Western Environmental Law Center

The Pondera County Commissioners filed litigation against the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday, June 12th challenging the agency’s decision to exempt a portion of the Madison Aquifer in the county from protections under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The exemption and corresponding permits will allow Montana Renewables, a Great Falls-based biofuels company, to truck high strength industrial wastewater from its refinery in Great Falls and inject it into the Madison Aquifer via two retired oil and gas wells about 7 miles southwest of the town of Valier.

The Madison Aquifer Coalition (an affiliation of local landowners and county residents), the Golden Triangle Resource Council, and Glacier-Two Medicine Alliance joined Pondera County in filing the suit, with Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center as legal representatives.

The groups contend that the EPA erred when it determined that the industrial wastewater will not contaminate shallower aquifers that currently serve as sources of drinking or agricultural water, or that the exempted portion of the Madison Aquifer could never be a viable source of drinking water in the future.

“The EPA relied on an outdated model and wildly inaccurate assumptions about the geology, water quality, and economic viability of the Madison Aquifer as a source of drinking water in reaching its short-sighted decision to permit Montana Renewables to pollute this aquifer,” said Zane Drishinski, Pondera County Commissioner, farmer and rancher. “Rural communities across central Montana increasingly rely on deeper and deeper aquifers like the Madison for their water supply and the Commission simply wants to preserve the ability for people in our county to safely do so as well.”

A prolonged recent drought, coupled with climate prediction models that indicate reduced precipitation for this part of Montana in the future, has ranchers like Lisa Schmidt worried.

“My whole livelihood, like most of my neighbors, depends on access to clean water,” said Lisa Schmidt, a member of the Madison Aquifer Coalition who operates a 131-year-old sheep and cattle ranch. “Every year that water is getting less and less reliable. It makes no sense to me to put our fragile water supplies at further risk by injecting industrial wastewater into the Madison Aquifer.”

The EPA issued the aquifer exemption last month, along with two permits to the well owner, Montalban Oil and Gas Operations, to explicitly allow Montana Renewables to inject upwards of 232,000 gallons of industrial wastewater per day into the Madison Aquifer. The industrial wastewater, a byproduct of the manufacture of transportation biofuels like “renewable biodiesel” or “sustainable aviation fuel,” is currently being shipped out of state as it is too contaminated to be accepted for treatment by the City of Great Falls wastewater treatment facility.

“Clean water is essential to our farming and ranching economy and our quality of life in Pondera County,” said Jim Morren, Pondera County Commissioner. “The EPA’s short-sighted decision is particularly frustrating because a common-sense alternative exists, a solution that does not put farmers, ranchers, and rural residents’ water at risk, and that solution is treatment.”

In 2024, Montana Renewables received a $1.67 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy to expand its production of biofuels. The agreement included financing and direction for Montana Renewables to build a wastewater treatment facility at its Great Falls refinery. In July 2025, Montana Renewables publicly committed to building that treatment facility. Despite this commitment, the company has refused to rule out the disposal of wastewater via underground injection in Pondera County.

“The initial exemption was right at the bottom of each well,” said Millie Whalen of Golden Triangle Resource Council. “When we and others pointed out all the reasons why the injected wastewater would likely not stay there, such as natural cracks characteristic of karstic formations, improperly sealed wells that dot the landscape, injection pressure, and the EPA’s own acknowledgement of hydrological connections, the EPA simply made the exemption bigger rather than take the close look required.”

The County and other groups involved in today’s filing have been fighting the underground injection for nearly 2.5 years. Throughout that time, the Pondera County Sanitarian and Board of Health have repeatedly asked for wastewater samples from Montana Renewables, only to be rebuffed.

“At the initial public meeting in January 2024, Montana Renewables CEO Bruce Fleming claimed the wastewater was so clean you could drink it,” Corrine Rose, Pondera County Sanitarian recalled. “Yet they refuse to provide the County with a sample, and the lab results they provided the EPA indicate this wastewater is nasty stuff. Before any of this high strength industrial wastewater is dumped in our aquifer, we want to see the EPA require more transparency, testing and monitoring.”

The delivery of the wastewater would require several dozens of trucks a day traversing rural ranch roads, creating potential hazards for county infrastructure, public safety, and local wildlife.

“The wells are situated near Dupuyer Creek which provides important habitat and a dispersal corridor for grizzly bears,” said Peter Metcalf, executive director of Glacier-Two Medicine Alliance, an East Glacier-based conservation organization focused on protecting local public lands, waters and wildlife. “In addition to impacts to clean water, this ill-conceived project could have real effects on grizzly bears and other fish and wildlife in the area, all of which could be avoided by treating the wastewater on site.”

“We are deeply disappointed in the EPA for not protecting our rural community and our water and with Montana Renewables for trying to foist their wastewater on us when an attainable alternative exists,” said Tom Kuka, Pondera County Commissioner, rancher and Blackfeet tribal member. “We are simply asking the court to invalidate this aquifer exemption and for Montana Renewables to be a good neighbor and treat its wastewater.”

Contacts:

Andrew Hawley, Western Environmental Law Center, 206-487-7250, hawley@westernlaw.org

Jim Morren, Zane Drishinski, or Tom Kuka, Pondera County Commissioners, 406-271-4010, commissioner@ponderacountymt.gov

Corrine Rose, Pondera County Sanitarian, 406-271-4020, sanitarian@ponderacountymt.gov

Lisa Schmidt, Madison Aquifer Coalition, 406-728-0159, lschmidt@a-land-of-grass-ranch.com

Mildred Whalen, Golden Triangle Resource Council, mwhalen729@verizon.net

Caitlin Cromwell, Northern Plains Resource Council, 406-248-1154, caitlin@northernplains.org

Peter Metcalf, Glacier-Two Medicine Alliance, 406-434-6223, peter@glaciertwomedicine.org

Jenny Harbine, Earthjustice, 406-223-7781, jharbine@earthjustice.org

The post Pondera County, local landowners, conservationists sue EPA to protect Madison Aquifer from industrial wastewater injection  appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

In 2023, federal rollbacks stripped Clean Water Act protections from 95% of New Mexico’s streams and up to 88% of its wetlands. New Mexico responded by passing Senate Bill 21 to create its own surface water permitting program. Now, a rulemaking will take place June 8–18 before the state Water Quality Control Commission to decide how SB 21 is implemented. Without strong rules, our water will remain at risk along with the communities, fish, and wildlife that depend on it.

Western Resource Advocates is representing Audubon, Trout Unlimited, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. The Western Environmental Law Center is representing Amigos Bravos, the New Mexico Acequia Association, and NM Wild. The groups will advocate for robust rules that protect the full breadth of New Mexico’s surface water, restore protections lost through federal rollbacks, ensure robust public participation, and protect wildlife.

Details: June 8–18 from 9 AM to 5 PM. Public comment at 1 PM daily.

• In person: NM State Capitol, Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe. The hearing will now occur in several rooms around the Roundhouse depending on the day:

• • Monday 6/8 – Room 307
  • Tues-Thurs 6/9-6/11 – Room 309
  • Friday 6/12– Room 307
  • The week of 6/15-6/18 – Room 322
• Virtually: https://nmed-oit.webex.com/wbxmjs/joinservice/sites/nmed-oit/meeting/download/705f1604d77d4ce8bfb4c44c14697e2d?MTID=me02ef4ae5b96453c008f74681b141034
• Visit the state Events Calendar for more information.

Why it Matters:

• Clean water sustains a growing $50 billion annual agriculture industry led by chile, pecans, onions, and fruit.
• Water helps sustain New Mexico’s outdoor recreation economy, generating hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
• Centuries-old acequia systems require clean water to keep New Mexico’s culture alive. The health and wellbeing of our families rely on clean water.
• Over 70% of New Mexico’s birds are dependent on surface waters and wetlands.
• New Mexico’s waters face numerous threats. Climate change is making our state drier every year. With higher temperatures and worsening aridification, our limited water sources need to be protected.
• Industrial growth from mining, oil and gas exploration, and data centers are all increasing demands on our water sources while presenting serious pollution dangers.

