Judge steps into cow plop case

By Jennifer McKee of The Standard State Bureau

HELENA — A District Court judge here has ordered state environmental officials to take a

closer look at cattle feedlot pollution — and not give out any more of a certain kind of popular pollution permit until they do.

Helena District Court Judge Thomas Honzel ruled Oct. 3 that the water pollution permit for the Cattle Development Center — a large feedlot near Custer — was based on a faulty study of feedlot

pollution. Honzel ordered the Department of Environmental Quality to suspend the feedlot's license and complete a thorough study of feedlot pollution statewide.

The case, brought by neighbors of the feedlot and the Montana Environmental Information Center in Helena, deals with an esoteric chapter of state environmental regulations called ‘‘general permits.''

Feedlots are grassless pens where numerous

cattle are fed a special diet to get them to gain weight before they are sent to a slaughter house. The main environmental concern is cattle

excrement washing into rivers and streams.

In order to cut the costs and time wrapped up in giving feedlot pollution permits, the Department of Environmental Quality several years ago did a statewide environmental study of feedlot pollution, said Jan Sensibaugh, the agency's chief. The study outlined several stipulations for preventing feedlot pollution, like capturing rain water washing over the lot. Any would-be feedlot operator who agreed to follow those rules could apply for a permit, pay between $300 and $450 and automatically get the pollution permit feedlots need before they can legally open.

The department has given out close to a 100 of the pollution authorizations that way, said Tom Reid, supervisor of the department's Water Quality Permitting Section.

It was precisely that pollution study that the plaintiffs in the case went after. They argued that the study was inadequate and, in practice, failed to control the pollution generated by feedlots.

‘‘DEQ has no idea how many feedlots there are in the state,'' said Jeff Barber, a spokesman for the Montana Environmental Information Center.

Honzel agreed. And here's where things get cloudy.

In his order, the judge said that the environmental study underpinning dozens of feedlot pollution permission slips ‘‘is not effective.''

But in his judgment, Honzel ordered only the authorization for the Cattle Development Center be suspended.

Barber said he thinks the ruling calls into question every feedlot discharge authorization tied to the original study.

‘‘If they're authorized under a general permit that is ineffective, well, they're ineffective,'' he said.

Sensibaugh said she, too, is unsure. For now, the agency will not issue any new pollution authorizations tied to the old study. Instead, the department will only give feedlots permission to pollute after state officials have done an individual environmental study for each feedlot. Such studies cost feedlot operators $2,500 upfront and $1,000 a year after that.

‘‘We're going to have to sit down and evaluate what's happening,'' Sensibaugh said.

She's not alone. Pat Murphy, general manager for the Cattle Development Center, said he and his lawyers are also going to be meeting soon to find out what the case means for them.

Barber said he didn't think the ruling was a signal to ‘‘put the padlocks'' on feedlot gates statewide. He and the other plaintiffs only wanted the state to get a better handle on the environmental effects of feedlots.