Mining rights should not supercede Montana’s water rights

2013-04-24T09:00:00Z Mining rights should not supercede Montana’s water rightsGuest column by BRUCE FARLING missoulian.com
April 24, 2013 9:00 am  • 

Pretty much every Montana Legislature, the mining industry comes in asking for special gifts. In recent years mining interests pleaded for weaker water quality standards in drinking water for pollutants such as arsenic and nitrates, and they got them. They asked for weaker environmental reviews. They got those, too. They demanded lower reclamation standards and loopholes for reclamation bonding. And the Legislature obliged. Lawmakers granted these gifts even while Montana taxpayers were paying millions to clean up the industry’s abandoned messes, including ones caused by modern mining projects.

This session the gift the industry wants is the ability to trump water rights. All water rights – including very old, established rights for agricultural irrigation, hydropower, municipalities and fishery protection. The Senate and House have obliged by passing a measure approving this tremendous gift. Water rights are property rights, so in effect, the Legislature is giving away other people’s property.

It is now up to Gov. Steve Bullock to tell the mining industry it can’t diminish the property of others. He should veto Senate Bill 347.

Sponsored by Libby Republican Sen. Chas Vincent, SB347 ensures that the effects of massive groundwater pumping or diversions for mines will not be reviewed under the “nondegradation policy” of Montana’s Water Quality Act. The standards under this policy aim to protect Montana’s highest-quality waters. One standard says that if diversions or groundwater pumping reduce streamflows by more than 15 percent, or 10 percent when streams are lowest, it triggers a review of the effects, possibly requiring alternatives or mitigation. But the industry doesn’t want to comply, so it’s asking for a special deal.

Massive pumping of groundwater for keeping underground mines dry can deplete connected surface flows in streams. The nondegradation standards are the only legal backstop existing water right holders have to ensure pumping doesn’t diminish their rights to surface water. Because pumping or diverting from streams to keep mining operations dry doesn’t require water rights, affected users with water rights, such as irrigators and cities, can’t file objections under Montana’s water use law claiming harm.

So if you irrigate in, say, one of the areas that could be facing future mining that requires massive groundwater pumping, such as near Sheep Creek and the Smith River, or along Fish Creek in the Jefferson River watershed, or around Moose Creek in the Big Hole drainage, you could lose water you have a legal right to. If you run a hydroelectric dam on the lower Clark Fork downstream of two huge underground mines in the Cabinet Mountains that will pump millions of gallons of water a day, you might have less water to run your turbines, water you have a legal right to. Or, if you’re the city of Butte and want adequate water in Basin Creek Reservoir, a municipal drinking water source, be concerned. Groundwater pumping for a mining operation upstream in the Highland Mountains could diminish your right to surface flows. Finally, if you think instream flow rights Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has on the Blackfoot, Big Hole or Smith rivers will protect these multi-million-dollar recreational gems, think again. SB347 allows mining to trump FWP’s fishery-based water rights.

SB347 passed the Senate by a wide margin because the bill was supposed to be fixed in the House. But it wasn’t. Vincent did add an amendment that purports to protect fish. But industry lobbyists ensured the language is vague and difficult to enforce, practically guaranteeing future lawsuits.

Everyone who uses water beneficially in Montana must have a valid water right. The priority of these rights follows our first in time, first in right system. Newer rights cannot trump old rights. Interests with senior rights can file objections with Montana’s water use agency or state water court if a new use will harm theirs. That’s our system. But under SB347, the mining industry can ignore this. Bullock should ensure mining doesn’t harm existing water rights and veto SB347.

Bruce Farling is executive director of Montana Trout Unlimited, which represents 3,500 conservation-minded anglers and water users across the state.

Copyright 2015 missoulian.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(2) Comments

  1. Dubs
    Report Abuse
    Dubs - April 25, 2013 3:59 pm
    Bruce, you and TU have objected to every issue that facilitates growth and progress that comes along. We all want clean water buy if it were up to TU, people would be eliminated from all rural areas. I remember the stream set back discussion a few years ago when one of your members said he "was offended when he had to look at homes and cabins while rafting". Of course he was from out of state but it reflected the true underbelly of TU---keep people away from any water so we can enjoy our float trip. Funny how you flipped for a big check on Rock Creek and pulled your objection to power lines.
  2. Sukey
    Report Abuse
    Sukey - April 25, 2013 6:14 am
    Interesting timing. Read the article about the Drum(something) mine near Phillipsberg that pumped groundwater out of their mine and destroyed everyone's wells, including their fire departments. Its in todays issue (4/25) of this newspaper...
Missoulian Civil Dialogue Policy

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on Missoulian.com

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Missoulian (Missoulian.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in Missoulian.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Missoulian or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on missoulian.com.

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick