Montana Ground)33.9104Water Conference•128pm ( 1982 : Great

Summaryproceertl n^s »

Montan<i GroundWater Conference

L933

STATE DOCUMENTfMUCTlON

FEB 2'1990

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY1515 E. 6<h AVt.

HELENA, MONTAMA '~^-?n

Sumfflory Proceedings

MONTflNfl GROUND UJHTCR CONF€R€NC€"Planning o Ground Uioter Strategy"

flpril 22-23, 1982

LEASE RETURi;

^

MONTONR €NVIRONM€NTnL QURLITV COUNCILStcite Copitol

Helena, Montono 59620(406) 449-3742

MONTANA STATE LIBRARYS333.9104E12«piii 19(3 C.1

Summary proceedings, Montana Ground Wata

Summary Proceedings

MONTANA GROUND WATER CONFERENCE

"Planning a Ground Water Strategy"

April 22-23, 1982

MCWTANA ENVIROSIMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL

HOUSE MEMBERS:

Dennis Iverson, Chairman(R-Whitlash)

Dave Brown, Vice-Chairman(D-Butte)

Dean Switzer(R-Richey)

Gay Holliday(D-Roundup)

SENATE MEMBERS:

Harold Dover(R-Lewistcwn)

Dorothy Eck(D-Bozeman)

Mike Halligan(D-Missoula)

Gary Lee(R-Fort Shaw)

BQC DIRECTOR:

Deborah B. Schmidt

PUBLIC MEMBERS:

Dennis Nathe, Redstone

Leslie Pengelly, Missoula

Glen Rugg, Plevna

Frank Stock, Poison

GOVERNOR'S REPRESENTATIVE:

John North

WATER RESCXJRCES OVERSIGHT COyiMITTEE

HOUSE MEMBERS:

Hubert Abrams(D-Wibaxix)

Ted Neuman(D-Vaughn)

Audrey Roth, Vice-chairman(R-Big Sandy)

Bc±) Thoft(R-Stevensville)

SENATE MEMBERS:

Ton Hager, Chairman(R-Billings)

Paul F. BoyIan(D-Bozeman)

Mark Etchart(R-Glasgow)

Lawrence G. Stimatz(D-Butte)

CONTENTS

Foreword iii

Introduction iv

PERSPECTIVE

Ground Water Basics 1

J. Moreland

The Ground Water Resource in Montana 5

W. Hotchkiss

Availability and Need of Ground Water in the Future . 9

W. Wetzel

Importance of Ground Water to Montana Agriculture . . 11H. Fergusen

Arizona's Water Plan 13V. Doyle

SPECIAL PROBLEMS

An Overview of Past and Present Problems 16S. Groff

Mining Activity and Ground Water Quality 18F. Shewman

Coal Development and Ground Water in Eastern Montana . 20W. Van Voast

Subdivisions and Sewage Disposal 22E. Casne

Toxic, Hazardous, and Solid Waste Disposal 24J. Harris

The Regulation of Hazardous Wastes 26R. Thorvilson

Oil and Gas Exploration and Freshwater Aquifers ... 29J. Calder

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Costs of Studies, Data Needs and Data Management ... 31M. Miller

Funding Mechanisms for Resolving Problems 34M. O'Keefe

Legislative Needs of the Montana Water Industry ... 36W. Osborne

Ground Water as a Reserved Water Right 39H. Loble

Legal Issues and Ground Water 41S. Morrison

Administration of Ground Water in Montana:Past, Present and Future 46

L. Siroky

Proposed Ground Water Quality Standards 49S. Pilcher

Ground Water Management Strategies 5 2

G. Fritz

DISCUSSION

Issues and Recommendations 55

LIST OF SPEAKERS

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

FOREWORD

The Montana Ground Water Conference held on April 22-23,1982, in Great Falls, Montana, was jointly sponsored by theEnvironmental Quality Council, the Water Resources OversightConuTiittee of the Legislative Council and the Montana WaterResources Research Center, Montana State University.

These proceedings consist of abstracts prepared by thespeakers or sununaries prepared from their recordedpresentations. A complete set of the recorded proceedingsare on file at the Environmental Quality Council. Althoughthese abbreviated proceedings do not include the manyillustrations and data which were presented visually, it isa summary record of the conference.

Following the conference, an ad hoc technical group wasformed by the Department of Natural Resources to review andevaluate the issues and recommendations made during theconference. The technical group then prepared a report onthe Status of Ground Water in Montana.

In its regular meetings following the conference theEnvironmental Quality Council considered the issues andrecommendations of the conferees and subsequentlyrecommended to Governor Ted Schwinden that a Ground WaterAdvisory Council be appointed to develop a comprehensiveground water policy and management strategy. The Governoracted on this recommendation in 1983 by appointing a16 -member council.

JUNE 198 3 Howard E. JohnsonResearch ScientistEnvironmental Quality Council

111

INTRODUCTION

Ground water is one of Montana's most abundant and vitallyimportant natural resources. Although inventories of groundwater supplies are incomplete, hydrologists have describedextensive aquifer systems that exist in several parts of thestate. Nearly one-half of the state's domestic water needsare derived from ground water and in some locations itserves as the only available source of fresh water for bothdomestic and livestock needs.

Unlike many regions of the nation, Montanans have not placedexcessive demands on their ground water resources. Exceptin a few instances, the state's ground water has notsuffered either from depletion or contamination. Butdemands for water are rapidly accelerating and resourcespecialists generally recognize that competition for waterin the western states may reach crisis proportions withinthe next two decades.

Montanans have not ignored their ground water resources.Beginning in the 1940 's, and at various times since, thestate legislature has wrestled with the problems of groundwater conservation and ground water property rights.Through these efforts the state has established modern lawsand institutions to govern the use and development of thisresource.

But despite these progressive efforts there continues to bean urgent need to develop an improved ground waterinformation base, to develop policies that meet the futureneeds of ALL WATER USERS, and to develop comprehensivestrategies that provide for optimum sustained yields of allsmall water resources. These efforts are necessary toprotect existing water sources and to aid in the logicaldevelopment of new ground vvrater sources.

Finally there is a particular need for a greater awarenessof our water resources on the part of all Montanans. It isthis need that provided the impetus for the Montana GroundWater Conference. The Environmental Quality Council,working with the Water Resources Oversight Committee and theMontana Water Resources Research Center planned andorganized the conference to alert legislators, water usergroups and the general public to some of the uniqueproperties of ground water and the requirements for itsmanagement and protection. The organizers viewed theconference as an opportunity for Montanans to begin planninga ground water strategy.

iv

GROUND WATER BASICS

Joe More land

There are many misconceptions about how and where groundwater occurs. An understanding of the hydrologic cycle andthe various interrelationships between surface and groundwater is important.

Water movement through the hydrologic cycle may begin withevaporation from the ocean surface; it then condenses intoclouds and falls as precipitation on the land where itimmediately begins its return to the sea. We are allfamiliar with the part that returns to the sea as a surfacestream but much of the precipitation enters the ground.Some is used by crops and other plants but significantamounts move downward to a saturated zone where all voidspaces in the ground are filled with water. The top of thiszone is called the water table and the water below thispoint is called ground water. If the void spaces are largeenough and sufficiently interconnected to transmit water,the zone is termed an aquifer . Aquifers occur at nearly alllocations but at variable depths below the surface.

Water movement in an aquifer occurs in hard rock and incompacted soils. The concept of water movement in theground has been demonstrated by the use of sand box models.As water moves through the system toward a discharge point,it moves at all levels, not just at the surface. Themovement occurs as a laminar flow, along definite flowlines, with very little mixing of adjacent flows. Thelaminar flow is usually continuous through the aquifer tothe discharge point. This physical characteristic of groundwater has important implications when considering groundwater pollution.

Major Types of Aquifers

Unconsolidated aquifers - These are areas of unconsol-idated, relatively loose sands and gravels that have as muchas 30% to 40% volume as void space. These are typicalaquifers in the intermountain valleys of western Montana andthey underly most of the major streams in eastern Montana.Most aquifers of the world that produce large volumes ofwater are of this type. Properly constructed wells inunconsolidated aquifers may yield several thousand gallonsof water per minute. Through geologic activity some uncon-solidated materials have been compacted and cemented to formhard-rock formations including sandstones. Many of theseformations retain as much as 10% of the void spaces and theyusually are productive aquifers. For example, wells drilled

into the Fox Hills sandstones in Eastern Montana produce asmuch as 100-200 gallons per minute.

Hard-Rock aquifers - Even hard rock, like granite,which has virtually no interstitial pore space, stillcontains considerable void space in the form of fracturesand joints in the bedrock. The spaces may yield water insufficient quantity (1-2 gpm) to meet domestic or livestockneeds

.

Limestone aquifers - These aquifers have specialcharacteristics because the ground water moving throughspaces in limestone formations actually dissolve the rockand form solution cavities. The Lewis and Clark Caverns areparticularly well developed examples of solution cavities.The Madison aquifer in the Powder River Basin of Montana islargely a limestone aquifer with many interconnected so-lution cavities. Wells in this formation are known to yieldup to 6000 gallons per minute.

Coal bed aquifers - Coals are generally impermeablematerials without porosity, but coal beds are usually highlyfractured and jointed which allows free movement of water.Several thousand domestic and stock water wells in easternMontana derive water from the coal bed aquifers.

Confined aquifers - These aquifers are overlain orunderlain by impermeable materials. Water in a confined orartesian system is usually under pressure. The pressurehead depends on the elevation at which the water enters thesystem (the elevation of the recharge system) and thetransmissivity of the rocks. Wells drilled into theseformations will usually result in the water rising in thewell, and some will produce flowing wells of very largecapacity.

Hydrologic Evaluation of Aquifers

Ground water is present in nearly every location but theproblem is to determine how much, at what depth, and of whatquality. A hydrologist begins his evaluation of groundwater availability by consulting a geological map to deter-mine the types, location and age of rock formations. Thesedata are coupled with information obtained from geophysicalsurveys e.g., resistivity surveys, and seismic surveys.These studies are followed by collecting data on the volumeand quality of water. Existing wells in an area are inven-toried to determine water levels and water chemistry. Someselected wells are monitored over longer time periods usingwater level recorders to determine changes due to rechargeand pumping. Pumping tests may be conducted to determineaquifer production and the rate of water decline in nearby

wells; in some instances large test wells may be constructedfor this purpose. As an aquifer is pumped, the water tabledeclines to form a cone of depression . These data, the coneof depression plus the rate of withdrawal, can be used toestimate the storage capacity of the aquifer ( storagecoefficient ) . The cone of depression data also indicatesthe transmissivity of the aquifer, i.e. the potential rateof water movement within the aquifer.

Usually the hydrology study requires additional wells to bedrilled. Test wells in the unconsolidated bed material maybe relatively inexpensive, requiring only an auger drill ofless than 100 feet. A drilling crew may operate at$300-$400 per day. However for wells of greater depth orfor large diameter wells drilled in hard rock, the costs mayrange from $10 to $20 per foot depending on the types offormations being drilled.

A few years ago the Congress asked the U.S. GeologicalSurvey to investigate the Madison Aquifer in south easternMontana. The average depth of the aquifer in that area liesabout 10,000 foot below the land surface. Constructioncosts for a single well in this area were approximately $1.5million.

After a hydrological study is complete the data are avail-able to aid individuals in deciding where to drill wells.To increase the availability of these data for all interest-ed individuals and agencies the U.S.G.S. has developed acomputerized data file. The Ground Water Site InventorySystem contains information on more than 15,000 wells inMontana that have been inventoried by the U.S.G.S. andvarious cooperators.

Ground Water Problems

Any time a well is drilled into an aquifer system it causeschanges in the natural flow system. Because individualwells are drawn down at different rates, well interferenceis a frequent ground water problem. A similar problemexists where a number of wells are drilled adjacent tostreams. As wells are developed, the ground water flows tothe stream are diminished and the stream flow is reduced orlost.

Another type of problem is over draft. If excessive numbersof wells are installed in a ground water system more watermay be withdrawn than is replenished. Water levels willcontinue to decline causing some wells to go dry or to makepumping costs excessive. This problem has occurred in manyparts of the west, especially in the High Plains of Texasand some of the alluvial valleys of the southwest.

Some problems may be avoided by preliminary modeling ef-forts. Modeling, using digital computer systems, cansimulate ground water flow and aquifer response to develop-ment. Preliminary modeling of an aquifer is useful inestimating potential yields and management procedures.

Ground water contamination is among the most serious groundwater problems. Unlike surface water pollution, which canbe observed and more easily tested, contaminated groundwater may go unnoticed until after several years or untilnegative effects begin to show among the user groups - e.g.the Love Canal area of New York.

Those who suggest underground injection of waste products tominimize contamination of surface waters may not recognizethe potential impact on ground water quality. If wastes areinjected above the ground water table, there will almostsurely be contamination of the shallow drinking watersupplies. Some have advocated injecting wastes into deep,unused aquifers that are confined by impermeable layers.There are two problems with this concept: (1) There is nocertainty that the water in the deep systems won't be neededat sometime in the future — especially if it is freshwater. (2) There is no guarantee that contaminated waterwill remain in its deep confined position. Montana has manygeologic faults which can transmit water, and major earth-quakes could easily open new fractures in a supposedlyconfined system. It is also possible that old wells drilledin the 1930 's or before may not be identified. An abandonedwell sufficiently close to an injection well can allow crosscontamination to a drinking water source. The potential forcontamination of valuable water supplies also can occur dueto faulty well design or deterioration of injection wellswith age. Although monitoring wells are planned for deepinjection systems, there is strong potential for error ininterpreting the data due to laminar flows of the groundwater. Once a ground water system has been contaminated,the problem is very difficult to correct.

During the 1930 's many homesteaders had to abandon farmsbecause of drought. We now have technology available tofind sufficient water to sustain farmers through anydrought. However if the ground water has been contaminated,it won't be available in time of need.

