Tribal representatives from across the Northwest are flying into Washington, D.C. this week to discuss how mine waste in British Columbia is threatening their way of life.

With plans in the Canadian province for doubling the number of mines, tribes say waste already affects waterways downstream in the U.S.

Richard Janssen Jr. is the Department Head of Natural Resources for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and is in D.C. this week. He said selenium waste from mines near the Elk River north of Montana has a detrimental effect on waterways.

"We're not against mining at all," said Janssen. "What we are against - mining that contaminates our waters, waters of the U.S, waters of our sister tribes, affecting our fish that were here long before us, affecting our way of life, our culture."

Janssen said he plans to meet with Montana's congressional delegation and members of the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department.

Tribes from Alaska, Idaho and Washington will also be in D.C.

Teck Resources, which operates mines near the Elk River, said in a statement that it's engaged in a long-term plan to reverse selenium levels, and has invested more than $1 billion in water quality over the past decade.

Erin Farris-Olsen - regional executive director of Northern Rockies, Prairies and Pacific region for the National Wildlife Federation - said Canada isn't being a good neighbor on this issue, and should do more to ensure the industry is properly regulated.

Farris-Olsen also noted that some of the dams holding back toxic tailings from mines are taller than the Seattle Space Needle, and could fail.

She took an aerial tour of the mines to the north of Glacier National Park.

"Seeing this pristine ecosystem that is valued so highly by our government and our community, both local and abroad," said Farris-Olsen, "and to know that just right on the other side of a few mountains is this giant operation that really has such a destructive potential when expanded."

Janssen said part of the goal of this week's meetings is to ensure tribal nations have a seat at the table on discussions about the transboundary impacts of mines. He also said it's important to spread awareness about this issue.

"Boundaries don't stop water flowing," said Janssen. "Boundaries don't stop the selenium coming down from those mines. And so, we're just hoping to get more of a focus on this area, because I just don't think many people know what's happening."

New research by ecology experts in Montana showed even small amounts of development can cause a widespread decline in stream biodiversity.

It does not take a new high-rise, bridge construction or freeway to have major effects on Montana's sensitive river and stream ecosystem.

Michael Sprague, founder and CEO of Livingston-based Trout Headwaters, said even small projects affecting less than 2% of a developed watershed cause significant loss of biodiversity in sensitive areas, and is especially harmful to aquatic life. It is evident in a number of ways.

"Diminishing vegetation, or peeling off topsoil or allowing excess erosion to occur on a site or some of these other things," Sprague explained.

Sprague added there are more chemicals winding up in rivers and streams now, too, which is also having a negative impact on waterway ecology.

Sprague argued even small roads and trails can have a major effect on biodiversity in Montana's waterways, often because roads are the first sign of development in ecologically sensitive areas.

"First of all, how is the road constructed? Is it stable? Is it eroding?," Sprague outlined. "Maybe you bisected a travel corridor for a species. Maybe you ran through some critical habitat or pushed that species off as a result of the road. Maybe that human access now by itself is causing migration."

Road building and development on environmentally sensitive lands remains an issue across the Plains states, where the ecology of rivers and streams is threatened, including on American Indian reservations.

The arrival of fall has farmers transitioning to the harvest season, but what if some gathered their crops with rows of solar panels right alongside them?

Minnesota is part of such emerging projects. The agrivoltaics scene is carving out pathways for utilities and developers to reduce carbon emissions by adding more solar farms, while allowing emerging farmers, who face land-access issues, to grow fruits and vegetables on the same property.

Brian Ross, vice president of renewable energy for the Great Plains Institute, said it is a great example of two worlds working to benefit each other.

"We're all working together to kind of take that example of local food production and try to expand it out. How can we actually put this at scale?" Ross asked. "How can we do it within the context of existing solar-development parameters?"

As they track the effectiveness of smaller projects, Ross noted they need to figure out certain logistics, such as the ideal height of the solar panels. Other partners say irrigation is another puzzle to solve. The Minnesota project involves the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Connexus Energy, U.S. Solar and Big River Farms. On a solar site just outside the Twin Cities, aspiring farmers are testing adding horticultural vegetation.

Sophia Lenarz-Coy, executive director of The Food Group and Big River Farms, said the pilot initiative can especially help historically disadvantaged farmers.

"Farmers of color, women farmers, folks who have a harder time accessing capital," Lenarz-Coy pointed out. "This is one of the biggest barriers that we see is wanting long-term land access but maybe not having the capital to purchase land."

She added farmers often end up signing leases for property but it makes it harder to grow their operations under short-term contracts. The solar site provides hope in establishing more certainty for producers and the vision they have for their food-growing venture.

Project leaders say another thing they hope to learn is the difference between crops grown underneath and around solar arrays versus crops grown in the open.


get more stories like this via email

A new report finds more than half of the sewage facilities in Idaho had pollution violations in 2022.

The sixth annual analysis by the Idaho Conservation League says 57% of the state's wastewater treatment plants discharged harmful substances last year.

Will Tiedemann, conservation associate with the Idaho Conservation League, said the report focuses on facilities that had the potential to cause the most harm - such as those releasing wastewater in sensitive habitats.

He said size has had an impact on those violations in recent years.

"There's quite a few facilities that are a little smaller and they do deal with outdated equipment," said Tiedemann, "either failed, you know, or were built 20, 30, 40 years ago."

Collectively, there were 520 violations of the Clean Water Act by Idaho wastewater treatment plants in 2022. The report focuses on three facilities that accounted for a quarter of the violations in Driggs, Jerome and Kuna.

Tiedemann noted that there are some positives in this report. Facilities in 51 cities and towns reported no discharge violations.

Others made significant improvements from 2021 to 2022 - including those in Blackfoot, Marsing and Wilder.

"This isn't an insurmountable issue," said Tiedemann, "that numerous examples of facilities who have dealt with issues and have made the investments and put in the resources and the time and the hard work to address this issue. So we definitely commend those facilities."

Tiedemann said having the means to curtail violations can be a major issue, especially for smaller towns. But he said federal resources are available, including through COVID-19 relief funds.