its permits to be “administratively continued” using whatever standards they had been granted under, even if the permit had expired. The agency described that situation as unsustainable.

In April, the Legislature passed that proposal, House Bill 664, by a healthy margin: 103 of the body’s 150 lawmakers voted to support the measure. Since it intersects with federal regulations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had to sign off on the revised standards before DEQ, its state counterpart, could implement them.

That happened Oct. 3 when EPA Regional Administrator Cyrus Western told DEQ that HB 664 could stand, arguing that DEQ’s proposed approach to water quality regulation will “protect designated uses” under the Clean Water Act, the federal law Congress passed in 1972 to clean up contaminated rivers.

Guy Alsentzer, with Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, said in an emailed press release that DEQ lacks an implementation plan, and that lack will lead to the degradation of “countless river miles.”

“Right now, DEQ is flying blind without a plan in place to determine — and prevent — harmful levels of nutrient pollution for most Montana waterways. This hands-off approach to regulating point-source pollution is a recipe for disaster,” he said.

In an email to MTFP, DEQ maintained that prior to adopting numeric criteria in 2015, the state used narrative nutrient criteria to protect Montana’s water bodies for decades. The numeric standards never applied to Flathead Lake and “most large rivers,” she added.

Asked if DEQ has emerged from its permitting standstill, agency spokesperson Madison McGeffers wrote that the agency has been “focused on developing the methodology for applying the narrative nutrient standard and reviewing administratively continued permits.” 

McGeffers noted that the agency has drafted a nutrient-specific modification to the Sibanye-Stillwater platinum and palladium mine permit, which is currently out for public comment. The old plan called for a limit of 15 pounds of nitrogen (a byproduct of the mine’s dynamite usage) entering the East Boulder River per day. The new plan seeks to increase that threshold using an averaged calculation and extend the mine’s timeline for complying with stricter limits in the future. It also includes monitoring and reporting requirements. 

Asked about the mine’s permit application in a follow-up interview with MTFP, Alsentzer said the proposal is a departure from science-based regulations that are protective of water quality, and said they represent a new playbook for industry groups.

Alsentzer argued that “there’s no reasonable dispute” that the mine is the largest single source of nutrient pollution on the East Boulder River and that the mine discharges more nutrients than was previously authorized or understood. It appears, he said, that companies like Sibanye-Stillwater were biding their time, waiting for HB 664 to go into effect rather than working toward increasingly protective water quality targets laid out in their permits. 

“Nobody wants to play by the old rulebook anymore,” Alsentzer said. “We’re going back to subjective decision-making without clear guidance, and I think it’s ridiculous.”

After the public comment period for the mine’s revised permit closes on Nov. 7, DEQ will make a final determination.

Other groups circulating the petition include Gallatin River Task Force, Bitterroot River Protection Association, Citizens for a Better Flathead, Montana Environmental Information Center, Gallatin Wildlife Association, Clark Fork Coalition, Flathead Lakers, and Alliance for the Wild Rockies. As of Friday afternoon, Oct. 31, the petition had garnered 102 signatures.