THE GROUND WATER RESOURCE IN MONTANA

William Hotchkiss

This conference is an ideal time to begin planning a strate-gy for managing and protecting Montana's ground waterresources. In many regions of the nation failure to conductpreliminary planning and studies has resulted in long termproblems that are very expensive and difficult to correct.This presentation provides a brief overview of the types ofdata that are needed for planning a ground water strategyand a brief description of the types of ground water re-sources in Montana.

Ground Water Studies

Because of advances in hydrology and other related sciences,we are now able to model ground water systems and predictchanges that will occur with various water uses. Thesemodels are dependent on the availability of information andspecific data that describe the properties of an aquifer.Some of the key properties of an aquifer include data on thefollowing:

Potentiometric surface - the level to which water willrise in a well. If this Information is known for a numberof wells drilled into the same aquifer, it is a descriptiveproperty of the aquifer.

Transmissivity - a measure of the rate of water move-ment m the ground. This parameter is dependent on theporosity of the aquifer system and the rate at which theaquifer can be recharged.

Storage capacity - a measure of the amount of waterstored within an aquifer. For example, in the Dakotasandstone, a group of wells may take out 3000 gallons perminute over a year's period, but studies have shown thatonly about 500 gallons per minute are recharged. Thus,about 2500 gallons per minute are taken out of storage andnot replaced.

In a water table aquifer, there is a certain porosity thatallows drainage. Generally porosity and the yield fromdrainage are approximately equivalent, ie. a 20% porosityaquifer will yield about 20% of the water. This is calledthe specific yield or storage capacity .

strategies, using these three forms of data, can be devel-oped to allow optimum use of the water. Most data used atpresent are from wells drilled for other purposes, eg.domestic wells, livestock water or irrigation.

Data obtained from these sources are relatively inexpensive;but we are now at a point in time where we must invest inmore expensive sources of data, eg. deep wells of 10,000 ft.or more that have been used to study the Madison limestoneaqaifer.

It is also essential that we look at these water data overtime to determine what changes are taking place. Fluc-tuations in water levels may occur within days or overseveral years. The more complete the record is over time,the better will be the predictions and management strat-egies.

Some of these data must be measured by extended pumpingtests in the field. The transmissivity and storage aredetermined by testing surrounding wells when an aquifer isdrawn down to a known level. Water chemistry is alsodetermined in mobile field laboratories to determine thewater quality and its potential usefulness.

In agricultural valleys we may develop strategies to re-charge depleted aquifers. In California, there were caseswhere water was pumped from deeper and deeper depths withincreasing costs for bringing the water to the surface. Aplan was devised to channel water from a river system into arecharge zone. This reestablished the supply and providedcheaper water sources.

In urban areas the loss of recharge zones has occurred dueto the impermeable layers of parking lots, streets andbuildings. The runoff is rapid at particular points ofdischarge rather than over wide areas. Information aboutrecharge zones in these areas is also important in develop-ing management strategies.

Data developed from studies can provide predictions on safeyields of water from an aquifer. We can determine how muchwater is used and how much is recharged. In the adjudica-tion of water rights we can determine how much water can beremoved without decreasing storage.

Management strategies are also necessary for multipleaquifers at different depths. In Montana water users havegenerally sought out first-water for whatever the use. Ifsufficient water is not available at first-depths thendrilling may be continued to deeper levels. A single wellmay then penetrate several aquifers with potentialcomingling of one water source with another.

Ground water distribution and use in Montana

Areas along the Missouri and Yellowstone valleys, theintermountain valleys of western Montana, and the cultivateddry lands of Montana are potential ground water problemareas in the state. The cultivated dry lands also posepotential problems for ground water quality.

In the western part of the state, the intermountain valleyscontain alluvium fill along the streams and sedimentaryrock. Wells in these areas may yield up to 1000 gallons perminute, usually of high quality water with low total dis-solved solids. In total there may be as much as 60 millionacre feet of water available throughout this system.

In the eastern part of the state there is alluvium fill inthe river valleys that may yield from 10 to 4000 gallon perminute. Along the northern borders there are glacialdeposits with diverse materials of various porosity. In thesouth central valleys, like the Beaverhead, Gallatin,Madison, Helena and Townsend areas there may be up to 6000feet of highly transmissive basin fill material. In theGallatin valley, for example, 20,000 to 100,000 acre feet ofwater may be withdrawn without exceeding recharge rates.

In the dry land cultivation areas such as the Hogeland Basinand the Alberta Basin, saline seep is a problem. Totaldissolved solids in these waters may be as high as 30,000milligrams per liter. Saline seep has resulted in more than200,000 acres of farming land being taken out of production.The loss can be prevented by use of non-fallowed type crops.

Hard rock aquifers including sandstone exist in the Alberta,Judith, Hogeland, Big Horn, Crazy Mountain, Bull Mountain,Wil listen and Powder River basins. The Powder River Basinhas been used as a conceptual model study area to identifyvarious geological formations that hold water. Wild cat oilwell log data have been used to study this region. Thegeophysical logs are used to determine the thickness ofaquifers and to measure transmissivity and storage capacity.

The Powder River basin study was part of a larger study toassess the aquifers of the Northern Great Plains. The studydealt with 21 different aquifers in the eastern two-thirdsof the state. Six aquifers were targeted as especiallyimportant in most of the basins.

The U.S. Geological Survey studies have concentrated onthose areas which are suitable for high capacity wells orwhere energy needs dictate the need for water data.

SELECTED REFERENCES — THE GROUND WATER RESOURCE IN MONTANA

Berg, R.B., 1981, Current geological and geophysical studiesin Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and GeologyBulletin 116, 23 p.

Feltis, R.D., Lewis, B.D., Erasure, R.L., Rious, R.P.

,

Jauhola, C.A. , and Hotchkiss, W.R., 1981, Selectedgeologic data from the Northern Great Plains area ofMontana: U.S. Geological Survey Water ResourcesInvestigations Open-File Report 81-415, 63 p.

Foxworthy, B.L., 1979, Summary appraisals of the nation'sground water resources - Pacific Northwest region:U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 813-S, 39 p.

Levings, G.W. , 1981, Selected hydrogeologic data from theNorthern Great Plains area of Montana: U.S. GeologicalSurvey Open-File Report 81-534, 241 p.

Levings, J.F., Levings, G.W. , Feltis, R.D., Hotchkiss, W.R.

,

and Lee, R.W. , 1981, Selective annotated bibliographyof geology and ground water resources for the Montanapart of the Northern Great Plains regionalaquifer-system analysis: U.S. Geological SurveyWater-Resources Investigations Open-File Report 81-401,91 p.

Perry, E.S., 1931, Ground water in eastern and centralMontana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology MemoirNo. 2, 59 p.

Taylor, O.J., 1978, Summary appraisals of the nation'sground water resources - Missouri basin region: U.S.Geological Survey Professional Paper 813-Q, 41 p.

U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1979, List of Geological Surveygeologic and water supply reports and maps for Montana:U.S. Dept. of Interior Geological Survey, 46 p.

U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1981, Water resources investigationsof the U.S. Geological Survey in Montana, October 1980through September 1981: U.S. Geological SurveyOpen-File Report 81-817, 46 p.

WATER AVAILABILITY AND THE NEED FORGROUND WATER IN THE FUTURE

Wayne Wetzel

Montana is somewhat unique among western states, in thatunappropriated surface waters are still available in somestreams. This fact, coupled with relatively large volumesof water leaving the state each year, has fostered aperception of abundant and available surface water in mostof the state. This perception may not be correct in manycases.

Factors which limit water availability over a large portionof the state include downstream hydropower requirements andinstream flow requirements. Also, presently unquantifiedFederal and Indian reserved rights. Federal stored waterrights, and water quality limitations create uncertaintyabout available water.

Claimed rights to hydropower flow rates at generatingfacilities at Noxon Rapids dam on the Clark Fork andCochrane dam on the Missouri are well above the averageflows at these sites. Waters are considered available forappropriation only when flows exceed the storage andgenerating capacities of these facilities; a situation whichdoes not occur in some years. Likewise, instream flowreservations on the Yellowstone River and its tributarieshave reduced the amount of surface water available for use.On an average annual basis, there is still water available.However, new water users may require a dependable supply,for example, water available eight years out of ten for newirrigation. The reliability of supply to projects notcontemplated under the water reservation process could be alimiting factor to development of new ventures.

A final resolution and adjudication of SB 76 claimed waterrights and negotiated Federal and Indian water rights isexpected to have a significant effect on water availability.In addition, stored water in Federal water projects canresult in water being available only through water purchasecontracts, as is the case in the Milk River basin. Futureuses of water in this basin may require increased waterconservation and utilization practices by existing usersand/or diversions offering supplemental water. Finally, incertain basins, water quality limitations may restrict anysubstantial future water development in order to maintainand protect existing users. The most noteworthy example ofthis is Big Muddy Creek.

For a number of reasons, then, development of ground watermay be necessary to supply or supplement future water use.However, development of ground water supplies, especiallyfor large-volume wells, cannot generally be regarded as apanacea for future water supply problems. Most high volumewells for irrigation (the major consumptive water use in thestate) are located in shallow ground water systems, whichusually have some hydraulic connection with surface waters.Thus, extensive withdrawals from shallow ground watersystems often result in streamflow depletions.

Another problem with ground water use is the difficulty inassuring that the initial volume necessary and available fora project will continue to be available over the life of theproject. Most water well drillers do not employ scientifictechniques to determine aquifer properties and capabilities.This can result in a huge investment that sits idle longbefore it is paid off because water levels fail to recoverin an initially promising well. There is also the tendencyfor neighbors to try to cash in on the good fortune of onewho is successful in the development of a ground waterproject. This often results in well clusters, withoutproper regard for well spacing to avoid interference or theultimate capabilities of the aquifer.

Very little is really known about the potential fordevelopment of ground water from deeper bedrock aquifers(e.g. Hell Creek-Fox Hills, Kootenai, and Madison).Frequently water in these aquifers is confined (underartesian pressure) so that even though the wells penetratingthese aquifers are deep, pumping lifts are not significantlygreater than in shallow aquifers. Under favorabletopographic and geologic structural conditions, wellspenetrating these formations may flow. In fact, one of thebiggest water management challenges is to enforce compliancewith Montana ground water law requiring valves to regulateflowing wells and to shut in these wells when not in use.Where such wells exist (e.g. South Pine controlled groundwater area) ignorance, apathy, and neglect can result in thewaste of a valuable ground water resource.

10

THE IMPORTANCE OF GROUND WATER TO MONTANA AGRICULTURE

Dr. Hayden Fergusen

Most ground water in Montana occurs as a result of threeprocesses: (1) Some ground water exists in confined aqui-fers where it was trapped within impermeable layers duringancient geologic events. (2) Much ground water, especiallythat in the shallow aquifers, is the result of downwardpercolation of water through soils and other geologiclayers. When this water reaches an impermeable strata itaccumulates and forms a water table. This is the source ofmost ground water of the Montana plains, foothills andintermountain areas. (3) Some of the more important groundwater systems occur where very permeable geologic layersintercept free surface waters. Usually these permeablelayers are between layers of much less permeability. Watermovement within these aquifers is very rapid. Examples ofthese ground waters include artesian systems and waterflowing within coal beds.

Ground water quality is largely determined by the nature ofthe materials with which it is associated. Water in con-fined aquifers is often saline because of its long associa-tion with marine shales that contained large quantities ofsoluable salts. Water passing through soils has variablequality depending on the physical-chemical properties of thesoils-geologic systems. Water tables that form under coarsetextured soils — sand and gravel — are generally of goodquality for most agricultural uses. Examples of this typeof ground water exist in areas of western Montana and in theold Missouri River channels of northeastern Montana.

Many of the soils in northern and eastern Montana plains are"young soils" due to relatively small amounts of water whichhas passed through them. Prior to farming in these regions,the soil texture and native plants minimized the leaching ofsalts into the water table. In recent times farmingpractices have allowed accelerated movement of water andleaching of salts into the water table causing a degradationof water quality. In the mountains-foothills area whereprecipitation is higher and evaporation is less the soilsare, "older," and the ground water is generally of goodquality.

Water flowing in artesian systems is generally useable butin areas of limestone the water is very hard. Water flowingthrough coal beds are of the same type but generally not ashard. Coal mining may modify the water quality around themine sites, but probably it will remain useable.

11

Recent activities by man have increased the quantity ofground water in Montana. Irrigation converts a tremendousamount of runoff water into ground water. This processcauses the leaching of some nutrients and the salinizationof some soils. Most of this ground water is in shallowzones which underlie irrigated river valleys. Watersentering ground water from irrigation may be slowly releasedback into the streams and thus are a signficant factor inmaintaining downstream flows during low flow periods.

Dry land farming in general and summer fallow in particularhave resulted in a significant increase in the quantity ofwater moving through soils and a dramatic build-up of watertables in many areas of Montana. This water has movedthrough very "young soils" and the developed water tablesare of very poor quality. Saline seeps and salinization ofsurface waters has been the result.

One of the most important long-term beneficial uses ofground water in Montana is for watering of livestock. Inmany regions, expecially where shallow aquifers are used,the quality of livestock water has decreased and it willeventually be unuseable.

Ground water is and will continue to be important forirrigation. Expansion of irrigation is possible near someof the larger streams and in the intermountain valleys, butit is unlikely that irrigation with ground water will everoccur in other areas. Irrigation in northeastern Montana isa unique case but it may have a very limited life, becausethe use appears to exceed recharge. Theoretically deepground water in eastern Montana could be used for irrigationbut it is unlikely to occur due to the costs of pumping fromsuch great depths.

