By Derf Johnson
One of my professors at the University of Montana frequently used the quote, “The world is run by those who show up.” I don’t remember its attribution, but it’s stuck with me for all of these years due to its simplicity and accuracy. However, if I had to tack on an amendment to the quote, it would be: “The world is run by those who show up, provided the government institutions are required to listen and consider the information put in front of them.” Time and time again, it’s been proven to me that in order for the government to listen, it must be required to do so under the law, be it through open meetings laws or environmental permitting processes that require public engagement. The proposed changes to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) at the 2025 Legislature are numerous, but they all could boil down to one central concept: the government should have to listen less to the people of Montana and disclose less of the harmful impacts from government-approved projects, and who cares if we will all suffer in the process.
The central concept of MEPA is that it serves as an information disclosure and engagement tool for the public on impacts to Montana’s air, land, and water. When the government is going to make a decision that will have a significant impact on the environment, it must evaluate the major environmental and social consequences associated with that action. That evaluation comes in the form of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, and includes a notice and comment opportunity, as well as potential public hearings. This process is meant to not just inform and engage the public, but to lead to better, more durable environmental decision-making. Indeed, MEPA’s purpose in Montana law is stated, in part, to “declare a state policy that will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humans and their environment ….”
When the government fails to fully consider environmental impacts and disclose them to the public, it has failed to do its job. This is exactly what happened with the Held v. State of Montana and MEIC v. DEQ rulings that were issued by the Montana Supreme Court earlier this year (see article on pg. 4). In those cases, the government was found liable for its failure to analyze and disclose the impacts to our climate from the release of greenhouse gas emissions as part of the environmental review process and within the context of all Montanans’ fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment. In one sense, these cases are a groundbreaking legal precedent that established the right to a stable climate, but in another sense, they are simply commonsense rulings that recognize readily-identifiable emissions that have verifiable and scientifically proven impacts on our health and the environment, and so, of course, they should be considered and disclosed by MEPA.
Regardless, the constitutional legal principles are sound in the Supreme Court decisions – but the legislative backlash to these rulings has been swift and fierce. Now, three bills are snaking their way through the legislative process that will have major consequences for Montana’s environment and our ability to participate in governmental decision-making. Two of these bills would directly amend MEPA (HB 285 and SB 221), and one would alter the way that Montanans regulate air pollutants, such as carbon pollution (HB 291).
HB 285 (Rep. Brandon Ler, R-Savage) would amend MEPA in two significant and problematic ways. First, it would strike language in MEPA that references Montana’s Constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, ostensibly to remove MEPA’s constitutional implementation and heightened legal scrutiny. Second, it would remove sections that require MEPA to consider historical changes through time and the cumulative human impacts on the environment – a central utility of MEPA analyses. HB 285 passed the House, largely on a party-line vote and has been transmitted to the Senate and is awaiting a hearing in the Natural Resources Committee at the time of this writing.
SB 221 (Sen. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale) would further amend MEPA by truncating the analysis and review to only look exclusively at environmental impacts that occur within a permitted project’s “fence line.” For example, under this bill, DEQ would perhaps consider the carbon emissions associated with truck traffic and diesel generators at a coal mine but would not consider the much more profuse emissions from the coal that will be combusted down the line. This bill would dramatically limit the disclosure of environmental impacts and artificially deflate their significance. SB 221 passed the Senate on a 37-13 vote, has been transmitted to the House, and is awaiting a hearing in the Natural Resources Committee.
Finally, HB 291 (Rep. Greg Oblander, R-Billings) would prohibit the state from adopting air quality standards that are more stringent than federal standards under Montana’s Clean Air Act. Typically, federal standards are considered a baseline or “basement,” and states are empowered to adopt more stringent standards when they can demonstrate their necessity. This bill would force the state to basically adopt whatever standard the federal government issues. If the federal government has not adopted a standard for a pollutant (i.e. carbon dioxide or methane), then the state is unable to regulate that pollutant, which means that under this bill, Montana would be powerless in the face of greenhouse gas pollution. HB 291 passed the House, largely on a party-line vote, has been transmitted to the Senate, and is now awaiting a hearing in the Natural Resources Committee.
The net effect of all of these bills, should they pass, will be a much weaker MEPA, an environment which is compromised, and a climate crisis that is much more difficult to address. However, there is one MEPA bill that isn’t wholly terrible: HB 270 (Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings) is a cleanup bill that would remove the language in MEPA that the Montana Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional because it prevented the state from considering impacts to the climate in environmental analyses. The bill also clarifies the remedy provisions of MEPA. HB 270 has been transmitted and is awaiting a hearing in Senate Natural Resources.
In any case, the future isn’t carved in stone, and there is still time left in the legislative process. Your voice in opposition to these bills is absolutely critical. Should they pass, you can also bet that MEIC will be primed to defend our constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.
This article was published in the March 2025 issue of Down To Earth.