Contacts: 

Tannis Fox, Western Environmental Law Center, 505-629-0732, fox@westernlaw.org

Rachel Conn, Amigos Bravos, 575-770-8327, rconn@amigosbravos.org

Tricia Snyder, New Mexico Wild, 575-636-0625, tricia@nmwild.org

Allie Ruckman, Western Resource Advocates, 983-203-1103, allie.ruckman@westernresources.org

Itzayana Banda, The Semilla Project, 720-532-3293, itzayana@semillastrategies.org

The post Media advisory: NM rulemaking for Surface Water Permitting Program 6/8-6/18 appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

Western Watersheds Project, represented by the Western Environmental Law Center, today appealed a decision by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to revoke American Prairie’s authority to graze bison on public lands in northeastern Montana—a move that conflicts with plain statutory language, defies decades of settled law, and contradicts BLM’s own prior decisions.

BLM issued the bison permits in 2022 after completing a multi-year environmental review finding that bison grazing is permissible on public lands and in fact would be better for prairie grasslands than cattle. Now, in a politically motivated reversal, over the course of just five months, the agency decided to rescind the bison permits under a brand new theory that a livestock owner must be a “production-oriented” entity, and did so without defining what that means.

“BLM’s new interpretation has no basis in law and contradicts its own findings,” said Pete Frost, attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “BLM reversed itself due to politics, not the law, nor the need to restore prairie grasslands.”

In 2022, BLM decided that reading a “production” requirement into federal law “would read words and requirements” into the law that don’t exist. Instead, at that time, BLM said it can “issue permits to any stock owner.”

The BLM’s 2022 decision found that privately-owned bison are domestic livestock under the Taylor Grazing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act—a conclusion consistent with Montana state law, which consistently treated American Prairie’s bison herd as “livestock,” by levying taxes and imposing disease testing requirements. Indeed, the U.S. Forest Service defines livestock under the Taylor Grazing Act as “…animals of any kind kept or raised for [any] use or pleasure.”

Even so, American Prairie has provided thousands of pounds of bison meat to area food banks and supplies bison to other entities for food, commercial, and cultural purposes.

“The Trump administration’s revocation of these bison grazing permits is beyond bizarre because bison evolved with High Plains ecosystems and are better for land health, better for wildlife, and better for the public than cattle,” said Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project. “Tribes also have bison herds for cultural, ecological, and subsistence purposes, which this permit revocation would threaten if it went through.”

A Congressional Research Service report published January 22, 2026, further underscores the weakness of the administration’s position, noting that 88% of BLM grazing authorizations are for cattle, yearlings, and bison, and reaffirming the longstanding Interior Department conclusion that bison qualify as livestock under the Taylor Grazing Act.

The political origins of this reversal are clear. As reported by Public Domain, the 2022 bison grazing decision was appealed by ranching groups represented by Karen Budd-Falen—now one of the highest ranking officials at the Department of Interior. Further, Sec. Burgum personally intervened to direct BLM to reconsider, ultimately producing the outcome Budd-Falen’s former clients sought.

The permit revocation is the first step in a broader effort to lock cattle and sheep interests into permanent dominance over public lands grazing—just days following the decision, the agency released proposed grazing regulations containing the same “production-oriented” requirement. If finalized, those rules would frustrate and obstruct the restoration of bison on public lands on 155 million acres across the western U.S.

Western Environmental Law Center and Western Watersheds Project will pursue all available administrative remedies and, if necessary, file suit to prevent the unlawful eviction of bison from these public lands.

Contacts:

Pete Frost, Western Environmental Law Center, 541-543-0018, frost@westernlaw.org

Erik Molvar, Western Watersheds Project, 307-399-7910, emolvar@westernwatersheds.org

The post Conservation groups challenge Trump administration’s move to banish bison from public lands appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

Today, Montana conservation organizations challenged the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for dramatically weakening a core benchmark for grizzly bear conservation in Montana’s Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest. The lawsuit targets the agencies’ approval of the Larabee Hat Vegetation Project—a large-scale logging and road-building project—for abandoning the science on grizzly bear conservation to obscure the project’s significant impacts to the species.

On behalf of Native Ecosystems Council, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and the Council on Wildlife and Fish, the Western Environmental Law Center filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana this morning.