12

ARIZONA GROUND WATER REFORM

Verne Doyle

In June of 1980, Arizona passed the most comprehensive watermanagement law in existence in the U.S. today. This legis-lation was considered absolutely essential in order toestablish a balance between consumption and supply.

Arizona is currently using water twice as fast as thenatural replenishment rate to support the existing popu-lation and economy. Arizonans, statewide are consuming 2.5million acre feet more water annually than is replenished.This is possible only by overdrawing ground water supplies.The problem is compounded by Arizona's growth rate which isfive times the national average. Studies have clearly shownthat the state's water resources are insufficient to main-tain the existing economy, let alone the anticipated growthof the cities and industries. The available supply wouldsupport municipal and industrial growth to a population of20+ million — but only if all agriculture ceased. Thissame amount of water would not continue to meet currentagricultural needs even if all other uses were to cease. Tomeet this dilemma, Arizona has acclerated its efforts toestablish meaningful water policies.

The only remaining undeveloped water resource available tothe state is its remaining entitlement in the ColoradoRiver. This supply is being developed through the CentralArizona Project (CAP) . In the act authorizing the CAP,Congress prohibited new lands from being brought intoirrigation. Second , the CAP contract provides municipal andindustrial uses with a 100% priority over all agriculturaluses in times of shortage. Third, the CAP contract requiresthat agricultural uses must reduce their pumping of groundwater by an amount equal to the amount of CAP water theyreceive. Fourth , the cities and industries were given firstpriority to contract for CAP water.

The CAP project, when completed will increase Arizona'srenewable water supply by almost 50% and reduce by two-thirds the current rate of overdraft. This will improve thestate's ability to manage the water supply imbalance, but asubstantial reduction in current uses is also necessary

The new water management law mandates three levels ofmanagement:

13

1. Active Management Areas (AMA) - Four management areashave been established which include 80% of the statepopulation and 70% of the water consumption. ThreeAMA's are urban areas where the management goal is toachieve a balance between supply and consumption nolater than the year 2025. One AMA is an agriculturalarea where the management goal is to extend theagricultural economy as long as practicable through aprogram of planned depletion.

Within a management area all water users must apply fora grandfathered right or a new permit. The applicantis afforded a comment and review period and a courtappeals process. Once the appeals process is complete,certificates of grandfathered rights are issued.

Three types of rights are possible:

(a) irrigation - to qualify the land must have beenirrigated at some time between January 1, 1975 andJanuary 1, 1980.

(b) non-irrigation (Type I) - limited to 3 acre feetper acre; can be established by retiring agricul-tural land.

(c) non-irrigation (Type II) - a right aquired by cityor industry without purchase or retirement of anagricultural use. The amount is limited tothe maximum amount of water pumped in the preced-ing five years.

Rights may be sold or conveyed to new users but only 3 acrefeet/acre/year may be transferred or sold by other thanagricultural users.

2. The second level of management applies to criticalground water areas which were not included in theActive Management Areas. In these areas no expansionof agriculture is permitted; all wells are metered butthere are no pump taxes, no grandfathered rights and nomanagement plans.

3. The third level of management includes the remainder ofthe state where old existing laws will prevail exceptthat all wells must be registered and new or modifiedwells must be drilled by a licensed driller accordingto standards established by the Department of WaterResources.

14

Within each Active Management Area, the Director mustestablish a water duty — the amount of water that can beused for each farm or a portion of a farm. This duty isbased on the historical use of the land, soil character-istics, climate and farming procedures that are represent-ative of reasonably achievable levels of irrigationefficiency. Similarly the Director must establish reason-able limits of per capita consumption for each city andprivate water company in an active management area.

New management plans must be established at 10 year inter-vals and in each the Director is required to force improvedefficiency of use by reducing the allowed irrigation and percapita use rates.

Up to one-half of the administrative costs can be providedby a withdrawal fee levied on all water withdrawn within anactive management area, except for water used for domesticpurposes at 35 gpm or less. The remaining one-half ofadministrative costs are derived from the state's generalfund.

The new law also places constraints on new housing subdivi-sions. A new subdivision may not be developed unless thedeveloper can provide evidence of an assured water supplythat will last 100 years.

The new law is progressing well albeit more slowly than wasenvisioned in the statutes. Economic recession and adecline of state revenues has reduced the available fundsand positions needed for the new program. However this isconsidered a temporary set back. It is necessary thatArizona accomplish effective water management now if hercitizens are to be assured a continued vibrant economy and ahigh standard of living in the future.

15

AN OVERVIEW OF PAST AND PRESENT PROBLEMS

Dr. Sid Groff

The collection and evaluation of ground water data is seenas essential for the management of integrated surface andground water systems. Very modest but productive efforts toinventory ground water in Montana were initiated in theearly 1900 's. Cooperative studies by the U.S. GeologicalSurvey and the Montana Bureau of Mines were initiated in1957 when the state legislature began financial support forthese efforts.

Various agencies throughout the state have collected a vastquantity of data but access to and the use of the informa-tion requires a computerized data storage and aquisitionsystem. The Montana Bureau of Mines has started building adata aquisition system primarily through outside funding.It is important for the state to recognize and support asystem which will meet the needs of research, public infor-mation, and proper resource management.

Some major problems which continue to exist in the stateinclude the following:

1. There exists a lack of understanding of how groundwater systems function. Although ground water is atleast 1000 times more abundant than surface water onlya small amount is available due to limited well yieldsand chemical quality that is not suitable for manyuses.

2. Protection of water quality is essential. Much ofeastern and central Montana is wholly dependent onground water for stock and domestic use. Althoughexcessive carbonates in some waters limit their use forirrigation, this entire region would be seriouslyinjured if ground water quality is allowed to bedegraded.

3. Many municipalities and subdivisions are increasinglydependent on ground water sources. Sewage and otherwaste disposal practices pose a continuing threat tothese water supplies.

4. There is a significant potential for overdraft of someground water supplies and for well interference con-flicts between users. Montana is in an excellentposition to control and prevent these problems whichhave plagued other states.

16

Severe water shortages in other states will increasetheir demands on water from Montana and from otherstates with more abundant water resources. This isespecially true for the important agricultural regionsof the High Plains.

The most complex and pervasive problem is the contamin-ation and pollution of existing, useable, ground wateraquifers. Our ability to correct past contamination islimited but much can be done now to prevent problems inthe future. Saline seep is currently the most signif-icant existing ground water problem. It can be pre-vented and in most cases alleviated by properly appliedagriculture cropping systems.

Present legal systems of "first in time - first inright" which has applied to water in the past is notappropriate for developing artesian basins in Montana.Montana should learn from other states - eg. Californiaand Arizona, where artesian basin management has beenrecognized.

17

MINING ACTIVITY AND GROUND WATER QUALITY

Fred Shewman

Mining and related activity is but one of the many potentialimpacts on water quality that falls within the jurisdictionof the Water Quality Bureau of the Department of Health andEnvironmental Sciences. Montana has not had large areas ofground water polluted by raining but there are a number ofcases where mines have had negative effects in local areas.

Several types of mines and milling activity can causeadverse effects on ground water. To protect against contam-ination it is necessary that water associated with the mineand milling processes are carefully contained.

Hard rock mines release water with low pH, high concentra-tions of metal ions, and elevated total dissolved solids.Metal ores are often associated with sulfides which formacids when they are oxidized by contact with water and air.The acid waters in turn increase the solubility of metalswhich may occur in the water at toxic concentrations.Milling processes for hard rock mines accelerate theseconditions through the flotation of finely divided oreparticles and the use of various reagents which may also betoxic. The flotation tailings, which are residues of themilling process, act as a continued source of pollutantsafter mining and milling are completed. These problems aremost prevalent in the mountains of western Montana.

Th3 processing of tailings through cyanide leach mills is amining process which has increased recently due to theincreased price of gold. Tailings from previously workedmines are crushed and leached with cyanide solutions toextract gold into solution. The gold is then recaptured byprecipitation but the cyanide solutions pose a toxic threatto ground and surface water unless they are carefullycontained. Cyanide solutions may move considerabledistances in shallow ground water to impact nearby wells orsurface waters.

In-situ mining of uranium is a process that has not beendeveloped in Montana, but it has caused concern because ofthe potential for development in the future. Severallocations in the state have sources of uranium which maybecome important if the demand and price increase.

Uranium and other associated minerals occur in depositswhere they were precipitated by reducing conditions in theground water during earlier geologic events. These mater-ials can be resolubilized by injecting oxidizing chemicalsinto the water surrounding these deposits and pumping the

material to the surface. The uranium is then precipitatedand the solutions reinjected into the deposit along withadditional oxidizing solutions. These processes pose apotential threat to other ground water users, many of whomare dependent on the same water sources. The Water QualityBureau has developed regulations to control these opera-tions, but uranium mining is not presently active.

Coal mining creates problems with ground water where thespoils are pushed back into the mined trenches. Waterpercolating through the spoils increases the sulfate concen-trations and other dissolved solids, causing a degradationof the ground water quality.

Most mining-related water quality problems are from pastactivities. However, due to recent economic conditions,there has been a dramatic increase in new or proposed miningefforts during the past two years. The Water Quality Bureauhas received an increasing number of applications fordischarge permits for mining operations and plans for oreprocessing facilities. As another indicator of increasedmining activity, the number of Small Miners ExclusionsStatements filed with the Department of State Lands hasincreased from 796 in 1977 to 1275 in 1981.

19

COAL DEVELOPMENT AND GROUND WATER IN EASTERN MONTANA

Wayne A. Van Voast

Hydrologic research is providing insight into possibleproblems with future mining at several mines in southeasternMontana. Results thus far do not indicate any likelycatastrophic hydrologic effects from any single mine, butrather some relatively minor changes that in some places canbe locally significant. Potential cummulative effects ofmany mines need careful evaluation, however, particularlywith respect to water quality.

Pumping of effluents may be necessary from some mine pitsthat penetrate the water table. Effects of these dischargesdo not seem detrimental. The effluents are mixtures ofground waters that in most places discharge naturally to thesurface. Pumping of effluents from pits is an accelerationof natural-discharge processes and has not created seriouswater-quality changes.

Active pits that penetrate the water table cause somedeclines of water levels in wells. The rapidity of declinedepends upon the rate and depth of pit development. Mostmine cuts near Colstrip are along coal outcrops whereaquifers have low water levels and the resulting water-leveldeclines are almost imperceptible. A mine pit at WestDecker penetrates about 40 feet below the water table, andwater levels in observation wells have declined more than 20feet as far as two miles from the mine. No groundwatersupplies are known to have been seriously affected by anymining thus far in southeastern Montana, but the losses ofsome are inevitable as operations expand. Fortunately,other aquifers are present below the strippable coals andthey can be utilized by drilling deeper wells.

As individual mines are completed, water supply and chemicalquality will attain a new equilibrium depending upon thehydrologic and geochemical character of the mine spoils. Topermit an estimation of whether postmining flow rates andpatterns will be appreciably different, many aquifer testshave been conducted at research wells in spoils and inundisturbed materials. Inferences are that mine spoils aregenerally as permeable as the coal beds they replace andthat the permeability is greatest along the base of thespoil materials because of accumulations of wasted coal andother coarse rubble. Changes in land surface which willaffect surface-runoff patterns (formation of local ponds forexample) could affect recharge patterns and thereby alterground water flow patterns, either beneficially ordetrimentally.

20

Chemical quality of mined-land ground water is differentfrom that in coal-bed aquifers. Research thus far indicatesthat concentrations of some trace elements are greater inwaters from spoils. As a general rule, mined-land waterseems to contain two to four times the dissolved-solidsconcentrations that occur in non-mined-area water. Thesechanges in dissolved solids are considered the mostsignificant effects of mining, and require the most carefulevaluations.

i

21

SUBDIVISIONS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL

Ed Casne

There are two laws which affect subdivision development inMontana: 1) The Sanitation in Subdivisions Act, which isadministered by the Department of Health and EnvironmentalSciences and 2) the Subdivision and Planning Act, which isadministered by local governing bodies.

Among other things, the Sanitation in Subdivisions Actprovides for the protection of ground and surface watersthrough rules promulgated by the Subdivision Bureau.* Thefunctions of the Subdivision Bureau were incorporated intothe Water Quality Bureau in November, 1982. During the 21years the law has been in existence, it has been modifiedseveral times to improve resource protection and theprotection of individuals purchasing land within a proposedsubdivision.

All new applications for a subdivision must have the sani-tary restrictions lifted before a plat is filed with theCounty Clerk and Recorder. This requires the developer toshow evidence that adequate water supply, sewage disposal,and solid waste disposal will be provided without negativeimpact on the water resources, neighboring lands, or otherresource uses.

The Sanitation in Subdivisions Act has several provisionsfor protecting water resources. The Act requires theDepartment of Health and Environmental Sciences to establishrules for various types of water supply and sewage disposalthat will protect public health. In establishing theserules the department must take into account other uses ofthe water, eg. water quality for wildlife, recreation,industry and agriculture. The rules must relate to the sizeof lots, contour of the land, porosity of the soils, groundwater levels, distances to lakes and streams and to otherwater wells in the area. Adequate evidence must be given toshow that water supplies will have sufficient quantity,quality, and dependability.

These rules are especially important in rural subdivisionswhere individual wells and septic systems are used. Some ofthe specific rules that are implemented to protect waterresources in rural subdivisions are as follows:

1. It is generally required that lots be one acre ormore in size to provide adequate space for septicsystems and to reduce the chance of ground watercontamination

.

22

2. The seasonal high-level of ground water must liesix feet or more below the surface. This minimum depthis necessary to allow adequate treatment of sewagewithin the soil without contaminating ground water.

3. A one-hundred foot minimum set back from existingwells or running water is required. This protectsagainst direct contamination of surface and groundwater sources.

