Montana, a state renowned for its pristine natural beauty, is now at a crossroads regarding the protection of its vital waterways. The state, historically a leader in environmental stewardship, is reversing course on crucial water quality standards, a move that has garnered significant backing from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as of October. This shift away from established numeric standards for nutrient pollution, specifically dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus, signals a fundamental change in how Montana intends to safeguard its lakes and rivers, from the iconic Flathead Lake, the largest natural freshwater lake west of the Mississippi, to the headwaters of major rivers like the Missouri.

In 2014, Montana established itself as a pioneer by implementing numeric water-quality standards for dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus in wadable streams and certain river segments. These nutrients, when present in excessive amounts, can trigger harmful algal blooms. Such blooms are far more than a visual nuisance; they deplete dissolved oxygen, a critical component for aquatic life, leading to devastating fish die-offs. They also block sunlight from reaching deeper waters and can release toxins harmful to human health if consumed. Sources of this nutrient pollution are varied, often stemming from mining operations, municipal wastewater treatment plants, and agricultural runoff.

Water quality standards are the cornerstone of a state’s commitment to ensuring its waters are safe for both human consumption and the survival of aquatic ecosystems. These standards, approved by the EPA, guide a state’s environmental policy, from initiating cleanup efforts to regulating discharges from point-source polluters—entities that release wastewater through pipes or ditches. Standards can be defined in two primary ways: numerically, by setting precise maximum allowable levels of pollutants before adverse effects manifest, or narratively, by describing the desired qualitative characteristics of clean water.

This year, Montana’s legislature passed a series of bills that effectively repealed the state’s existing numeric nutrient standards, leaving behind a framework based solely on narrative standards. Environmental advocates and water quality experts widely consider narrative standards to be less protective. The fundamental difference lies in their timing and enforceability: numeric standards act as a preventative measure, requiring polluters to treat their waste before pollution levels become critical. Narrative standards, conversely, are reactive, coming into play only after water quality degradation is already evident. The quantifiable nature of numeric standards provides clear, enforceable benchmarks, while narrative standards allow for greater subjectivity and discretion for both regulators and polluters.

The transition to narrative standards has introduced a considerable degree of uncertainty, as highlighted by Scott Bosse, Northern Rockies regional director for the nonprofit American Rivers. The exact implementation strategy by Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) remains unclear. The DEQ, however, maintains that narrative standards offer a more efficient approach to pollution prevention. The department plans to assess each water body individually, tailoring anti-pollution policies to specific local hydrological and ecological conditions.

Andy Ulven, chief of the DEQ’s Water Quality Planning Bureau, explained the department’s approach, stating, "We’re really trying to find the best site-specific controls." Under the new regime, the DEQ will monitor the health of sensitive aquatic indicator species, such as mayflies, alongside algal levels and dissolved oxygen content to inform water policy. While dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus levels will still be considered, Ulven emphasized the need to "look at the bigger picture."

Critics, however, are unconvinced, deeming the recent legislation vague and overly broad. Nine watchdog organizations have called for a moratorium on wastewater permitting until a more concrete plan for implementing the narrative standards is established. This is not the first attempt by Montana to dismantle its numerical nutrient standards; previous efforts in 2020 and 2022 were rejected by the EPA, which deemed them inconsistent with the Clean Water Act. This year’s approval, however, marked a significant reversal by the agency, occurring on October 3rd amidst a government shutdown.

Despite the establishment of numerical nutrient pollution criteria in 2014, Montana had a history of lax enforcement. The DEQ frequently extended expiring permits rather than requiring upgrades to meet the standards. Now, over two dozen permit renewals are pending, affecting major urban centers like Billings and Missoula, as well as towns such as Kalispell and Whitefish, whose water drains into the ecologically sensitive Flathead Lake. Adhering to the former numeric standards would have necessitated substantial investment in upgrading the state’s generally aging wastewater treatment infrastructure.

Guy Alsentzer, executive director of Upper Missouri Waterkeepers, argued that investing in modern wastewater treatment technologies is essential for the long-term health of Montana’s aquatic ecosystems and its residents. He acknowledged the financial challenges, stating, "Nobody wants to pay for it," but cautioned against altering regulatory benchmarks when implementation issues arise. Currently, over 35% of Montana’s river miles and 22% of its lakes are classified as impaired due to pollution from sewage, industrial waste, and fertilizers. Environmental groups express concern that renewing permits under the new, less stringent standards could exacerbate existing contamination issues.

The implications of Montana’s decision extend beyond its borders, particularly as the state has now advanced just one new permit renewal since October 3rd. This permit is for the Sibanye-Stillwater platinum and palladium mine, situated along the East Boulder River. The original 2023 permit imposed strict numeric limits on nitrogen pollution, a byproduct of dynamite use, which the mine was to achieve within a decade. However, the newly proposed permit allows for a more than fifty-fold increase in the permissible nitrogen discharge. This case is being closely watched as a potential indicator of how rivers will fare under the new narrative standard framework.

Montana’s rollback of its water quality standards occurs within a broader national context of increasing challenges to the Clean Water Act. Concerns are mounting that states may increasingly exploit a perceived leniency from the EPA to weaken environmental protections. "One of the take-home messages here is that the states will see EPA as receptive to these rollbacks of Clean Water Act protections," stated Andrew Hawley, a staff attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. As federal environmental regulations face scrutiny, critics argue that states should be intensifying, not diminishing, their efforts to protect their natural resources.

In the interim, Montana’s precious waterways remain increasingly vulnerable. "It’s so mind-boggling to me that both the state and the EPA would want to put Montana’s clean water at risk by shifting to narrative standards," remarked Bosse of American Rivers, underscoring the potential long-term consequences of this policy shift.