The challenge centers on how the agencies define “secure habitat” for grizzly bears—areas free from roads and human development large enough for a bear to safely meet its daily foraging needs. For decades, science has established that secure habitat patches must provide an individual female grizzly adequate space to forage for 24-48 hours without crossing or nearing motorized routes. The scientific community agrees grizzly bears need thousands of acres to meet these daily needs.

USFS and USFWS followed the scientific consensus and used a 2,500-acre minimum secure habitat patch size when they approved the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest’s Forest Plan in 2021. But in April 2025, USFWS quietly reversed course, redefining “secure habitat” outside the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) grizzly recovery zone as patches of just one acre. USFS followed in May 2025, updating its internal guidance to match.

“There is no scientific support for one-acre ‘secure habitat’ patches,” said David Woodsmall, attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “The agencies simply redefined the problem away. A one-acre island of forest surrounded by roads isn’t secure habitat—it’s a death trap for a bear trying to survive there. Federal land managers must follow the law, even under the Trump administration, and pulling policy changes like this out of thin air is clearly outside the law.”

The stakes extend well beyond this single instance. The Larabee Hat project sits in the Divide Geographic Area, part of the only public lands corridor connecting the NCDE and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear recovery zones. Genetic exchange between these two isolated populations is considered essential to grizzly bear recovery in the contiguous U.S.

“The adverse cumulative impacts of this project would be devastating to wildlife and wildlife habitat, native plants, and aquatic species, which demonstrates why this project generates absolutely no net public benefit,” said Steve Kelly with Council on Wildlife and Fish. “It makes no ecological or financial sense to degrade irreplaceable, untrammeled native forest into failed tree plantations and marginal pastureland for subsidized livestock at great taxpayer expense.”

The project proposes logging on nearly 17,700 acres, including 1,266 acres of clearcuts, more than 1,850 acres of other timber harvest, and 16.8 miles of new temporary roads over the next 15 to 20 years.

Under the old 2,500-acre definition, the Divide Geographic Area contained approximately 41,531 acres of secure habitat. Under the new one-acre definition, that number jumps to 59,143 acres—an artificial increase of more than 17,000 acres that makes the landscape appear far healthier for bears than it actually is.

“We won a court case on a similar issue last year in which the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service tried to shrink the definition of secure habitat for grizzlies from 2,500 acres to 10 acres, which is ridiculous for these wide-ranging bears,” said Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. “The Judge said in the ruling: ‘In relying on a 10-acre patch size to define grizzly bear secure habitat in the absence of any scientific evidence showing that such acreage provides adequate habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to use the ‘best available science’ in violation of the Endangered Species Act,’ adding ‘grizzly bears in other ecosystems have been found to need upwards of 2,500 acres of secure habitat.’”

“Here, the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest secretly shrunk grizzly bear secure habitat to one acre in size without telling the public,” Garrity continued. “The Larabee Hat project area is in an important corridor for grizzlies from the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem to connect with grizzlies from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.  For grizzlies to be delisted, they once again have to have one connected population in the Northern Rockies with secure habitat.”

“Changing the parameters of what qualifies on paper as habitat doesn’t make more habitat,” said Sara Johnson Ph.D., a wildlife biologist for the Forest Service for 14 years. “It just makes it easier to approve more logging and more roads while ignoring the real consequences for grizzly bears. The law doesn’t allow it, and we will apparently have to be the people who say ‘no.’”

This case builds directly on a successful 2025 legal challenge, in which a federal court struck down a similar attempt to shrink grizzly bear secure habitat patch size on the Custer-Gallatin National Forest, finding the approach scientifically unjustified and harmful to bears in fragmented landscapes.

“The court already rejected this approach once,” said Woodsmall. “These agencies are trying the same thing again in a different forest. We intend to stop it again.”

Contacts:

David Woodsmall, Western Environmental Law Center, 971-285-3632, woodsmall@westernlaw.org

Mike Garrity, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 406-459-5936, wildrockies@gmail.com

Steve Kelly, Council on Wildlife and Fish, 406-920-1381, troutcheeks@yahoo.com

The post Lawsuit challenges USFS’, USFWS’ drastic redefinition of “secure habitat” slashing grizzly protections in critical connectivity corridor appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.