4. Water quality as determined by sample analysis mustmeet water quality standards.

5. Subdivisions of more than five lots require ahydrogeological report to show evidence that groundwater supplies will meet projected demands. Pump testson wells are necessary to insure that new wells willmeet projected demands without adversely affectingneighboring wells.

6. Large new subdivisions using central water systemsof over 100 gallons per minute must file for waterrights with the Department of Natural Resources andConservation.

After completing a review of a proposed subdivision thedepartment may issue a certificate of approval, which isassurance that the proposed water supply, sewage disposal,and solid waste disposal plans are satisfactory.

* The functions of the Subdivision Bureau were incorporatedinto the Water Quality Bureau in November 1982.

23

TOXIC, HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

James Harris

Solid waste disposal in the State of Montana is regulated bythe Solid Waste Management Bureau of the Department ofHealth and Environmental Sciences under several statutes.The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)also contains criteria for the proper disposal of refuse.

Ground water is sometimes contaminated by improper disposalof household garbage, agriculture waste, and trash frommunicipalities. The ground water may be contaminateddirectly if the disposal site is dug into the water table orindirectly if leachate is carried out of the site into theground water. Contaminants may include organic waste,dissolved metals, and pesticides, and other toxic materials.Proper selection of landfill sites and proper coverings ofclosed dump sites will minimize or prevent these problems.

The Underground Injection Control Program (UIC) is regulatedby the federal RCRA. The Safe Drinking Water Act will alsoaddress underground injection when regulations for the UICpermit program are promulgated.

Two classes of underground injection wells receive hazardouswastes: Class I wells dispose of wastes below a drinkingwater source and Class IV wells above the source. Regula-tions published in February 1981 provide for permittingClass I wells but not Class IV wells.

Underground injection of wastes presents many potentialproblems. Although the waste is injected into an under-ground formation that protects against contamination ofgroundwater, geologic problems can occur when this is done.The waste may migrate from the injection zone throughfractures or along faults and thus contaminate watersupplies. Improper construction or faulty casing can alsocreate contamination problems. In the case where under-ground zones are not in a horizontal plane, wells ofequivalent depth located in different areas on the surfacemay inject into different zones and cause contamination.

Nearly any hazardous waste management process, above or inthe ground, that is not completely contained, may affectgroundwater. These processes include surface storage andtreatment lagoons, land treatment and disposal facilities,and surface piles.

24

RCRA regulations pertaining to these hazardous wasteoperations will be complete in the near future and there arecurrently some interim status standards in effect. Permit-ting requirements are not complete at this time.

The regulations for storage, treatment, and disposal con-sider ground water protection as a major objective. Con-struction practices to minimize seepage from lagoons andleachate from land disposal facilities and piles areessential, as is monitoring to detect contaminants leaving asite. Properly installed plastic or impermeable clay linersfor ponds, lagoons, and leachate collection systems provideground water protection when properly installed andoperated.

25

THE REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

Roger Thorvilson

I. Legislation

Federal hazardous waste legislation, the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) , was passed in 1976.In 1977, Montana solid waste statutes were amended toinclude state hazardous waste authority comparable to thatin RCRA. In 1981, a separate section of state law, theMontana Hazardous Waste Act (MHWA) , was created to morecomprehensively address hazardous waste management.

II. Regulations

Autumn of 1980 marked the first phase of the hazardouswaste regulatory program, both nationally and in Montana.These initial regulations provide a basis for the control ofhazardous wastes, but a number of specific technicalrequirements applicable to hazardouswaste treatment anddisposal remain to be promulgated. EPA is finalizing itsland disposal regulations now and plans to publish them inthe spring of 1982. These will specify the degree ofprotection required in siting and engineering hazardouswaste disposal sites. Montana has adopted, and plans tocontinue to adopt, regulations fully comparable to EPA's.

III. Description of the Basic Hazardous Waste Program

A. Identification: which wastes are hazardous wastes?

The statutes define hazardous wastes as those wastematerials that "may: (i) cause or significantlycontribute to an increase in mortality or an increasein serious irreversible or incapacitating reversibleillness; or (ii) pose a substantial present orpotential hazard to human health or the environmentwhen improperly treated, stored, transported ordisposed of or other managed."

Hazardous wastes are identified under the regulationsby means of waste lists in addition to theestablishment of four waste characteristics. The listsinclude wastes from non-specific sources (example:organic solvents) , industrial process wastes fromspecific sources (example: certain petroleum refinerysludges) and commercial chemical products (if and whendiscarded) . The four hazardous waste characteristicsinclude ignitability , corrosivity, chemical reactivity.

26

and "EP toxicity." EP toxicity stands for extractprocedure toxicity and reflects the fact that thedirect toxicity of a material is not considered to bethe deciding factor, but rather the toxicity of theextract liquid (leachate) that may migrate from thewaste material . A laboratory procedure for evaluatingEP toxicity is specified by EPA.

B. Hazardous Waste Generators

The person or company who produces a hazardous waste isthe first category of persons regulated under theprogram. The waste generator may or may not fallsubject to regulation for storage, treatment ordisposal of the waste. The generator may wish tocontract with another company for these services andship his waste elsewhere for handling. However, underall circumstances the generator must determine if hiswastes are hazardous and decide how best to manage eachwaste material. If he ships hazardous waste off-site,a waste manifest (special shipping document) is used totracke the waste to its proper destination. Thefacility receiving the waste shipment returns a signedcopy of the manifest to the generator to acknowledgeits receipt.

C. Hazardous Waste Transporters

The transporter must deliver the waste to the facilitydesignated by the generator, sign and carry the wastemanifest, and obtain the signature of the facilityoperator. Should a spill occur, the transporter musttake corrective measures and report the spill to theMontana emergency response system.

D. Hazardous Waste Management Facilities: Treatment,storage, and disposal

Interim status standards are in place to controlexisting facilities, pending completion of theremaining technical standards. Interim statusstandards apply to an existing facility until a finalpermit is issued. General standards, when fullycompleted, will apply to all facilities with finalpermits.

The interim status standards contain general sectionsapplicable to all types of facilities, as well as sectionswhich apply to individual facility types. Facility typesunder the regulations include containers, tanks, surfaceimpoundments, underground injection wells, land treatment

27

areas ( 1 and farms ) , landfills, waste storage piles,incinerators, other thermal treatment devices, and chemical,physical or biological treatment processes.

Measures to protect the quality of ground water are asignificant feature in the regulations applicable to allfacility types. These include requirements that containerstorage areas have impermeable bases, requirements forinspections of aboveground tanks to detect leakage,restrictions on the disposal of liquids in landfills, andcontrols on surface water runoff to prevent infiltration ofwater into disposal areas. A major issue in the forthcomingland disposal regulations, and the reason for their delay,is the question of how to realistically protect ground waterfrom the long-term effects of hazardous waste disposal.

In the interim status standards, ground water monitoring isimposed upon all operators of facilities involvinglandfills, surface impoundments, and land treatment areas.Soil testing and lysimetry monitoring is also required forland treatment facilities.

Long-term environmental protection is provided for byregulations requiring thirty years of post-closure site careand monitoring and requirements for detailed recordkeepingof the types, volumes and exact location of hazardous wastesdisposed of in or on the land. A notice must be placed inthe property deed, recording for perpetuity that the landhas been used for hazardous waste disposal.

It is hoped that Montana's hazardous waste program willserve as an important tool in protecting the quality of thestate's ground waters for future generations.

28

OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND FRESH WATER AQUIFERS

John Calder III

There are three operations of the oil and gas industry thatcould possibly impact ground water resources: seismicexploration, development drilling, and productionoperations

.

Seismic operations include the vibrasize, portable, and shothole methods. The vibrasize operation inputs energy intothe ground by thumping the ground with heavy blows. Thisoperation is not hazardous to ground water but it cannot beused in rough terrain where heavy trucks cannot drive. Theportable method involves detonation of explosive charges ator above the ground surface. Hazards to ground water arealmost negligible. The shot hole method inputs energy intothe subsurface by detonating an explosive at the bottom ofshallow well approximately 200' deep. This method is muchpreferred by seismic exploration companies, but it has beenblamed for creation of some saline seeps in eastern Montana.

During the drilling operations a barite-bentonite slurry isused to control pressure, lubricate the drills, return thedrill cuttings to the surface and to protect waterresources. This mud program essentially seals water-bearingstrata against intrusion into the well bore by slightlypenetrating and sealing the strata. As the well is drilled,a casing is placed into the bore hole which protects theintegrity of the well bore and also protects ground waterresources. Casing programs are designed by the operatingcompany and approved by state and federal regulatory bodies.

The potential for contamination of shallow ground water withleachates from drilling reserve pits is minimal. Thebarite-bentonite drilling mud acts to seal the reserve pitand prevent water intrusion into the shallow aquifers.

Non-producing wells are plugged by filling the well with abentonite-baritG slurry, a heavy weight mud; and cementplugs are placed at various points to prevent cross-contamination of drinking water aquifers. The cement is runto the surface, where by law, the well is marked for futurelocation if necessary. The well location is recorded withthe State Board of Oil and Gas Conservation.

During production operations, water which may be associatedwith oil and gas must be separated and disposed of accordingto state and federal requirements. Fresh water may be of

29

beneficial use to local ranches and wildlife in the area orit may serve to recharge shallow ground water aquifers.Saline waters, depending on the quantity involved, may beevaporated from small pits on location or injected under-ground for disposal or to maintain pressure in the producinghorizon. The underground injection of saline water isregulated by the federal government and the state withstringent requirements to prevent contamination of freshwater with saline water.

Several different types of pipe are used in the casingprogram. A large conductor pipe is set approximately 100'

into the ground. Within the conductor pipe a surface casingpipe is set to a depth that is sufficient to protect groundwater and to provide a good base for the drilling oper-ations. Cement is used to seal off the ground water bearingstrata and to firmly anchor the surface pipe in the ground.Next there is an intermediate string pipe which, dependingon the depth of the hole, is placed to provide additionalprotection to the hole and to ground water resources.Finally a production string is set from the surface to theproducing formation that is the target of the drillingcompany. Cement is used to bond this to the other pipes toprotect the integrity of the hole and to protect groundwater resources.

In Montana the oil and gas industry has been working withstate agencies, land and mineral owners, and scientists todevelop improved regulations to minimize hazards to groundwater. Effective enforcement of these regulations should beencouraged.

30

COSTS OF GROUND WATER DATA MANAGEMENT

Marvin Miller

Introduction

Because ground water data are often obtained with littleconcern for their potential use beyond the original purposeof the collection effort, these data often become difficultto locate and use. For example, ground water quality datacollected specifically for siting a coal mine or power plantare often: used for only that specific purpose; publishedin a document of limited distribution; and commonlymisplaced or lost afterwards even though the data may havefurther use in regional or statewide studies. Data storedin this fashion are difficult for a user to obtain andconsequently are rarely used again. This results induplication of research efforts in the same or similargeographic areas. In order to prevent this, Montana needsto support a central ground water data base or informationcenter to collect, manage, correct and publish ground waterdata, thereby making them readily available to governmentalagencies, private industry and the public.

Ground Water Data Needs

The type of ground water information necessary to conduct aground water study depends on the scope and detail of aground water problem. Table 1 outlines data needs forstudies of different areal extents. Almost everysite-specific ground water problem would require new groundwater information pertinent to the problem area. Existingground water data available for that site, however, could beused as supplemental data points, and might provideinformation on historical changes in some data parameter.An investigator planning a site-specific study might feelthat analyses of heavy-metal concentrations in the water ofa particular aquifer would be useful. These analyses,however, could add considerable expense to the project. Aregional data base containing analyses of heavy-metalconcentrations in or near the site could show whether or notthe effort to collect and analyze for heavy metals wasnecessary.

Regional studies of ground water often are "filled out" bysite-specific data from within the boundaries of theregional project. At present, much of these site-specificdata are found in a multitude of reports and booklets, andare classified or organized in a multitude of ways. The

31

CQ

<

LUccLULLLL

OLL

>QD

00 00G LULULU

<

Q

<oCO

LU

< LU <°^ -I ^<o<xOq

O DC <

< OS

<2o

LU O CJ

Q- UJ ^< l_ <o ^ ^Q uj c/)

-1 LUO -JCJ DQ

>°-^ rr

>< CC

I— CO I—

Z LU ^LU QC Q

< <Dh- h- O< < q:

Q Q O

y LU zI OC LU ^Q_ a. 1- u.

O — Q-

LU _ ^ LU

CC < CQ CO

t Oq:DC

"-CJ- U_

-I < < Q^ ^ ^ LU LU< O ^ ^ c/^

oi-03<I- Q O m CQ

c/^lu^odluLLl I- Z 9;^ 2 ^ < ^

COLU < O o5 =5 CO ^ O

-• 9<

-

^ < Q _. O

ool- R 2 z2 < <--' LU <UJ Q DC DC

Q UJ DC ^'

I- LU D "-^ 3< DC a DC ^_Q < < O CA)

O

o LU

l-< LU

2 <

UJ _i p; h-I- O QC g <

^ LU LU f 1 uu

^ _l LU h"

Q ^ -,- °- L^LU ^ ^ en <

LJ-I '-' > CO XQ 2~ cr ~ I-

(_ H- - LU Oh-- - C/5 X

t/5 9 ^ n <

o?r2:Lum Z^5CQ c/5 - Cu

^c/^ LU -J ^<LJJ o _ CO I-

^ ^ L^'-<

t z -lOi

LU O o5t-Q LU - S 2^ DC If: DC UJ

< 2 D. 2 QCQ < CO — Q-

Q QZ Z

Q. < <

o

LU

researcher must find, collate, organize, cull and classifythese data for his own project. These tasks are greatlysimplified if most of the data can be obtained from onesource, in a consistent format.The primary product of the compilation of regional andsite-specific data is a statewide data base from which manykinds of questions can be answered. Research questions suchas: what data already exist for a project area can beanswered. Questions from Montana citizens concerning thepresent water quality in their well or spring, the depthneeded to complete a well in their area and the expectedyield of a well in a given area can usually be satisfiedquickly and efficiently. Often the data offered the citizenin response to his inquiry has more significance when viewedin the context of wells or springs in similar situations.An inquiry about the concentration of dissolved solids inwater produced by a spring discharging from the Fort Unionformation, for example, may show that the spring produceswater with higher or lower dissolved solids than the averageof 1,765 Mg/L for that aquifer based on 1,333 samples.

