Project faces scrutiny from Gallatin County, Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and other groups
By Jack Reaney SENIOR EDITOR
Under pressure from a $10 million funding gap, Gallatin Canyon sewer project leaders believe regional conservation groups need to be on board. To earn that buy-in, the project may need to spring high above its regulatory hurdle.
In February, the Gallatin County Commission and a coalition of five conservation groups—Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, American Rivers, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Trout Unlimited and Gallatin River Task Force—each sent letters to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, urging DEQ to perform a study of the project’s impacts on water availability and quality, local infrastructure, wildlife, recreation, economy, history, culture, tourism and agriculture, as outlined in the Montana Environmental Policy Act.
“A project the scale of the Gallatin County Sewer Project is of great importance to the future of Gallatin County, and because the funding of this infrastructure requires both public and private monies, and because of ongoing water quality issues affecting the many users of the Gallatin River, Gallatin County asks that you ensure a robust study of the proposal—as well as the transparency and public participation required by the MEPA analysis,” the Gallatin County Commission stated in its letter to DEQ.
DEQ Director Sonja Nowakowski responded that DEQ remains committed to ensuring that all aspects of its approvals align with the MEPA, and related standards. The Gallatin Canyon County Water and Sewer District has not yet submitted a full application to DEQ for the canyon sewer project.
Despite Nowakowski’s assurance, project leader Mace Mangold believes that the conservation groups want a “beefed up” environmental assessment before the sewer project is approved—or risk the project getting hung up in litigation against DEQ.
Mangold met with all five of the groups on March 6, and said it was a productive meeting.
“All positive. Definitely, they’re now wrapping their heads around the multi-faceted benefits of the project, which is kind of news to them,” Mangold said at the March 11 Resort Tax board meeting. “They definitely knew that the [canyon area septic systems] were a problem for the past two decades… but the scale at which the project can help solve that problem… that was all kind of a new dynamic.”
Still, hearing the groups’ desire for an exceptionally strong EA, Mangold and WGM Group are taking that matter into their own hands. Mangold noted that $50,000 could achieve the minimum MEPA standards—likely the level of review that DEQ will otherwise perform—but cautioned against relying on the bare minimum, given the public scrutiny toward this project. Instead, he asked Resort Tax for $200,000 in additional funds to allow WGM to work alongside DEQ and amplify the environmental assessment.
“That’s what I heard at the meeting. Make that [EA] a strong backbone to a discharge permit, and the project overall, so that it doesn’t get litigated moving forward,” Mangold said. In particular, he and the Resort Tax board are concerned about litigation from Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, which already sued DEQ over a small deviation request related to the project’s design.
Resort Tax board member Kevin Germain asked if Waterkeeper could first sign off on an EA outline before BSRAD releases funds.
“I just don’t want to fund this, and have [Waterkeeper] say, ‘That wasn’t enough. We want this.’ I don’t want the goalposts to move on us,” Germain said on March 11. “… I just want to make sure that if we vote to fund this, it matches the mark.”
The board voted unanimously to fully fund $200,000 with a stipulation that WGM has a meeting with Waterkeeper to align expectations for a sufficient EA.
“Environmental assessments and transparent public processes are not boxes to check. They are core legal duties of our public agencies, and it’s DEQ’s obligation,” Matt Elsaesser, Waterkeeper deputy director, stated in a follow-up email to EBS. “Our water resources and rivers are too valuable and important to our economy and way of life to leave them to chance… Upper Missouri Waterkeeper supports transparency and a robust and meaningful public decision-making process in accordance with the law, and Montanans expect nothing less.”
Mangold explained that the EA document would still be authored by DEQ, but WGM would aid the state agency by compiling the large volumes of existing science reported by various groups—like Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, and Gallatin River Task Force—and providing supplemental information to document the goals of the pivotal project.
Germain is still confident the project will succeed, but is frustrated by the challenges it’s faced from environmental groups, especially the Waterkeeper, over the course of 10-plus years since environmental needs compelled the project—the sewer would replace suboptimal septic infrastructure scattered beside the Gallatin River.
“I always thought this was a win-win-win-win… But win-win-win-wins shouldn’t be litigated. So I just want to get some commitment out of the group that was in that room, that we’re going to stop the litigation and support this project moving forward,” Germain said.
Separately, in terms of funding challenges, June 30, 2027 will be decision time.
By that deadline, Resort Tax will decide whether to disengage its $12 million funding commitment drawn from 1% collections. If the project proves to be shovel-ready, the board can decide to uphold its contribution.
“Urgency helps, honestly, on our end. I’m sensing from the canyon district board—it’s now or never,” Mangold said.
