Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Western States Water Council <br />Water Quality Committee <br /> <br />Sheridan, Wyoming <br />October 5, 2006 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />We've had about 6 appeals on our permits. They can be appealed by the company, the <br />landowner, or the environmental groups. In terms of setting specific numeric standards, I think you <br />would have to take the most restrictive - - if you are irrigating out of the Tongue River, and there are <br />a bunch of irrigators downstream, and you've got one area which has really tough soil, you'd have to <br />permit for that in the worst case scenario. <br /> <br />Our situation in Wyoming is different than in Montana because we don't have people <br />irrigating directly out of the mainstem. Our irrigation is mainly out of the little ephemeral <br />withdrawals. They put in spreader dikes across the streambed and when it rains the water flows <br />across the meadow. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner stated the real issue between Montana and Wyoming is the difference between <br />the ambient standards and Montana's standards, which were adopted in 2003. Wyoming thought <br />Montana's numbers were on the conservative side, that they were being a little more protective than <br />they needed to be. There is the ability to discharge a lot of salt and SAR into the system and stay <br />within the Montana standards. In 2005, Montana received a petition to apply antidegradation to the <br />Powder River and specifically to EC and SAR. In March of 2006, they passed anti degradation <br />requirements that would apply to EC and SAR. That's what is called the non-antidegradation trigger. <br /> <br />Bob Bukantis of Montana explained that the non-antidegradation piece is Montana's policy <br />on how the state chooses to protect high quality water, that's water that exists between ambient and a <br />standard. With our harmful classification for numeric standards for high quality waters, we allow <br />10% change as long as ambient is at 40% or less of the standard without calling it significant. I've <br />seen some tribes that have allowed 5% increments and they can go all the way up to the standard <br />with that. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A question was raised as to whether that becomes an absolute no degradation, or if that then <br />triggers the antidegradation review. <br /> <br />EP A had 90-days to either' approve, or disapprove this and they didn't act within their 90- <br />days. So Wyoming has taken legal action against EP A for not acting on the Montana antideg policy <br />and filed suit in federal court. Wyoming has also joined with coal bed methane operators in filing <br />suit both in federal and in Montana state court for the process that was used for the adoption. Our <br />argument is that it was a political decision versus a scientific decision. If EP A approves this <br />standard, they are then going to have to listen to Montana - - when Montana raises their hand and <br />says, "Wait, we don't like that discharge permit in Wyoming. You're going to have to veto it and <br />write your permit." EP A is going to have to think about whether they want to be in that position or <br />not. <br /> <br />How do EC levels relate to salinity concentrations? Is there a simple conversion? Yes, . <br />multiply TDS by 1.5 and you will get EC. The CBM water is roughly in the EC range of 1,500- <br />4,500 depending on where you are in the basin. Generally speaking, it gets worse if you go north and <br /> <br />4 <br />