A newly formed company is laying plans to open a water bottling plant on a slough along the Flathead River that could produce up to 191.6 million gallons of bottled groundwater per year.
The company, Montana Artesian Water Co., was incorporated in Flathead County in 2014 and lists the site address of its proposed facility near Creston on a farm owned by Lew Weaver, located about one mile from Egan Slough.
Weaver declined to go into detail about the scope of the project or the number of employees it might entail until the permitting process is complete, but he confirmed that the regulatory process is well underway.
“We have made applications to different agencies to bottle water on the Flathead River, and we are waiting for the results of those applications,” he told the Beacon.
The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation issued a preliminary water rights permit in January, which states that the single well could draw up to 231.5 million gallons per year from the underground aquifer.
The volume would allow the company to bottle, ship and sell up to 191.6 million gallons of treated groundwater per year – the equivalent of 2 billion 12-ounce water bottles – while the rest would be reserved for rinsing bottles and equipment, as well as for on-site tap water.
The proposal has prompted an outpouring of concern from conservation groups, nearby residents and at least one state senator, who contend that the scope of the project warrants a more in-depth environmental assessment by state agencies than it has received so far.
The proposal calls for appropriations of up to 450 gallons of water per minute, and up to 710.53 acre-feet per year, and critics say the proposed water withdrawal and drawdowns could affect their private wells.
DNRC officials say the review of the water rights permit application found the plant would cause “no adverse impacts” to other water rights owners in the area, and that the owners of 38 water rights in the proposed area were notified of the decision, triggering an objection period.
The application is nearing the end of the objection period, however, and objectors have until March 11 to file an objection form. Water rights holders who believe the project would have an adverse effect on their wells can download the form at the agency’s website.
Montana DNRC Director John Tubbs said that under Montana statute, the agency is constrained by narrow parameters and can only deny a permit if the amount of legally available water is inadequate, or if the permit would adversely affect a water rights holder.
“We are hearing from constituents who are concerned about this project, but most of the concerns are not associated with water rights, but rather with traffic patterns, dust from the roads and other issues that we don’t have authority over,” Tubbs said.
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality is also conducting a review under the Montana Environmental Policy Act and is reviewing two separate permitting actions.
Matthew Kent, an environmental science specialist with DEQ’s Water Protection Bureau, is in charge of the permit development process for one of the actions. He said the agency is in the earliest stages of the review process.
According to Kent, the Montana Artesian Water Company has applied for permitting under the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and is requesting a discharge permit at two outfall points, both of which would discharge into “an unnamed tributary of the Flathead River,” about 1,300 feet away from the river.
The first outfall would contain non-contact heating water, or geothermal water, and would average a discharge of 33,358 gallons per day. The second outfall would contain rinse water from plastic water bottles and would average a discharge of 2,640 gallons per day.
Because the company has not yet discharged any water, it submitted estimates of the chemicals that may be present in the effluent. According to Kent, those chemicals include chloride, chlorine, fluoride, nitrate, nitrite, and sulfate.
When a public notice package is complete, the agency will initiate and give notice for a 30-day public comment period. Kent said he is approximately 30 days away from completing the public notice package.
Leaders of several environmental watchdog groups, as well as area residents and at least one state lawmaker, say they just became aware of the commercial project proposal, and are worried about the potential for environmental consequences.
In a letter to the agency, Greg McCormick, president of the Flathead Lakers, and Robin Steinkraus, the organization’s executive director, said the scope of the project and its potential effect on Flathead Lake merits additional analysis.
“We are concerned about the potential impacts of the proposed water bottling facility near the Flathead River,” the group’s letter stated. “We believe additional evaluation of the impacts of this proposed project is needed.”
Dave Hadden, executive director of Headwaters Montana, said the project’s applicant harbors aspirations to supply 2 percent of the world’s bottled water from the Flathead River.
“This has the potential to wreak havoc on neighbors’ wells and their livelihood,” Hadden told the Beacon. “At first blush I think this proposal, if approved, will have devastating impacts on the aquatic resources of the Lower Flathead River, as well as to agricultural producers who rely on ground water.”
State Sen. Bob Keenan, R-Bigfork, represents the district near Creston and said that while he’s not necessarily opposed to the bottling plant, he’s heard plenty of concern from his constituents.
Keenan conceded that different regulatory agencies have varying degrees of analysis, and some of his concerns may be addressed by the DEQ analysis.
“I don’t have a lot of creases on my brain when it comes to this area of permitting, but it doesn’t pass the coffee-shop test of reasonability,” he said. “I just found out about this, and a lot of folks are concerned. It seems to me this could very easily have just slipped through the cracks and been approved without adequate analysis and public comment.”
Tubbs said the agency satisfied its analysis requirements and that many of the concerns expressed fall under the authority of other agencies, potentially even the Montana Department of Transportation.
He also noted that the Montana Legislature has passed laws in the last decade that accommodate the issuance of permits, rather than sharpen the teeth of regulatory oversight.
“I see both the opportunities this project affords and the reason to be concerned, but from our perspective we did due diligence,” Tubbs said. “I have taken the concerns to heart and made sure we are following the statute, and we are.”