Trio of water quality bills lawmakers passed this spring focus of legal action against the EPA – Montana Free Press

Report on Legal Challenge to Montana’s Water Quality Legislation and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary: Upholding SDG 6 Through Legal Action

A legal action has been initiated by the environmental group Upper Missouri Waterkeeper against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The action contends that the EPA has failed to fulfill its duties under the Clean Water Act by not reviewing three new Montana state laws. These laws are argued to weaken water quality protections, thereby posing a significant threat to the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 14 (Life Below Water).

Legislative Changes Challenging Environmental Sustainability

The core of the legal challenge focuses on three bills passed by the Montana legislature, which critics argue dismantle science-based water quality standards essential for sustainable development.

1. House Bill 664: Weakening Nutrient Pollution Standards

   This bill removes specific numeric limits for nitrogen and phosphorus in wastewater discharges. This directly undermines progress toward SDG 6.3, which aims to improve water quality by reducing pollution and halving the proportion of untreated wastewater. Increased nutrient loads contribute to algal blooms, which deplete oxygen and severely damage aquatic ecosystems, directly impacting SDG 14 (Life Below Water).

2. House Bill 685: Diluting Nondegradation Policy

   This legislation revises Montana’s nondegradation policy by replacing protective terminology with a “feasibility allowance.” This change weakens the state’s commitment to protecting high-quality water sources, a foundational principle for ensuring the long-term availability and sustainable management of water as outlined in SDG 6.

3. House Bill 736: Introducing Controversial Nutrient Trading

   This bill establishes a nutrient credit trading system. While proponents label it an innovative, cost-effective approach, opponents argue it fails to guarantee effective pollution reduction at the source. This could create pollution hotspots, jeopardizing local aquatic habitats and contradicting the goals of SDG 14 to protect marine and freshwater ecosystems.

Institutional Accountability and SDG 16

The legal action highlights critical issues of governance and institutional responsibility, which are central to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• Upper Missouri Waterkeeper’s notice of intent to sue exemplifies the role of civil society in holding government agencies accountable for their legal and environmental obligations.
• The EPA’s alleged inaction on the petition represents a failure of a key institution to enforce federal environmental law, creating a regulatory vacuum.
• The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has placed wastewater permits in an “administratively continued” holding pattern, delaying compliance with existing numeric standards and stalling progress on SDG 6.

Historical Precedent and Ecosystem Impact: The Big Hole River Case

The current conflict echoes a previous legislative battle, demonstrating a persistent challenge to robust water quality standards.

• In 2022, the EPA rejected a similar Montana law (SB 358 from 2021) that also sought to replace numeric nutrient standards with narrative ones, following a petition from Upper Missouri Waterkeeper.
• The DEQ recently denied a petition to designate the Big Hole River, a vital trout fishery, as impaired by nutrient pollution, citing the contested state laws.
• This denial directly hinders efforts to protect a critical freshwater ecosystem, demonstrating a tangible setback for SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and the biodiversity it supports, which is a component of SDG 15 (Life on Land).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • The entire article revolves around the quality of freshwater in Montana’s rivers and streams. It discusses the legal and regulatory battles over standards for wastewater discharge, directly implicating the goal of ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The article explicitly mentions the ecological impact of water pollution. It states that nitrogen and phosphorus contribute to “algal blooms that throw aquatic ecosystems out of balance by depriving fish and the bugs they feed on of the dissolved oxygen they need to thrive.” This directly connects to the protection of aquatic life.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • This goal includes the protection of inland freshwater ecosystems. The conflict over protecting the Big Hole River, described as “one of the state’s most popular trout fisheries,” is a clear example of efforts to conserve and protect a vital freshwater ecosystem, which falls under the purview of SDG 15.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article details a legal conflict involving an environmental group (Upper Missouri Waterkeeper), a state regulatory body (Montana DEQ), and a federal agency (EPA). The lawsuit, the petitioning process, and the debate over the enforcement of the Clean Water Act all point to issues of institutional accountability, access to justice, and the development of effective environmental governance.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 6.3: Improve water quality by reducing pollution
   • The core issue is the loosening of water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus discharged from “wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities.” The legal challenge aims to prevent the weakening of laws that protect against this specific type of pollution.
2. Target 6.b: Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water management
   • The actions of the Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, a Bozeman-based environmental group, exemplify this target. The group is actively participating in water management by petitioning the EPA and filing a “notice of intent to sue” to influence regulatory decisions and enforce environmental laws.
3. Target 14.1: Reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including nutrient pollution
   • Although the target specifies “marine pollution,” the principle of reducing nutrient pollution from land-based activities is directly applicable. The article focuses on “nitrogen- and phosphorus-laden wastewater” from industrial and municipal sources, which is a primary form of land-based nutrient pollution affecting aquatic ecosystems.
4. Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems
   • The effort to protect the Big Hole River from being “impaired by nitrogen and phosphorus” is a direct attempt to ensure the conservation of an important inland freshwater ecosystem. The debate centers on what constitutes adequate protection for such ecosystems.
5. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels
   • The article questions the effectiveness and accountability of both the EPA and the Montana DEQ. The EPA is criticized for its “failure to act swiftly and decisively” on the petition, while the DEQ is noted for placing wastewater permits on an “administratively continued’ holding pattern,” indicating a delay in regulatory enforcement.
6. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice
   • Upper Missouri Waterkeeper is using legal mechanisms (“notice of intent to sue”) to compel the EPA to enforce the federal Clean Water Act. This action is a clear exercise of their right to access justice and uphold the rule of law in environmental protection.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Numeric vs. Narrative Water Quality Standards
   • The debate over replacing “numeric limits” for nutrients with “narrative standards” is a key indicator. The presence or absence of legally enforceable numeric criteria for pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus is a direct measure of the stringency of water quality regulations (relevant to Target 6.3).
2. Level of Nutrient Pollution and its Ecological Impact
   • The article mentions specific pollutants, “nitrogen and phosphorus,” and their effects, such as “algal blooms” and the depletion of “dissolved oxygen.” These are measurable indicators of water quality and the health of aquatic ecosystems (relevant to Targets 6.3 and 14.1).
3. Designation of Water Bodies as ‘Impaired’
   • The petition to “designate the Big Hole River… as impaired by nitrogen and phosphorus” serves as an official indicator of a water body’s health. The process and outcome of such designations measure how water quality is being monitored and classified (relevant to Target 15.1).
4. Institutional Response Time and Action
   • The article notes, “It’s been over sixty days since we petitioned the EPA,” and that the agency’s review might not be finished “before the end of the year.” This timeframe serves as an indicator of institutional responsiveness. Similarly, the DEQ’s decision to halt the re-evaluation of expired permits is an indicator of regulatory action or inaction (relevant to Target 16.6).
5. Filing of Legal Actions and Petitions
   • The “notice of intent to sue” and the petitions filed by the environmental group are indicators of community participation and the use of legal systems to seek justice and enforce laws (relevant to Targets 6.b and 16.3).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: montanafreepress.org