Coal bed methane: Irrigator takes MDU to task

By Roger Muggli - 01/22/2004

Roger Muggli on the banks of the Tongue River in southeastern Montana.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Roger Muggli manages the Tongue and Yellowstone Irrigation District and, along with his family, runs a family farm and feed pellet operation near Miles City. He is a member of the Northern Plains Resource Council's

volunteer coal bed methane task force.

Barrels of ink have been spilled lately concerning the coal bed methane industry's annoyance at having to jump through legal "hoops" and over

regulatory "hurdles" in order to develop methane in Montana.

Take a recent quote from Mike Caskey — Vice President of MDU Resources' coal bed methane producing subsidiary — concerning settlement of a lawsuit over Clean Water Act violations.

"We'll make sure we jump the additional hurdles," Caskey said, after pointing out that the company didn't think it had been doing anything wrong.

Caskey and other out-of-state methane executives seem to think safeguards for our clean irrigation water and valuable aquifers are obstacles to development. They consider filling out the right paperwork a "hoop" and

"hurdle," but they only do that after they've been sued.

For farmers, ranchers and others who rely on that same water for irrigation, stock, and our homes, those safeguards are the key to making sure we can pass our operations on to our kids and

grandkids.

For Caskey and his colleagues, it's a question of how much you can get away with and for how long instead of asking how can you do this right in the first place.

Take a recent Appeals Court ruling that salty coal bed methane wastewater is a pollutant and must be regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). MDU fought that ruling every step of the way, even asking the Supreme Court to take up the matter (which it didn't).

At the heart of the lawsuit was a

simple premise: Before you discharge wastewater containing 30 to 50 times the sodium into a river or stream, get a

permit. That's the only way to make sure rivers don't become too salty for irrigation, fish and plants.

MDU argued that because the water came out of the ground, it shouldn't be regulated — regardless of the concentration of salts and other pollutants and regardless of the amount of water they discharge to the surface.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

disagreed, saying MDU's "interpretation ... is not correct, for it would allow someone to pipe the Atlantic Ocean into the Great Lakes and then argue that there is no liability under the CWA ... Such an argument cannot sensibly be credited."

MDU is now trying to get out of this ruling's requirements by spraying their wastewater onto the ground and calling it "irrigation."

Subjecting perfectly good soil to high sodium methane wastewater and calling it "irrigation" is ridiculous — but they're trying it and will continue to try it until someone stops them.

To top it all off, Caskey wants us to sympathize with his company because it's been sued on so many

occasions.

Well, I've got news for Caskey. I run an irrigation district with 300 members — in addition to managing our family farm and running a feed pellet plant.

I have better things to do with my time than sue the likes of Caskey to get MDU and other companies to follow the law. I have better things to do with my time than pester my neighbors and fellow irrigators for donations to help fund work to protect the water coming through the irrigation ditch so it doesn't destroy our soils and crops.

If Mr. Caskey and his colleagues want a green light for methane development in Montana, then I have some pretty simple advice: Stop focusing on what you can get away with, and start listening to the folks out here on the ground with legitimate concerns about your development practices.

The laws that protect our land and water aren't paper formalities — they're essential to ensuring southeastern Montana's agricultural economy

survives the methane boom.