Critics take fight to Capitol

Legislation introduced to the Montana Senate on Tuesday would place a new requirement before the controversial proposal to build a water bottling facility in Creston — one of several methods local citizens are employing in an attempt to halt the project.

Since the plant was first proposed in late 2015, residents in the Creston area have been mounting a campaign to stop the Montana Artesian Water Co. project, which Creston farmer Lew Weaver has proposed on his land. As proposed, the plant would have the capacity to pump up to 231.5 million gallons of water per year from the aquifer — a volume that nearby residents believe could substantially lower the surrounding water table and impact their ability to draw groundwater into their wells.

Weaver has argued that local residents’ fears have been blown out of proportion, and in response has pointed to studies conducted by Applied Water Consulting, a Kalispell firm he hired to estimate the potential impacts of the water withdrawals. The firm conducted tests that estimated minimal impacts to surrounding well-owners, although area residents and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s nearby fish hatchery have disputed those findings.

Citizen-led challenges to pending permits from the state Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and the Department of Environmental Quality are already underway, and Senate Bill 215, sponsored by Sen. Bob Keenan, R-Bigfork, would also subject the project to a review under the state’s Major Facilities Siting Act.

The measure would amend the act to include all water-bottling plants that bottle at least 100 acre-feet of water. The Montana Artesian Water Co.’s water-right permit is requesting the right to bottle up to 588 acre-feet of water per year.

Arguing that current law includes a “loophole” for environmental review required for water-packaging facilities, Keenan said the impacts of those plants in other states and provinces were a central motivation driving his proposal.

“I think the most egregious thing about a water bottling plant is it’s a state asset, given to a business for free, to package and sell,” Keenan said Tuesday, adding that plants in California and Maine have continued operation despite drought and declining groundwater.

Currently, the Major Facilities Siting Act applies to large projects including power plants, electric transmission lines and major oil and gas pipelines. It requires facilities to obtain a “certificate of compliance” from the Department of Environmental Quality, including a description of the facility, a summary of all studies conducted on its impact and baseline data on the proposed site.

“It would put applications for water facilities into a really strict and well-defined process of public review and environmental impact statements,” Keenan said.

THE LOCAL water controversy subsided to a simmer in the months following a contentious hearing last August, when dozens of residents testified against a wastewater-discharge permit the plant has requested from the Department of Environmental Quality.

But last week, about 180 Flathead residents piled into the Flathead High School auditorium for a two-hour presentation by Water for Flathead’s Future, an organization formed last year after news of the bottling plant proposal trickled out.

Dave Eychner, a member of the group, provided an overview of the group’s efforts to resist the plant. Several nearby residents have challenged the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation’s preliminary water-right permit, which it issued to Weaver in early 2016. Eychner said the two sides will present their arguments in the state’s water court on May 23.

“The DNRC used the wrong standard here when they decided they were going to issue this permit,” Eychner said, arguing that the company’s plans to ship water out of state should have triggered a higher standard of review. “You have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that this is worthwhile and it meets the rules of law.”

Eychner added that while he couldn’t guess at the results of the hearing, he expects the legal challenge will ultimately head to district court.

Separately, the group is still awaiting word from the DEQ after residents submitted hundreds of comments urging the department to apply a more stringent environmental standard to the proposed discharge permit for the plant.

Dierdre Coit, the organization’s chairwoman, told the audience that the proposed plant’s impacts on local truck traffic and the aesthetics of the community would have a deleterious effect on property values.

Reporter Sam Wilson can be reached at 758-4407 or by email at swilson@dailyinterlake.com.