The Montana Bureau of Mines Ground Water DataManagement System

Figure 1 is a flow chart showing the data-management systemwhich presently is being supported at the MBMG. Groundwater data from site-specific, regional and statewideefforts are compiled into four major computer-based groups.These groups are: 1) the well-appropriation file,containing well log and lithologic information on Montana'swater wells; 2) the water-quality file, containing chemicaldata on Montana's ground water; 3) the petroleum-well file,which contains lithologic data on Montana's deeper aquifers;and 4) the aquifer-test file, which is proposed at this timeto provide a statewide reference system on aquiferpermeability and storage characteristics.

Figure 2 illustrates, in more detail, some elements ofdata-management operations for the well-appropriation files.New well-appropriation data become part of the file uponreceipt of well logs from the Montana Department of NaturalResources. After coding and data entry, geologic sourcesand altitudes are assigned to each well based on the well'slocation, depth and lithology. When a field ground waterproject is undertaken by the USGS or MBMG, listings andcopies of the logs for that area are retrieved from the datasystem and taken into the field. When the field inventoryfor the project is complete, corrections to the informationin the data base are made from the findings in the field.

32

FIGURE 2

WELL APPROPRIATION DATA COLLECTION ANDENTRY TO GROUNDWATER DATA BASE

NEW WELL

APPROPRIATION DATA

MBMG WELL

APPROPRIATION FILE

= 80,000 WELLS

DATA LISTINGS

TO USGS ORMBMG FIELDPROJECT

REPORTS.LISTINGS

FOR MBMG AND STATE USE

BACK TO MBMG

DATA ENTRY

FIELD INVENTORYOF WELLS IN

PROJECT AREA -

NEW WELLS ADDED

Figure 3 illustrates, in more detail, some elements in thedata-management system for the water-quality files.Water-quality data for the ground water data base areusually generated by USGS or MBMG personnel. After thefield data are received, the information is checked forcorrectness, latitudes and longitudes are determined foreach site (for computer plotting) and the data arecross-checked with the well-appropriation file. A matchbetween a water-quality analysis and a well log can often bemade, allowing corrections to be made to both. Appropriateidentifiers, such as an inventory number and the analysisnumber, are placed on the associated documents and in thecomputer files to correlate the well appropriation and thewater-quality analysis. Once data entry of both the fieldand laboratory water-quality data is made, the data areprinted and distributed. Editing programs in both thewater-quality and well-appropriation systems allow errors tobe easily corrected.

Cost of Management System

Figure 4 illustrates estimated costs of operating thedata-management system at the MBMG. Approximately 70percent of the costs are in data collection and correctionefforts. Data collection is expensive because of fieldequipment costs, personnel travel and vehicle expenses,difficult access to some sites and the great size of thestate of Montana. The work is often time consuming,requiring close contact with individual well or springowners. One major problem with large data-base systems isthe ease in which poor quality, unchecked data can entercomputer storage and become part of the data file. The dataverification and correction efforts at the MBMG are aimed atreducing this liability. Correcting field data is timeconsuming because map work and verification of informationis slow and exacting. The effort necessary for datacorrection (primarily on older data being added to thesystem) is intensive, requiring map work and double-checkingof data printouts against original source publications.Data entry usually proceeds smoothly once the preparatorycorrection and coding work is done. The volume of data,however, requires that approximately 20 percent of costs forthe systems are generated in data entry and correctionefforts.

The least expensive part of the system is the 10 percent ofcosts related to data output to users. Once the programmingfor producing a report exists, the costs of such reportsbecome minimal relative to the entire data managementsystem.

33

FIGURES

FIELD WATERQUALITY DATA

LABORATORY WATERQUALITY DATA

MAP WORK - CORRECTION OFLOCATION, LATITUDE, ANDLONGITUDE-CROSS CHECKINGTO WELL APPROPRIATION FILE

iMBMG WATER QUALITY DATA

BASE CONTAINING 7000

WATER QUALITY ANALYSES

/ iDATA

CORRECTION

FIGURE4

OUTPUT REPORTSTO USER

DATA BASE MANAGEMENT COSTS

FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR RESOLVING PROBLEMS

Mark O'Keefe

Federal funds have played an important role in waterdevelopment in Montana. Some examples of federal assistanceare the USGS - Montana Bureau of Mines study of theFoxhills-Hell Creek Controlled Ground Water area;federal-state cooperative studies on various ground waterproblems in the state; and the federal funds that havesupported the Water Resources Research Center at MontanaState University.

There are several mechanisms for aquiring federal funds foruse in solving water problems. The first is the federal-state cooperative program, which in Montana has primarilyinvolved the U.S. Geologic Survey working with the MontanaBureau of Mines. This typically has involved a 50% match offederal funds with 50% state and local funds. There is anincreasing demand for greater local and state involvement asfederal funds are decreased. These cooperative programsallow the state to have a say in how development occurs.Occasionally the federal government provides a direct lineof appropriation without state matching funds.

A second type of funding is the individual contract or grantfrom a federal agency that needs a service that a stateagency can provide. Usually the state can suggestmodifications in the federal plan of operations to meetstate needs. A 10% match is often required by the state butit may be a match of in-kind services rather than of newfunds. This allows the state to develop a multiagency,coordinated approach to information gathering.

A previously existing source of federal funds was the OldWest Regional Commission. The purpose was to solveinterstate problems. This was especially appropriate forworking with ground water aquifers that transcend stateboundaries.

It is now clear that the states will be required to supportmore of these projects as federal funds become less avail-able. Historically the state legislature has supportedthese studies; for example in 1977 the state legislaturepassed the HJR 54 which authorized a ground water study ofthe state but in particular the study of the Ft. UnionRegion of the state. In 1979 HB 705 was passed to provide acontinuation of the Artesian Basin Studies. These areexamples of direct legislative appropriations for groundwater studies.

34

One of the mechanisms which began in 1975 was the state'sRenewable Resource Development Program. In the last legis-lature, the Water Development Program was created. Each ofthese programs is a potential source of funds to addressground water problems. However these programs are not finalanswers to the funding problems.

The Renewable Resource Development Program is funded by aportion of the Coal Severance Tax. Its purpose is toprotect and develop the state's renewable resources. Thefunds, which presently amount to approximately $1.6 millionper biennium, can be used for grants, to back bonds forloans, or they can be used directly for loans. The fundsara available to any unit of state or local government forprograms dealing with a renewable resource. The program cangrant up to 100% of costs for feasibility studies thataddress problems dealing with ground water. It can alsoloan 50% and grant 50% of the funds required for a projectthat has a potential repayment value. If the funds are usedto back bonds or loans at prescribed interest rates, themoney may go further.

Examples of the previous use of renewable resource develop-ment funds are the Muddy Creek Project and the TriangleConservation District Saline Seep Project. However, theseare long-term projects and the renewable resource funds onlyprovide a fragment of their needs. These programs willrequire sustained, long-term funding from other sources.

The Water Resources Development Program can fund nearly anytype of project that involves surface or ground water. Someof the projects presently under consideration are irrigationsystem development and rehabilitation, saline seep abate-ment, small-scale hydropower, off-stream storage, erosioncontrol, rural water development, irrigation canal lining,and stream bank stabilization. Any state or local govern-ment or semi-public body or private individuals can apply.The funds available amount to approximately 1.6 million perbiennium. There is a $100,000 loan limit per project.

Otner methods for solving problems include direct legisla-tive appropriations. These efforts should be directed atproblems before a crisis exists and the need for funds isgoing to continue as the state grows especially in rapidlydeveloping areas such as Ravalli, Gallatin, and FlatheadCounties. There is considerable need for federal-state andlocal support for research in order to expand thedevelopment of ground water areas.

35

THE LEGISLATIVE NEEDS OF THE MONTANA WATER INDUSTRY

William Osborne

The average citizen has many misconceptions about groundwater and its significance as a resource. However, infor-mation developed from the U.S. Geological Survey inventorieshave shown that ground water is a tremendously importantresource nationwide. Ninety seven percent of the freshwaterresource in the nation occurs as ground water and only 3%occurs as surface streams and lakes. The inventory hasshown that at our present rate of use water in stc-age inthe ground can last our society for approximately 7000years.

Thare are many myths and misconceptions about ground water,partly because it is not easily observed or measured. Someof the myths and facts about this resource are listed below:

1. Myth - Ground water acts as underground lakes andstreams.

Fact - Ground water resources do not resemblesurface water.

2. Myth - Ground water supplies are insignificant.

Fact - Ground water supplies exceed surface watersby a ratio of 30 to 1.

3. Myth - There is no relationship between surface andground water.

Fact - Ground water supplies much of the flow tostreams and rivers, and lakes and swamps are merelywindows in the water table.

4. Myth - Ground waters flow thousands of miles belowthe ground surface.

Fact - Most ground water is replaced in thevicinity of its withdrawal.

5. Myth - Ground water rushes underground so fast thatits presence can be detected by listening.

Fact - Ground water moves only a few inches perday. There are no true underground rivers.

36

6. Myth - Ground water is mysterious and occult.

Fact - Natural laws control the movement andoccurence of ground water and therefore its behavior ispredictable.

Some important facts about the use of water have beensummarized to indicate its importance in our society.

- an average person uses about 90 gallons of water perday in the home

.

- an average person consumes about 16,000 gallons ofwater in his lifetime.

- industry uses more water than any other material orsupply. It requires the following amounts of waterto produce various products.

150 gallons - one Sunday newspaper160 gallons - one pound of aluminum270 tons - one ton of steel10 gallons - refines one gallon of gasoline10 gallons - refines one gallon of beer

- surface water costs range from 30-60 cents per 1000gallon

- in 1981 there were 730,000 wells drilled in the U.S.at a gross business value equal to 3.2 billiondollars.

Ground water raises some serious areas of concern to hydrol-ogists and others who are aware of its properties. It isespecially subject to pollution by those who drill holes inthe ground for whatever purposes. Pollution of ground watermay take generations to clean up. Present generations musttake steps now to prevent ground water contamination.

One of the best instruments available in Montana to preventground water pollution is the Montana Water Well Board.Although the Board has been in existence for 20 years itsexistence is now threatened due to sunset legislation.

Water well drillers must be regulated like any other profes-sional group. Failure to control their activities willallow some non-professional and/or non-ethical operators toharm the activities of others. There is a need for legis-lative support and funds to properly inspect and enforcerules which apply to water well construction and otheractivities which impact on ground water. There is a need to

37

establish strict licensing procedures for water welldrillers and contractors with provisions to revoke licensesfor failure to meet the standards.

Like many other states, Montana has promulgated many rulesand standards governing the use and protection of groundwater. While these rules are appropriate and necessary, themultiple agency responsibility does cause confusion andadded difficulty for those who are regulated.

It is especially important that rules which are promulgatedare properly and strictly enforced.

GROUND WATER AS A RESERVED WATER RIGHT

Henry Loble

When land is withdrawn from the public domain, such as fornational forests and Indian reservations, sufficient waterto develop the land is reserved with a priority dategenerally as of the time of the creation of the reservation.Reserved water rights need not be used as other water rightsmust be. They are reserved for later use, sometimes with a

priority date that predates and is senior to non-federal ornon-Indian rights in use for many years. These reservedwater rights create uncertainty, which prevents planning anddevelopment for Indians and non-Indians and for federal andnon-federal uses. (Winters vs U.S. , 207 U.S. 564, 1908;Arizona vs California , 373 U.S. 546, 1962).

Reserved water rights should be quantified and theuncertainties resolved. Three methods for resolution are:(1) negotiation, (2) litigation, or (3) congressionallegislation. Negotiation presents the least expensive,least time-consuming, and most feasible method. The MontanaReserved Water Rights Compact Commission is currentlyengaged in such negotiation with four Montana Indian tribesand also with the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture,and Defense.

There has been controversy as to whether state governmentsor the federal governments have jurisdiction of thesereserved rights. On June 22, 1979, the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the 10th Circuit ruled for state jurisdictionand on February 22, 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit ruled for federal jurisdiction. The rulingsapply to most western states.

The Montana Water Use Act (Section 85-2-101, et. seq . , MCA)and the Montana 1972 Constitution (Art. IX, Sec. 3(3))assert state jurisdiction over ground water. No court, asof the present date, has held that a reserved right includesground water.

There are arguments to be made for and against includingground water as a reserved right. However it is apparentthat an agreement on reserved water rights would be morecomplete if it did address ground water.

There are technical difficulties in dealing with groundwater as a reserved right. Recognizing the potentialconflict between surface and ground water use, the UpperNiobrara River Compact, an interstate water compact between

39

the States of Wyoming and Nebraska, contained an agreementto delay apportionment of ground water in the Niobrara RiverBasin until adequate data on ground water in the basin areavailable.

Because shallow ground water is sometimes tributary tosurface streams, it may be possible to treat all waterwithin a stream corridor as one source. The water rightwould then be given for a specific quantity of water fromeither the surface stream or from ground water. Thealternative approach would be to issue water rights forsurface and ground water separately; but comprehensivetechnical studies to quantify available water from eachwould be necessary prior to execution of the compact.

Technical data concerning ground water sources underlyingfederal and Indian reservations is limited, and it will takemuch time and money to amass such data. Therefore at thistime the Montana Reserved Water Right Compact Commissionmight use ground water concession as a reserved water right,as a bargaining chip in the negotiation process. Possiblythis could be done in return for concessions that wouldrecognize existing non-Indian uses on the water sources orsome other important point by either the federal governmentor the Indian tribe in question. This negotiation maypermit greater flexibility rather than the litigationapproach which is "all or nothing."

