Mining here? It wouldn't happen

Occasionally, we get correspondence from our good neighbors to the north, claiming that Montanans are hypocritical in opposing mine development in the Canadian Flathead when there is active mine development elsewhere in Montana.

Well, yes, it is true that there is mining in Montana. Gov. Brian Schweitzer is pursuing coalbed methane development as well as coal-to-liquid fuel projects in southeastern Montana. There are also precious metal mines in Montana that are gradually moving forward, despite controversy.

So how can Montanans have the nerve to be concerned about coal extraction in British Columbia's Flathead drainage?

"It's preposterous for Montana to presume to challenge B.C. on anything to do with mineral extraction and protection of the environment," Kevin Krueger, the British Columbia minister of state for mining told Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper last week.

He went on to say that Schweitzer and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., "constantly try to raise their profile by beating up on B.C. when they've got a whole lot to be accountable for."

Well, here's what separates the transboundary Flathead drainage from other places in Montana where mining does occur:

Let's pretend that the North Fork of the Flathead flowed north, instead of south, into a healthy river system that feeds one of the cleanest lakes in the world.

And then let's suppose that coalbed methane and open-pit coal mining corporations took an interest in developing those resources south of the border.

Guess what? We can say with absolute certainty that it simply wouldn't happen.

Methane well pads and mountaintop-removal coal mining would not get approval in a basin with a Wild and Scenic River, bordering Glacier National Park and Waterton Lakes National Park, which combine as a World Heritage Site.

That kind of development would not be approved, when there are likely to be significant impacts on endangered and threatened species such as grizzly bears, lynx and bull trout, along with other sensitive species such as wolverine.

It simply wouldn't happen, because of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and other U.S. environmental laws.

And that's something that the transboundary conflict clearly illustrates - the contrast between U.S. environmental law and the near absence of similar laws north of the border.

At the very least, the National Environmental Policy Act would require U.S. agencies to do extensive, even over-the-top environmental assessments to determine short- and long-term impacts of coal and gas extraction, and not just one development at a time.

But in Canada, the environmental review process involves directing companies to conduct their own environmental assessments, one project at a time.

And that is one of the biggest concerns for Montanans - that development of roads and other infrastructure for one mining operation in the Canadian Flathead will open the door for more.

We agree entirely that energy development, even coal mining, can and should occur in some places. It's just that the transboundary Flathead is definitely not one of those places.