Political Browser: The Post's Daily Guide to Politics on the Web MORE »
Page 2 of 2   <      

Montana Pollution Rules Draw Federal Objections

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

The 2003 EPA draft report, obtained by The Washington Post from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Natural Resources News Service, which investigates environmental matters, said requiring companies to hold the contaminated water in storage ponds "would not have a major impact on production or any of the financial parameters measured by the economic model of any of the geographic regions investigated [Wyoming, Montana or Indian Country]." More expensive strategies include cleaning the water through reverse osmosis.

Schweitzer, Montana's governor, said the state estimates that the cost of complying with the regulations would amount to 8 percent of what companies receive for their gas; Williams said it would cost between 9 and 13 percent, and would "result in increased costs and fewer opportunities for a landowner and operator to work together to manage the water."

Environmentalists in Montana and Wyoming said they suspect that the administration suppressed EPA's initial estimate of cleanup costs.

"We do think EPA deliberately sat on this report because the powers that be in the administration and the industry didn't want it to get out," said Jill Morrison, a community organizer at the Powder River Basin Resource Council in Sheridan, Wyo.

The EPA has not taken a position on Montana's regulations. Spokeswoman Jessica Emond said the agency conducted the 2003 cleanup cost analysis because it was preparing to rule on a permit application concerning Montana's Crow reservation.

"The development never occurred," Emond said, adding that the EPA then shelved the report as having limited use.

Energy Department spokeswoman Megan Barnett said the department views the coalbed methane supply "through environmentally safe channels [as] a valuable part of the nation's energy mix."

Schweitzer, however, said he was convinced that his state needs the restrictions.

"The place where people are developing coalbed methane is the place where people make a living irrigating," he said. "The coalbed methane company is going to come and go in 10 years. But that rancher and his family have been there for 150 years. Who's going to take care of that rancher's grandchildren when there's no water?"

Researcher Karl Evanzz contributed to this report.


<       2


More in the Politics Section

Campaign Finance -- Presidential Race

2008 Fundraising

See who is giving to the '08 presidential candidates.

Latest Politics Blog Updates

© 2006 The Washington Post Company