40

LEGAL ISSUES AND GROUND WATER

Sharon Morrison

The legal issues involving ground water in Montana are notwell defined. There has never been a Montana Supreme Courtcase that involved competing interests of ground waterusBrs. Some cases have been tried in the district courtsbut none have been appealed to a higher court. Because wedo not have legal precedents, there are no guidelines as towhat the Supreme Court would do when faced with a disputebetween two ground water users on the same source.

In discussing legal issues affecting ground water, it isnecessary to consider the doctrines which have applied tosurface water. In the U.S. surface water is divided undertwo doctrines: the riparian doctrine and the prior appro-priation doctrine . The riparian doctrine came from Anglo-American law and it was the only doctrine that we had forcenturies. The doctrine states that if a stream runsthrough your land, you may make reasonable use of it. Thereis no date of appropriation — you own the right. If theamount of water is less than you need, then you may takeonly what is reasonable, so that downstream neighbors mayalso take what is reasonable for their needs. The doctrinewas carried to this county by the early settlers and it isthe doctrine that is in use today in the eastern UnitedStates.

However, at about the middle of the last century, whenmineral prospectors began moving west, they found a desertand abundant minerals. Because water was necessary forproduction of the minerals, the prospectors moved ontopublic lands and helped themselves to available water.After a series of decisions were made, it was agreed thatthis use of water was appropriate for the development of theland. Thus, whoever moved onto public land and used thewater to make the land productive, whether by mining or byirrigation, had the right to use it. They had the rightfrom the date they first used it to the exclusion of allpeople who came along later. This became known as the priorappropriation doctrine . The doctrine is unique to westernlaw and western circumstance.

These two doctrines have been involved in ground water laweven though it is a less well developed legal area. Thefirst ground water law case ever recorded was an Englishcase in 1843. In this case one neighbor had drilled a wellthat drained his neighbors ground water. The courts review-ed the case and concluded that the ground water could not be

41

defined, i.e. the plaintiff could not explain where thewater ran, how deep it was, where it started or where itended. Without these facts the court could not make a legaldecision or apply legal principles. Therefore the courtdetermined that ground water belongs to the person who ownsthe overlying land and he may do whatever he wishes with hiswater. He may use it or waste it, but legal principlescannot deal with it because the water supply cannot bedescribed. This then became known as the law of absoluteownership . It was the law in England and in the U.S. wherethe riparian doctrine applied to surface water. This was aharsh result and Americans are inclined not to like harshresults. So the principle of reasonable use grew up inAmerica. This principle is essentially like the absoluteownership doctrine except that the owner may make reasonableuse of his water, but he cannot waste it.

In one of the few cases in Montana that touches upon aground water principle, the courts adhered to the absoluteownership doctrine. The case of Ryan vs Quinlan 45 M. 521(1912) , arose on Dempsey Creek. This is one of an interest-ing series of cases that began in the 1800 's. Mr. Ryan hadstored spring run-off water in an artifical lake for useduring dry periods. This activity was challenged with thebelief that the stored water was actually part of thenatural flow to Dempsey Creek and thus belonged to othersurface water appropriators on Dempsey Creek.

The Montana Supreme Court ruled that the ground water flowto Dempsey Creek could not be identified, and therefore theycould not say that water in Ryan's Lake would have made itsway to Dempsey Creek. Thus the courts concluded the waterbelonged to Ryan. Absolute ownership remained the law inMontana for many years — because the courts would notconsider it and could not apply legal principles to the useof ground water.

The next important water law case was handed down in 1962;this was a federal case of McGowan vs the U.S. , 206 F. Supp.4 39 (D. Mont. 1962) . The government had condemned the landof a neighbor and began installing ditches and a drainagesystem on the land. This caused the spring of McGowan todry up, and he sued the federal government. The judgereviewing the case considered the Ryan vs. Quinlan case anddecided that McGowan had no right of recovery. Thus as lateas 1962, the doctrine of absolute ownership was applied.

In a later case, again relating to Ryan vs Quinlan 45 M. 521(1912), the courts changed their stand. The court recog-nized that modern hydrology had progressed to a point thatground water could be accurately traced. For this reason.

42

the court felt that the traditional legal distinctionbetween surface and ground water should not be rigidlymaintained. This has resulted in a modified absoluteownership principle. If it can be demonstrated that thereis a connection between related rights in ground water, thenit is possible to obtain recovery.

Currently there are a number of issues and conflicts whichmust be addressed in the future. Some examples of these areas follows:

(1) Is ground water in Montana administered under the 1962Ground Water Act or is it administered under the 1973Water Use Act? The Ground Water Act provided that allground water will be administered by the Department ofNatural Resources and Conservation; but the 1973 actcharges the supervision of all water to the DistrictCourt. Conflict ; Is the DNRC or the District Courtresponsible for ground water?

(2) The Ground Water Act of 1962 provides for theestablishment of Controlled Ground Water ManagementAreas. If such an area is established a set of rightsand duties are established and supervised by the DNRC.After considering the various uses of water, prioritiesfor use may be established without regard to prioritydates. Domestic and livestock uses are given firstpriority. This is the only place in Montana water lawthat preferences are established. Conflict ; Are theusers controlled by the general law or under the groundwater law?

(3) In a controlled ground water management area the DNRCmay hold a hearing for ground water users but all waterusers including those with surface rights must be madeparty to the proceedings. Under these statutes, theDNRC cannot decide on priorities for surface rights —only ground water rights. Conflict ; The surfaceowners expect their right to be litigated in DistrictCourt under the 1973 Act. VJater commissioners appoint-ed by the court have jurisdiction in these matters.But the DNRC can also appoint ground water supervisorswho have jurisdiction over the use of ground water inthe area. Conflict ; The supervisors and the watercommissioners each have jurisdiction — which one doesa water user go to for resolution of problems?

(4) According to the 1962 Act, a user who drills a wellmust file a notice of well completion within 60 days.This is reiterated in the 1973 Act and it states thatthe filing date of the well establishes the prioritydate. This establishes a ground water right exceptwhere permits are required before drilling.

43

Conflict ; A main issue concerns what happens if thewell driller does not obtain a permit before he drillsor if he fails to file a notice of completion. He thenhas no legal rights despite his expense and the avail-ability of water. This issue has not reached thecourts but it suggests that our interrelated water lawsmay present a conflict for well owners. If a personfiles a notice of completion at a late date the depart-ment may be required to hold a hearing to determine ifany other well owners have relied on the fact thatthere had not been a previous filing or notice ofcompletion. The new well owner could be prohibitedfrom using his water or his filing may be placed behindthe person who had relied on the absence of previousfilings.

According to present Montana law a ground water userdoes not have an absolute right to his pump lift, e.g.a first appropriator on a ground water source may havedrilled a rather shallow well and obtained an adequatesupply, but a second appropriator may place a deeperwell into the same source and reduce or eliminate thefirst wells flow. Conflict ; Montana law does notprotect the water level or existing artesian pressure;the law only requires that it remain reasonably thesame. If the well flow is reduced the first appropri-ator may have to drill deeper but not to an unusuallevel

.

How should Montana deal with the problem of "mining"ground water, i.e. the situation where water is with-drawn from a non-renewable source? A method used insome states limits the number of appropriators on anon-renewable supply. The method assumes some lengthof time that would be required to reasonably repay theexpense of drilling and the cost of preparation forusing the water. The quantity of water in the aquiferis then estimated and as many appropriators are allowedas will reasonably use the water source in that periodof time. If water still exists after that time thewater can be reallocated. This raises the question ofownership. Conflict ; Is there a constitutionalconflict when the government allows one user and notthe other? Is the government taking property withoutdue process of law? The question was raised in NewMexico and the court declared it was not a denial ofdue process. The same response would be expected inMontana where the law claims all water (surface andsubsurface) for the State of Montana.

44

According to one case in Lewis and Clark County subir-rigation waters are also protected. In this case thefederal government condemned a portion of an owner'sland and initiated a drainage program that caused a

loss of subirrigation water in an adjoining hay field.The court ruled the subirrigation water could not bedrained without compensation to the owner.

45

ADMINISTRATION OF GROUND WATER IN MONTANAPRESENT AND FUTURE

Laurence Siroky

The purpose of the Montana Water Use Act of 1973 is toprovide an orderly procedure for appropriating surface andground water. The act treats both types of water the same.The act provides a means to resolve conflicts and to protectexisting and future acquired water rights.

Specifically the Act establishes the following:

(a) a procedure for identifying and quantifyingpre-1973 rights including those for ground water. The1979 amendments to the Water Use Act in Senate Bill 76required all water rights to be filed by April 30,1982. A provision was included to exempt stock ordomestic ground water uses.

(b) a procedure for acquiring water rights after 1973.

(c) a centralized records system for water rightsinformation.

(d) a continuation of the provisions for establishingcontrolled ground water areas and for handling groundwater waste.

(e) a procedure for reserving water for future use,including ground water.

(f) a procedure to allow changes and severance sale ofwater rights.

The provisions of this act provide the "tools" necessary forshaping Montana's present and future water uses. Theirsuccess is dependent upon continued legislative support andfunding. Fine-tuning modifications of the act may benecessary to insure progress.

Adjudication of V^ater Rights - Prior to 1973

The adjudication process is described in a brochure preparedby the state entitled, "Adjudication of Montana's ExistingWater Rights." The adjudication procedure will continue forapproximately 10 years at a cost of about $2 million peryear. Although this is expensive, it is less costly thanlitigation. It is expected that preliminary decrees will be

46

issued in 1983 for the drainage basins of the Madison,Gallatin, Sage Creek (Hill Co.), Sweetgrass Creek, DempseyCreek, and Rock Creek (Granite Co.), O'Fallon Creek, JudithRiver, Redwater River and the lower Clark Fork River(Sanders Co.). The claims and preliminary decree infor-mation are being computerized. These data will provideuseful information for determining impacts of present andfuture uses; prospective water users will benefit from theavailable data.

Acquiring Water Rights after 1973

All water rights appropriated after 1973 require a water usepermit for (a) any amount of surface water, (b) for anyamount of ground water within a controlled ground waterarea. A permit is not necessary for ground water of anamount less than 100 gallons per minute outside a controlledground water area.

A new well of less than 100 gpm outside a controlled groundwater area must be filed with the Department of NaturalResources and Conservation. A notice of well completionmust be filed within sixty (60) days; the date of priorityis the date the notice of completion is filed. Afterreceiving a notice of completion, the DNRC issues a certif-icate of water right which is filed with the County Clerkand Recorder's Office and entered into the computer datafile. These data plus the well driller's log are availableto assist other prospective water users and well drillers inthe future.

A provisional permit is required for all other water usesacquired after 1973, including any amount of surface water,any amount of ground water within a controlled ground waterarea or ground water in excess of 100 gallon per minute inany area. The permitting process may require six months tomore than a year to complete. Sufficient time must beallowed to notify other water users, to issue public noticesand if requested, to hold public hearings. Permits that aregranted may have conditions limiting water use especially ifother appropriators have prior rights. The requirements orcriteria that must be met to obtain a provisional permit areoutlined in the DNRC pamphlet entitled: "Appropriation ofWater in Montana".

In some instances there is not sufficient informationavailable to know all of the possible impacts of issuing apermit. In these instances a permit is usually issued toallow development and to gain more information on theresource in that location.

47

During the period 1973-1976 the department issued approxi-mately 2100 permits of which about 15% were for groundwater. Some of the areas of greatest ground water activityare the following:

— The Poplar River basin and the Missouri River basinbelow Fort Peck reservoir. The activity in this areais just beginning.

— The Upper Missouri River Basin from the JeffersonRiver to Holter Dam and the Sun River. Activity inthese areas is expanding because of limitations onavailable surface water.

— The Shoshone River basin to the point where itcrosses the Wyoming border. There are several largeirrigation wells that have been drilled into theMadison aquifer in this area.

-- The Flathead River Basin. This is an area ofextensive ground water activity where water withdrawalmay be exceeding the recharge rate. It is a possiblecandidate area for designation as a controlled groundwater area.

Controlled Ground Water Areas — a controlled ground waterarea Is a specific surface area with defined boundarieswithin which ground water use may be closely regulated. Theprocedures offer an effective management tool to addressspecial problems of local concern — eg. in areas of limitedsupply, areas of flowing wells, and locations where geo-thermal resources are to be developed. Additional infor-mation is available in the DNRC brochure entitled, "ManagingGround Water Shortages through Controlled Ground-WaterAraas .

"

48

PROPOSED GROUND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS*

Steve Pilcher

Montana has long been concerned with the protection of itswater resources both from the standpoint of quality andquantity. The state has engaged in a strong program toprotect surface water by utilizing the Montana Ground WaterAct, the Montana Water Quality Standards, and the NationalPollution Discharge Elimination System program. The devel-opment of a similar program for ground water has proceededslowly due to the many complexities and different factorswhich affect ground water. However the mandate for a groundwater pollution control program is obvious. The WaterQuality Bureau is currently finding many situations wherewaste materials are being disposed of through seepage,infiltration or percolation as an alternative to directdischarge into surface water;?. This is true for municipal,industrial, mining, and other waste products. In some casesthe disposal systems are reviewed and approved by a state orfederal office, but in many cases there is no authority forsuch review. Adverse effects or problems associated with agound water system may not impact on a beneficial use formany years but by the time a problem is discovered, it maybe too late to protect that beneficial use.

The Montana Water Quality Act specifically prohibits pollu-tion of state waters — defined as both surface and under-ground water -- the only exceptions are irrigation watersthat are totally used within the irrigation system. The lawrequires adoption of rules governing the issuance of permitsto discharge wastes into state waters and it requires theBoard of Health and Environmental Services to establishwater quality classifications and water quality standards.

