## Facts

- Environmental organizations and their members used the Blackfoot River area for floating, fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing.
- A mining venture sought to develop a large gold mine near the Blackfoot River and obtained an exploration license authorizing groundwater pump tests.
- The pump tests would discharge water containing arsenic and other contaminants into the Blackfoot River system.
- Montana law generally required a nondegradation review before permitting degradation of “high quality waters.”
- A 1995 statutory provision exempted discharges from certain water well and monitoring well tests from nondegradation review, and the state environmental agency relied on that exemption to issue the exploration license.
- Plaintiffs challenged the exemption as unconstitutional under Montana’s right to a clean and healthful environment and the state’s environmental-protection duties, and sought to suspend the license.
- The district court ruled for the agency, reasoning the exemption was not unconstitutional absent proof of actual injury.

## Issues

1. Whether the environmental organizations had standing to challenge the statute and the license based on their members’ use and enjoyment of the affected waters.
2. Whether a statutory exemption allowing degradation of high quality waters without nondegradation review violates Montana Constitution Article II, § 3 and Article IX, § 1(1) and (3).
3. Whether constitutional environmental protections require proof of actual harm, or are triggered by threatened or potential degradation.
4. What level of constitutional scrutiny applies to state action burdening the right to a clean and healthful environment.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The court held plaintiffs had standing based on members’ concrete use of the Blackfoot River and alleged adverse effects from the authorized discharges.
- The court held the constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment is fundamental and preventive, and does not require proof of actual environmental damage before it applies.
- The court held the statutory exemption, to the extent it permitted degradation of high quality waters without nondegradation review, violated Article II, § 3 and Article IX, § 1 and was unconstitutional.
- The court applied strict scrutiny to the challenged statutory burden on the environmental right and concluded the blanket exemption was not justified.

## Legal Principles

- Montana’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment is a fundamental right protected by Article II, § 3 and reinforced by the affirmative duties in Article IX, § 1.
- Constitutional environmental protection is preventive; threatened or potential degradation can trigger judicial review and relief.
- Statutory mechanisms intended to prevent water-quality degradation (including nondegradation review) implement the legislature’s duty to provide “adequate remedies” under Article IX, § 1(3).
- State action burdening the fundamental environmental right is subject to strict scrutiny; broad categorical exemptions from preventive review are constitutionally suspect.

## Conclusion

The court recognized organizational standing and held that Montana’s constitutional environmental provisions protect against threatened degradation, not only proven harm; it invalidated a statutory exemption that allowed degradation of high quality waters without nondegradation review and remanded for further proceedings.


Mont. Env’t Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Env’t Quality, 296 Mont. 207, 988 P.2d 1236 (Mont. 1999)