Debate Begins Over Rehab Money for River Basin

By Erin Nicholes, The Montana Standard, Butte

Apr. 25–ANACONDA — A proposed spending structure for a restoration fund is beginning to materialize, and public debate is following suit.

“The plan does not recognize the permanence of the damages to the groundwater systems in Butte and Anaconda,” resident and state Rep. Dan Villa, D-Anaconda, told county commissioners this week.

Others argue a preliminary plan for the Upper Clark Fork River Basin Restoration Fund — created as the result of a 1999 natural resource damage lawsuit settlement — is on target.

“That proposal truly represents what the lawsuit was all about when it was filed 25 years ago,” Anaconda resident Jim Flynn told commissioners. “The lawsuit is about the public’s lost resources.” At Tuesday’s commission meeting, Natural Resource Damage Program staff outlined a proposed spending structure, specifically for money remaining in the fund after obligations are met — roughly estimated at $100 million by the year’s end.

Although the fund was created in 1999, the settlement of a second natural resource damage lawsuit earlier this year freed the money for spending. Both lawsuits aimed to recover resources damaged by Anaconda Co.’s copper mining and smelting operations.

“We know how many dollars we have in our deck; we’re ready to start spending more than just the interest,” said NRD official Carol Fox. “Now let’s identify the priorities and accomplish them.” The proposal is preliminary and subject to changes; NRD staff will eventually submit a recommendation to two advisory councils for review. The councils will decide what will be formally released for public comment. Ultimately, the governor has the say on the fund’s spending structure.

For now, the plan calls for the fund balance to be divided into three categories: 5 percent for contingency spending, 35 percent for a grant program and 60 percent for priority resources.

Of the priority resources money, 36 percent would be reserved for groundwater resources — 75 percent for Butte, 25 percent for Anaconda.

“The groundwater injury in Butte was more substantial than the Anaconda claim for groundwater resources,” Fox said, explaining the split. “If you have other reasons you think that should be a different split, that’s what our public comment period is all about.” Some residents criticized the split as unfair Tuesday.

“I feel it should be more of a 50/50 split because Anaconda has a greater loss of groundwater and a greater area contaminated,” said Gene Vuckovich, a resident and commission candidate.

Others argued the proposed spending structure is flawed, and should instead allocate money directly to Butte and Anaconda, as the damage occurred in those communities.

“The groundwater claims are the … only reason any of this money exists,” Villa said. “Let’s make sure the money is spent where the damages occurred.” But the lawsuit was filed on behalf of all Montanans to recover lost resources — such as fisheries, wildlife habitat and others, Flynn said.

But others pointed out the lawsuit was filed on behalf of all Montanans to recover lost resources, not on behalf of individual counties.

While it’s early, officials encouraged public comment and participation.

“Their comments are particularly important, whether they comment now or after whatever goes out for formal review,” Anaconda-Deer Lodge Chief Executive Rebecca Guay said.

Erin Nicholes may be reached at erin.nicholes@lee.net.

—–

To see more of The Montana Standard, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.mtstandard.com.

Copyright (c) 2008, The Montana Standard, Butte

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.