The Water Quality Bureau has developed a set of proposedground water regulations and standards that are based on thefollowing policy:

1. The regulations should not require duplication ofpermitting with other state or federal agencies whichaddress ground water problems.

2. The regulations should be based on the concept ofprotecting beneficial uses rather than prohibiting allconstitutent-by-constitutent changes

.

3. The regulations should provide adequate protection toground water without placing a prohibition on develop-ment.

49

4. The regulations should constitute a program that can beadministered within the resources of the administeringagency.

The proposed ground water regulations address pollutionregulation in two ways:

I. They establish a ground water classification systemthat is based on existing or potential beneficial uses.For each classification there are concentration limitsfor selected parameters or substances which will insurethat use of the water can be continued as a beneficialuse.

Under the proposed rules, individual aquifers may beclassified on a case-by-case basis as applications fordischarge are received. This is necessary becausewater quality data for many aquifers is inadequate toestablish classifications immediately.

The proposed classification categories are as follows:

Class I waters, which are suitable for public andprivate water supplies, culinary and food process-ing, irrigation, livestock and wildlife wateringand for commercial and industrial purposes.

Class II waters, which are marginally suited forpublic and private water supplies, culinary andfood processing and are suitable for irrigation ofsome agricultural crops, for most livestock andwildlife watering and for most commercial andindustrial purposes.

Class III waters, which are suitable for someindustrial and commercial purposes and as drinkingwater for some wildlife and livestock and for somesalt-tolerant crops using special water managementpractices.

Class IV waters, which may be suitable for someindustrial, commercial and other uses. Thesewaters are unsuitable or for practical purposesuntreatable for Class III uses.

II. The proposed regulations establish a permittingrequirement. A waste discharge permit is required fromthe Department of Health and Environmental Sciences forany sources that may potentially discharge pollutantsinto ground water, provided that a similar permit isnot

50

required by another agency. Those activities ordischarges which have been specifically exempted frompermitting under the proposed rules are:

1. Discharges for activities regulated under theproposed Federal Underground Injection ControlProgram.

2. Approved sanitary landfills which are licensed bythe Solid Waste Management Bureau of the Depart-ment of Health and Environmental Sciences.

3. Water injection wells, reserve pits, and produc-tion water pits employed in oil and gas fieldoperations and approved by the Board of Oil andGas Conservation.

4. Agricultural irrigation activities.

5. Individual septic tank drainfields and wastetreatment facilities that are approved in relationto discharges currently approved by NPDESprograms.

6. Uranium solution mining, which is covered by Inisitu Mining Regulations already in effect.

7. Mining operations that are subject to operatingpermits in compliance with the Strip and Under-ground Mine Reclamation Act or the Metal MineReclamation Act.

The permit procedure requires the applicant to submitadequate information to determine the impact on ground waterquality and may require the collection of additional data tosupport the application. The permit procedures includeprovisions for public notice and hearings when there isadequate public interest.

The proposed rules are an important link in developing thestate's ground water management strategy.

* The ground water quality rules were adopted by the Boardof Health and Environmental Sciences in Spetember 1982.

51

GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Gary Fritz

The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC)has the responsibility for evaluation of ground watermanagement needs in Montana. Many other western states haveplaced severe demands on their ground water resources.These demands have resulted in recent, innovative groundwater management statutes, such as the new law enacted byArizona. The primary difference between Montana and otherwestern states is that ground water problems of c'cpletionand contamination are not yet widely manifest in the state.Thus, Montanans have not been forced into imposing re-strictions and expensive corrective measures on ground wateruse in reaction to these problems. In many ways Montana hasthe luxury of viewing problems and solutions in adjoiningstates and resolving early manifestations of similar prob-lems, before management options are cut off. This is theobjective of the DNRC and input from this conference will becentral to this effort.

To accomplish our objectives, the DNRC plans to accomplishthe following tasks:

(1) Prepare a status report on the ground watersituation in Montana. This task will include an identifica-tion of the geohydrologic characteristics of Montana'saquifers; a quantification of the depletion from existinguses; a projection of future demands and rates of depletion;the effects on water quality and other concerns regardingthe development of ground water in Montana. The report willalso address the current ability to manage ground waterresources efficiently under the existing statutes.

(2) Prepare a ground water strategy report. This taskwill include a review of existing ground water managementstatutes in other states and then develop alternatives whichsuggest which components of these management strategies arebest suited to Montana's ground water situation.

(3) Conduct public hearings on the proposed groundwater management plan.

(4) Finalize the plan.

(5) Draft legislation if necessary.

52

The ideas and issues that have been raised in this confer-ence will be included in the status and strategy reports.Some specific questions which may be considered by partici-pants at this conference are as follows:

(1) Are there threats to Montana's ground water thatmandate a ground water management strategy? Will there beincreased ground water development? Will there be anincreased use of surface waters? Are there problems withcontamination of ground water?

(2) How can we expand the information and data basefor the future? Who should do the studies? What fundingsources are available? How can we get the information in auseable form?

(3) What are the priority areas for ground waterresearch? Who should do the studies? How can we makeexisting data more available?

(4) How do we prevent saline seep and reclaimsalinized lands? Do we know enough about this problem? Whoshould be charged with the mitigation of this problem? Howshould control be funded?

(5) How should we manage shallow aquifers in conjunc-tion with surface waters? Is this an important issue now orin the future? What agency should be the focal point? Whatare the priorities?

(6) What procedure should be used to allocate groundwater? Should we adopt local standards for control andallocation? Should aquifers be drawn down to insure theyare used or should use be equal to recharge? Is legislationnecessary for establishing these policies?

(7) What is the nature and scope of ground watercontamination? Is our existing water quality programadequate? What are our data needs for water quality manage-ment?

(8) What is the extent of free-flowing wells and howshould this problem be addressed? Who should control thesewells and how do we fund the control?

(9) How should be coordinate local, state, and federalagencies concerned with ground water? Are the existingagencies adequate to handle ground water problems? Shouldone agency be charged with the entire policy?

53

(10) Are there legal impediments to wise ground watermanagement and to ground water use?

(11) Do we need greater control on water well drillingoperations?

(12) What should be the format for a plan or strategywhich develops from this conference? Do we need a compre-hensive plan or a strategy for separate units? Should there

I be a plan approved by the Legislature?

54

DISCUSSION SESSIONS: ISSUES & RECOMMENDATIONS

At the conclusion of the individual presentations, theconference participants separated into three discussiongroups to identify specific problems and to suggest recom-mendations. The three topic areas and the co-chairpersonswere:

1. Groundwater quality - Senator Dorothy Eck and SenatorPaul Boylan

2. Legal Issues - Senator Larry Stimatz and RepresentativeGay Holliday.

3. Management Strategies -Representative Audrey Roth andRepresentative Dennis Iverson.

There was considerable overlap of the issues identified inthe discussion sessions and in the recommendations from eachgroup. A brief summary of the issues which were discussedis given below, followed by specific recommendations.

Issues

1. Proposed Groundwater Quality Regulations and Standards.

Several participants expressed concern with some parts ofthe groundwater quality regulations and standards as pro-posed by the Water Quality Bureau, Department of Health andEnvironmental Sciences.

(a) The proposed classification system may place astigma on the use of domestic water supplies in much ofeastern and central Montana. Many of the domesticwater sources in these areas would be categorized asClass II or III waters based on one or two chemicalparameters. However in most instances these are theonly sources of water available for human consumption.The classification system should recognize the domesticvalue of Class II and III waters.

There was also concern that domestic watersupplies in Class II or III categories may not beprotected for domestic needs in the same manner aswater in Class I categories.

(b) The proposed regulations state that, "a mixingzone shall be granted to pollutant discharges. TheDepartment will set the mixing zone boundaries on acase by case basis."

55

The mixing zone concept for groundwater was disputed byhydrologists as posing a threat to other beneficialuses of the groundwater resource. It was their opinionthat mixing zone boundaries cannot be controlled orpredicted with sufficient accuracy to protect waterquality for other beneficial uses. Although degrad-ation may not occur rapidly, once it occurs theresource may be damaged for a very long time period.

It was recognized that not all waste products pose thesame hazard to groundwater quality, but there are somewaste products which should be specifically excludedfrom ground-water systems.

2. Enforcement of Regulations and Compliance Monitoring.

There was concern expressed that agencies charged withregulating and enforcing groundwater protection are notadequately funded to carry out their responsibilities.Special concern was given to the job classification and payscale for enforcement personnel. The inadequacy of fundingwas blamed for a high turnover of personnel and inadequatelytrained staff at the enforcement level.

Excessive delays in obtaining permits and in other regula-tory processes are partly due to insufficient numbers oftrained personnel to perform the work.

3. Saline Seep Control.

Saline seep is recognized as a critical groundwater andagricultural problem. Past efforts by state and federalagencies have identified the causes, and the detection andcontrol methods. Current efforts by the conservationdistricts and the agricultural community are making progressin implementing controls but eventual success will requirecontinued incentives and intensive demonstration andeducation programs.

Federal, "set aside" programs are sometimes a disincentiveto the needed control programs.

4. Disposal of Toxic and Hazardous Wastes.

There was concern expressed that we may not have sufficientknowledge to insure groundwater protection in areas used forunderground injection of toxic and hazardous wastes. Therewere reservations about the advisability of the state takingthe responsibility for the federal Underground InjectionControl Program. Will the state be able to meet the moni-toring needs?

56

5. Data Needs.

Although considerable data has been developed to define thequantity and quality of Montana's groundwater, there is acoitinuing need for data to provide a base for managementdecisions. Much of the data collected in earlier years isnot in a readily accessible form.

In some instances the lack of adequate data is an impedimentto the development of groundwater resources due to the risksof unknown quantity and quality. In other cases the lack ofadequate data complicates legal decisions on water rightsand the granting of permits.

Because of multiple agency involvement with differentaspects of groundwater development and management there isduplication of effort in data collection and storage.

6. Abandoned Wells.

There are a number of old wells in several regions of thestate which were not properly capped or the well casing hasdisintegrated. These wells pose a contamination hazard towells and aquifiers in the nearby area.

Existing statutes specify responsibility for new wells butliability for old wells is not clear.

There is an urgent need to identify and cap problem wells.Legislation may be necessary to identify funds and responsi-bility for this problem area.

7. Regulation and Licensing of Water Well Drillers.

Some water well drillers are not providing adequate orcomplete data in their drilling logs. These and otherimproper activities have caused difficulty for the industryand the regulatory agencies.

There was support expressed for increased and effectiveenforcement of regulations. There is an urgent need tocontinue the Board of Water Well Contractors and tostrengthen their licensing requirements.

8. Surface - Groundwater Interactions.

Shallow groundwater aquifiers and surface waters areinseparable resources in many areas of Montana. This facthas been often misunderstood or not recognized in the past.The relationship between these resources is especiallyrelevant to water appropriations in relation to seasonalconditions and uses of water in many of the stream valleys.

57

9. Coordination and Cooperation of Agencies.

The administration, regulation and research on groundwaterresources is shared by a number of different agencies instate, local, and federal government. Although informalcooperation often occurs, a more formal agreement may benecessary to develop a coordinated strategy and actionprograms. The agreement is needed to reduce duplication ofeffort, to centralize data storage and aquisition systems,establish priorities and improve enforcement effectiveness.

10. Coal Bed Hydrology.

There has been considerable study and research on ground-water in the coal bed regions of eastern Montana. Much ofthe needed information is incomplete until after furtherdevelopments have occurred. Because the groundwater inthese areas is essential for livestock and domestic uses,the state should provide ongoing assistance for monitoringchanges in water quality in the region.

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) The state should continue to support the programs forimplementing control of saline seep. A sustainedfunding support is needed to insure continuity and toprovide the necessary incentives for involvement by theagricultural community. An effort should be made toeliminate disincentives of the federal "set aside"program where it impedes progress of the necessarycontrol programs.

(2) Improve and strengthen enforcement of regulations toprotect water quality. Increased funding is necessaryto provide higher job classifications and to discourage"turnover" of qualified personnel in the enforcementpositions

.

(3) Provide improved enforcement of regulations governingoil and gas industry operations and especially theplugging of seismic shotholes.

(4) The state should take the initiative to develop acomprehensive groundwater management strategy. Therewas general concensus that the governor should appointa mini-cabinet group or steering committee to identifyactions necessary to provide a coordinated approach toprotection of groundwater quality and the management ofgroundwater resources.

Some specific topic areas which should be consideredare:

(a) A formal agreement for the coordination andcooperation of state, federal and local agenciesconcerned with groundwater resources.

(b) Methods to finance the groundwater program needs.

(c) Methods to reduce duplication of activities betweengovernmental agencies, eg., regulatory activities; datacollection and storage.

(d) Identification of specific problem areas, data needs,responsibilities and priorities.

(e) A central computer-based, data storage and aquisitionsystem which would serve needs of the various agencies.

(f) A study of the roles of groundwater in the overallwater needs of Montana and how it relates to the water needsof downstream states.

(g) A clarification of the authority of local and stateagencies to protect ground-water resources in local areas.

(h) A groundwater management strategy based on the varioususes of groundwater. Specific management alternatives whichmight be considered are management as:

- a renewable resource- a non-renewable resource- a transmission system- a water-quality tool- an energy resource because of its

constant temperature and pressure- a waste disposal system

The identification of various uses of water and therelations, if any, of these uses to each other helps tobetter identify the data needs.

(5) The state should increase efforts to build a data basenecessary for specific management decisions. Thefederal-state cooperative programs should beencouraged.

(6) The Board of Water Well Contractors should be continuedwith increased enforcement and licensing requirements.

59

(7) The state should explore the feasibility of up-streamstorage reservoirs as part of a long-term strategy;agreements with the US Forest Service for storagereservoirs should be explored.

