In response to Clint Nagel’s recent guest column, “We need transparency and truth in addressing the Gallatin’s water quality issues”, there are a few points of clarification that deserve attention, and more than a few on which we can agree. As the chief executive and science officer of the Gallatin River Task Force, I have both the knowledge and 25 years of hands-on experience monitoring the Gallatin River to set a few points straight.
Twenty-five years of data collected by the task force, numerous research studies from Montana State University (including my doctoral research that Mr. Nagel acknowledges in the article), and more recent data from the Montana DEQ all indicate that the relationship between nutrients and algae is nuanced and complex. To refer to an “onslaught” insinuates that we have been both unaware and unresponsive to addressing the presence of nutrients in the river.
This is where knowledge is key. We know that the Gallatin behaves differently from other systems across the state in that it has very low nutrient levels but still experiences algae blooms both upstream and downstream of Big Sky. Perpetuating misinformation will only continue to plague the public perception of the Gallatin’s health.
To his point, “With all the money in Big Sky, there should have been an extensive continuous water-quality monitoring program already established”, it’s important to note that there have been significant investments by the Big Sky community to reduce nutrient pollution, including upgraded and expanded wastewater treatment, and river restoration projects.
Additionally, the Gallatin River Task Force has maintained a monitoring program since 2000, with nearly half funded annually by the Big Sky Resort Tax. This includes routine collection of nutrients, the management of five stream gauges, and financial support to help keep the USGS gauge above Deer Creek active.
With the recent designation of the main-stem Gallatin as impaired, (the Task Force was a participating party in filing the petition) our data collection — along with the DEQ’s — has ramped up to give us information necessary to identify the relationship between nutrient pollution and other factors, and algae blooms to which the article refers.
Our data is available, and shared annually (as is the DEQ’s), through a variety of transparent public platforms and public meetings. We continue to encourage more engagement, more conversations, and more research into how we support the Gallatin’s healthiest version possible.
We are not fooled into thinking that a Wild and Scenic designation will address all the threats to the Gallatin. Only ongoing monitoring, continued diligence, and intentional action by our communities and the agencies that we rely on will bring about the changes that we know the Gallatin deserves.
Thank you, Mr. Nagel, for bringing attention to the work that we know is ahead. We welcome you, and others, to join our efforts to protect, restore, and inspire stewardship of the Gallatin River.
This article was published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle in response to Clint Nagel’s guest column, We need transparency and truth in solving Gallatin River water-quality issues.
