GALLATIN RIVER TASK FORCE
On Jan. 7, the Big Sky Resort Area District
tax board approved Big Sky Water and Sewer District’s 1 percent for
infrastructure application. Now, residents will vote in May to approve the additional
tax, with revenues helping pay for a portion of a new, upgraded wastewater
treatment plant, and a lift station and pipeline to convey wastewater from the
canyon area to the plant in the years to come.
Not surprisingly, the decision was met with a
mixed bag of reactions. There has been confusion about the funding mechanism,
concerns about the impacts to the watershed and questions around the wisdom of
enabling even more growth in a town that appears stretched to its limits.
Here’s what we know, what we’re in the process of finding out and where we
stand on the overlap between the watershed’s ecological health and our town’s
infrastructure needs.
First, we know that the proposed wastewater
treatment plant is a requirement; the district is legally obligated to serve
already planned growth in its district. Already planned development alone will
push our current water and sewer plant past its capacity soon, and doing
nothing solves nothing. Like it or not, people want to live here and others
want to visit.
The upgraded plant will treat wastewater to a
much higher level than the current plant, greatly reducing harmful nutrient
loads while allowing for new reuse opportunities like groundwater recharge and
snowmaking. This ensures more clean water in our creeks and tributaries, a net
win for the watershed, its piscine population and its human inhabitants.
While the treatment plant will be expensive,
our watershed is worth it. A maximum of $27 million for the new plant will come
from the 1 percent tax, about 60 percent of the plant’s overall cost. Big Sky
needs to invest in watershed security, and the watershed deserves the highest
standards.
An upgraded plant is part one of Big Sky’s
wastewater treatment projects. The second element of the Water and Sewer
District’s application is a lift station and two pipelines running from the
proposed new plant down to the canyon and back. These pipelines will be built
if and only if canyon residents and businesses decide to form a water and sewer
district of their own, centralizing water and sewer services, another added
benefit to the watershed.
Centralized wastewater treatment for the
canyon area will greatly reduce the nutrient load currently entering
groundwater likely connected to the river from canyon residents. Most canyon
residents are on individual septic systems that are antiquated and in desperate
need of maintenance or replacement. A centralized system could connect those
residents to BSWSD’s new and improved treatment facility, resulting in an estimated 99 percent less
bacteria, 90 percent less nitrogen and 90 percent less phosphorus entering the
canyon area’s groundwater.
While
forming a centralized water district is the best option for the ecological
health of the watershed, it’s also the best option for property owners. The
longer canyon residents remain on individual systems, the greater the odds of
nutrient loads impairing the Gallatin, an unacceptable outcome for the river
and a major threat to property values. Maintenance costs also go down with a
centralized system, another cash-saving benefit to homeowners.
The moment anyone
mentions a pipeline, river enthusiasts’ ears perk up. In the past, pipelines
have meant direct discharge, but that is not the plan in this case, and the
Gallatin River Task Force does not support such a project. Instead, some of the
wastewater treated at the new and improved plant in Big Sky would be piped to
the canyon and reused and recycled in a way that would benefit the watershed.
It could be used to recharge the aquifer, irrigate landscaping and/or for
snowmaking on cross-country ski trails. The ultimate methods of reuse will
depend on further analysis, and a study is underway by the Montana Bureau of
Mines and Geology.
Recycling this highly
treated wastewater is far better for the ecological health of the watershed
than leaving canyon residents relying on separate, failing septics. Again,
there is no intention for this pipeline to connect to the mainstem of the
Gallatin River.
It’s easy to think of the Gallatin as a wild,
pristine river. In fact, it more closely resembles an urban waterway,
threatened in many of the same ways. The human impact is a threat from the
canyon all the way to Three Forks, and our primary concern is mitigating that
threat. Step one is upgrading Big Sky’s current wastewater facility. Step two
is forming a water and sewer district in the canyon and centralizing that
area’s water and sewer services. By taking these two steps, we can stack the
odds in the Gallatin’s favor.