(8) The state should establish a policy on the "mining" ofgroundwater, to determine if and how much groundwatershould be mined. Previous legislation is not explicit.

(9) Rules should be adopted to define an "adequatediversion" or "reasonable effect" as it pertains towell interference. Without formal definition, legaldisputes are difficult to resolve and a 'first"appropriator may limit use of an available resource.

60

LIST OF SPEAKERS

1. JOHN CALDER IIIRocky Mountain Oil and Gas AssociationDenver , CO

2. ED CASNEDepartment of Health and Environmental SciencesHelena, MT

3. VERNE DOYLEArizona Department of Water ResourcesPhoenix, AZ

4. DR. HAYDEN FERGUSENMontana State UniversityBozeman, MT

5. GARY FRITZDepartment of Natural Resources and ConservationHelena, MT

6. DR. SID GROFFMontana Bureau of Mines and GeologyButte , MT

7. JAMES HARRISU. S. Environmental Protection AgencyHelena, MT

8. WILLIAM HOTCHKISSU. S. Geological SurveyHelena, MT

9. HENRY LOBLE, ChairmanReserved Water Rights Compact CommissionHelena, MT

10. MARVIN MILLERMontana Bureau of Mines and GeologyButte , MT

11. JOE MORELANDU. S. Geological SurveyHelena, MT

12. SHARON MORRISONAttorneyHelena, MT

13. MARK O'KEEFEDepartment of Natural Resources and ConservationHelena, MT

14. WILLIAM OSBORNEMontana Water Well Drillers AssociationKalispell, MT

15. STEVE PILCHERDepartment of Health and Environmental SciencesHelena, MT

16. FRED SHEWMANDepartment of Health and Environmental SciencesHelena, MT 59601

17. LAURENCE SIROKYDepartment of Natural Resources and ConservationHelena, MT

18. ROGER THORVILSONDepartment of Health and Environmental SciencesHelena, MT

19. WAYNE VAN VOASTMontana Bureau of MinesBillings, Mt

20. WAYNE WETZELDepartment of Natural Resources and ConservationHelena, MT

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

7SBRAMS, Rep. Hubert - Legislator, Wibaux, TTT

ADAMS, Walter - Triangle Cons. District, Conrad, MPATiLEM, Don - Montana Petroleum Asso. , Helena, MTARMOLD, I^ita - MSU, Great Falls, MTARRICXD, John - Helena, MTAUGUSTINE, John - 7\naconcaa Co. , Denver, COBATOAY, Karen - MultiTech, Butte, ivrr

BATERIDGE, Tom - Water Resources, Pablo, MTBAUMAN, Bruce - Plant and Soils Dept. , Bozeman, MTBEAGLES, Phil - Montana Power Co., Butte, TfT

BENRS, Ted - Billings, ITT

BERGENE, Rep. Toni - I/egislator, Great Falls, MTBLACK, Bill - Gallatin Gateway, MTBLEHA, George - Lloyd, MTBLUME, Tim - Denver, COBOLLAND, Kenneth - Soil Conservation Ser^/ice, BozaranBCWLBY, Jim - Kiewit Mining, Sheridan, WYBOYLAN, Senator Paul - Tjegislator, Bozeman, ^T^

BOYTER, Tim - U.S. EPA, Helena, ^T^

BOZORTH, Tim - Bioreau of Land Management, Butte, fWBRASEN, Charles - DNRC, Kalispell, MTBRCDSKY, Anne - Legislative Council, Helena, MTBR07M, Larry L. - DHES, Water Oualitv Bureau, Helena, MTBRa-JN, Senator G. Steven - Legislator, Helena, MTBR^JN, P. Russell - Northern Plains Resource Council, Billings, MTRRUNNER, Jo - W.I.F.E., Power, fTT

CALDER, John - ARCO Oil and Gas, Denver, COCANNIN, Mike - East Helena, MTCARROLL, Robert - BCON, Inc., Helena, NtT

CARTER, Curtis - Anaconda Co., Denver, COCARTER, John - BQC, Helena, TTT

CASNE, Edward - Departrent of Healtii, Helena, MTCHQ^EY, Caralee - DNRC, Helena, MTCLARK, Kenneth - Dept. of State Tjands, Helena, MTCTARK, Marvbeth - Hydronetrics , Helena, ^T^

COLENSO, Bill - Great Falls, MTCOMPTON, Scott - Bozeman, TTT

COFFIN, Don - liakewood, COC0NPv7\D, Barb - liegislative Council, Helena, rtr

CORDER, Tannis - Senator Marlenee's Office, Great Falls, NTT

DAVIS, Bob - Helena, rTT

DELK, Robert - Billings, fTT

DEVENY, Christine - Lewis and Clark County Health, Helena, MTDIETTRICH, Tom - Missoula, MTDODGE, Kent - East Helena, MTDODGE, Ted - Triangle Cons. District, Conrad, MTEXXTLING, Diana - Legislative Coioncil, Helena, MTDOYLE, Verne - Arizona Department of Water Resources, Phoenix, AZ

DUNCAN, John W. - Joplin, t-TT

DUNN, Dcirrel - Earth Science Sen/^ices, Inc., Bozeman, fTT

DUNN, Jim - Helena, MTEAGLEMAN, Ed - Box Elder, MPEATON, Connie - Northern Plains Resource Council, Billings, MPBCK, Senator Dorothy - Legislator, Bozeman, MTENGLE, Bill - EPA, Helena, ITT

ENGSTEDT, Ellen - BQC, Helena, M?ERSKINE, Christopher F. - AMAX Exploration, Inc., Golden, COFARKEILL, Jeffrey - Triangle Cons. District, Conrad, mFERRIS, Orrin - HKM Associates, Billings, ITT

FISHER, J. S. - Anaconda Copper Co., Denver, COFREIER, Herbert - Hi-Line Drilling, Havre, PW FRICKEL, Scott - Dept. ofState Lands, Helena, ^f^

FRITZ, Gary - DNRC, Helena, MTFURAN, Darrell - Great Falls, MTGARY, Steven - Geothermal Exploration, Pablo, MTGASH, Steven L. - t'larathon Resources, Inc., Denver, COGEMPIETiTi, Bobby - Christian, Spring, Sielbach, Asso., Bozeman, MTGILLESPIE, Robert - Geotechnical Group, Great Falls, tWGOERITJG, John - Reclamation Research, MSU, Bozeman, MTGOODOVER, Senator Pat - Legislator, Great Falls, ffT

GRIFFITH, Earl - DNRC, Water Management Bureau, Helena, MTGRDFF, S. L. - Montana Bureau of Mines, Butte, fWGRDTBO, rfyles - Hydroretrics , Inc., Helena, MTGRDTBO, Terry - Dept. of State Lands, Helena, MTGRUEL, Larry - Montana Power Co., Butte, MTGUSE, Ronald J. - DNRC, Helena, flT

HAGER, Senator Tan - Legislator, Billings, MTHANCOCK, Valdon - Great Falls, OTHANNEMAN, Debra - DNRC, Water Resources Division, Helena, MTHARBRECHT, VJilliam - Western Energy Co., Billings, MTHARRINGTON, Cort - Legislative Council, Helena, MTHARRIS, Jim - U. S. EPA, Helena, MTHARVEY, Priscilla - Dept. of Interior, Washington, D. C.

HEMSTAD, Rep. Andrea - Legislator, Great Falls, MTHENDERSON, Sherill - Sidney, MTHENDERSON, Vera - Sidney, MTHENNING, Lillian - Northern Testing Lab., Great Falls, MTHIGGINS, Susan - DNRC, Helena, MTHILL, Keith - Lockwood Water, Billings, NTT

HOIiLIDAY, Rep. Gay - Legislator, Roundup, ^f^

HOTCHKISS, V7illiam - U.S.G.S., Helena, MTHOUSE, Verne - MSU, Bozeman, MTHUNT, Merle - Roundup, OTHUNT, W. A. - MSU V7ater Center, Bozeman, MTICENOGLE, Lanny - MONTCO, Billings, MTJVERiJCX^, Dennis - Legislator, Whitlash, ITT

rVERSasi, Donna - Whitlash, IIT

JCHNSai, Colleen - Billings, MT

JOHNSCfN, Hcuvarri - BQC, Helena, tVC

JOHNSON, Nancry - Environmental Information Center, Helena, MTJOHNSON, Steven R. - U.S. Forest Service, Libby, MTJOSIES, David - USDA Soil Conservation Service, Bozeran, r>Tr

KTU^, Richard - Systems Technology, Helena, MTKELLER, David, Great Falls, MTKLUVER, Patty - Billings, MTKNAPTW, Roger - Helena, TTT

KNUDSEN, Gerhard - DNRC, Helena, MTKOFFTaER, Mark - Peabody Coal Co.

LAMERE, Pete - Box Elder, MTLARSa^, Bob - Havre, MTLEE, Senator Gary - Legislator, Fort Shaw, MTLERE, Steve - Planner, Bozeman, MTLOBLE, Henry - Attorney, Helena, jyn?

LaX3(S, John - Rapid City, S.D.LYDEN, Mike - Kiewit Mining, Sheridan, WYMcDERIOTT, John - Davis Drilling, Billings, MTMcCa'JAN, Gordon - Highwood, MT^1c^1ASTER, John - Legislative Council, Helena, MTMADISCN, Clark - Billings, MTMEIjLBai, Pete - Western Energy/ Co. , Colstrip, MTMEL.STAD, Jim - East Helena, MTMKSHEW, Larry J. - U.S. Forest Service, Libby, MTMEYER, Steven R. - ivrr Association of Cons. Districts, Helena, MTMITZiER, Marvin -MT Bureau of Mines, Butte, fWMOCKLER, James - Montana Coal Council, Helena, MTr^DNEY, Mike - Planner, Bozeman, MTMORELAND, Joe A. - U.S.G.S., Helena, MT^DRRISON, Sharon - Attorney, Helena, MTMOSS, John H. - Planning Director, Bozeman, MTMOY, Richard - DNRC, Helena, MTMURPHY, Robert - B & H Drilling, Fishtail, fTT

MUSGROVE, James - Billings, MTNEUMAN, Stevie - Vaughn, MTNIMICK, David - Helena, MTNORBRCK, Peter - Western Energy Co. , Colstrip, MTO'lOTFE, Mark - DNRC, Helena, MTOSBORNE, William F. - Liberty Drilling Co., Kalispell, MTPARKER, Douglas - Hydrometrics , Helena, MTPElslGELLY, David - DNRC V'Jater Rights Bureau, Missoula, MYPERSON, Bob - Legislative Council, Helena, MTPETESCH, Greg - Legislative Council, Helena, MTPHILLIPS, Glenn - Helejia, MTPIKE, George - U.S. Geological Sur^;^ey, Helena, MTPIICHER, Steve - Department of Health, Helena, MTPOTTER, C. C. - Cut Bank, MTPOTTS, Stephen - Helena, TTT

PYFER, Bob - Legislative Council, Helena, 1^REDISKE, Thcnas - Helena, MT

REED, Tom - Elliston, MTREICK, Ken - AnacxDnda Alimdnum Co., Colinrtoia Falls, MTRIDDLE, Donald - DNRC, Water Rights, Billings, MYRIECKMANN, Carl - Montana Petroleum Association, Billings, TTT

RINGLER, Bob - Helena, MTROBERTSCN, Duane - Department of Health, Helena, MTROTH, Rep. Audrey - Legislator, Big Sandv, MTROUSCH, Reo. Glen - I^egislator, Cut Bank, MTRUSH, Joe - Milestone Petroleum, Denver, COSAMDAHT-,, Rod - Department of State Lands, Helena, MTSANDBERG, Dennis - Tenneco, Inc., Glendive, MTSANDERS, Roger - Cascade County Planning Board, Great Falls, MTSAVAGE, Carla - MY Rural Water Systems, Great Falls, ^T^

SCHULTZ, Terry - Hill County, Havre, MYSCHWEND, Sherry - Meridian Land and Mineral Co., Billings, MYSCHMIDT, Carole - Helena, mSCHMIDT, Deborah B. - BQC, Helena, fTT

SCHYL, Elirer - White Sulohur Springs, MTSCOTT, Ann - SijTtns, MYSHEWMAN, Fred - Department of Health, Helena, MtT

SHIELDS, Ronald R. - U.S.G.S., Helena, MYSIRDKY, Laiirence - DNRC, Helena, MTSLAGLE, Steve - Clancy, IIY

SPRATT, Marc - Flathead Drainage Project, Kalispell, MTSTAHLY, J. David - Stahly Engineering, Helena, OTSTILLER, David - Systems Technology, Helena, MYSTIMATZ, Senator Larry - Legislator, Butte, IIT

STOCK, Frank - EQC, Poison, MTStVITZER, Rep. Dean - Legislator, Richey, MTTERREL, Jacqueline - Legislative Council, Helena, MTTHORVILSCN, Roger - Department of Health, Helena, ITY

TOOLE, Joan - Hamilton, rcTVEIT, Senator Larry - Legislator, Fairview, MYUNDEFS"ODD, Pat - Montana Fcirm Bureau, Bozeman, MYVPN VOAST, Wayne - IfY Bureau of Mines, Billings, 1^VORE, Theodore - Miles City, J'fY

WETZEL, Wayne - DNRC, Helena, ItY

WHEELER, Terry - DNRC, Helena, MYWHITTINGTON, Mike - Dept. of Interior, Billings, MY\^KSSNER, William - Geology Dept. , UM, Missoula, ^^T

l-miGHT, Daryl - Box Elder, MTYESLAND, D. L. - Shell Oil Co. , Houston, TX

300 copies of this public document were published at an esti-

mated cost of $2.37 per copy, for a total cost of $709.53, which

includes $709.53 for printing and $.00 for distribution.