Layout Image
Join Northern Plains Resource Council Support Northern Plains Resource Council with a donation
  • News
  • About Us
    • How We Work
    • Events
    • What We Believe
    • History
      • 1970′s Coal
      • Family Agriculture
      • Tongue River Railroad
      • Hard Rock Mining
      • Property Rights
      • Coal Bed Methane
      • Going Green
      • The New Coal Rush
    • Our staff
    • Board of Directors
    • Contact us
    • Publications
    • Careers
  • The Issues
    • Agriculture
    • Clean Energy
    • Coal
    • Coal Bed Methane
    • Good Neighbor Agreement
    • Hydraulic fracturing and deep shale gas
    • Landowner Rights
    • Tar Sands Pipeline
    • Tongue River Railroad
  • Fact Sheets
    • See all fact sheets
    • Quick link >>
      • Your Water Your Rights
      • Old vs. New Energy
      • Clean Energy Jobs
      • Eminent Domain
      • Coal export factsheet
      • Coal Ash facts
      • Renewable Energy Standard
      • CBM: Doing it Right
      • Energy Efficiency in Schools
      • Farm to School Program
      • Hydraulic Fracturing
      • Hydro Projects Fact Sheet
      • No Mandatory Animal ID
      • Your Gas and Oil Land Rights
      • Otter Creek Coal Tract Facts
      • Tar Sands Pipeline
      • Pipeline Landowners Position
      • Pipeline Landowner Rights
      • Rural Electric Cooperation
      • Sustainable Biodiesel
  • Our Local Groups
    • Bear Creek Council
    • Bull Mountain Land Alliance
    • Carbon County Resource Council
    • Cottonwood Resource Council
    • Dawson Resource Council
    • Rosebud Protective Association
    • Stillwater Protective Association
    • Yellowstone Valley Citizens Council
  • Our Building
    • Overview
    • Home on the Range Gardens
    • Meeting room reservations
    • Meeting room request form
    • Photo gallery
    • Blessing of Building
  • Take Action
    • Support our work
    • Volunteer
    • Contact Public Officials
    • Write a letter
    • Making a Difference
  • Legislature
    • 2011 Legislative Scorecard.pdf
    • Legislative bills important to Northern Plains
    • For the Love of Montana Rally

Archive for Clean Energy

Study coal shipments’ environmental effects, says Missoula councilor – Missoulian, May 15, 2012

By Larry Winslow · Comments (0)
Wednesday, May 16th, 2012

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/study-coal-shipments-environmental-effects-says-missoula-councilor/article_239433f8-9ef4-11e1-abb2-0019bb2963f4.html

By KEILA SZPALLER

With potential increases in coal train traffic through Missoula, City Councilman Dave Strohmaier is calling on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the widespread impacts – including ones in Montana – of building Pacific Coast export facilities for the fuel.

“My most immediate goal is that we would actually have scoping meetings, or public meetings, here in Montana and elsewhere along the proposed shipment route,” the Ward 1 councilor said Tuesday.

Strohmaier, who has convened public meetings with Montana Rail Link officials and railyard neighbors on the effects of train traffic, plans to present a letter Wednesday to the Missoula City Council Conservation Committee for its support. The letter is addressed to the Army Corps of Engineers, the body that reviews the planned export terminals.

“On behalf of the people of the City of Missoula, the Missoula City Council respectfully requests that you prepare a comprehensive programmatic environmental impact statement for the numerous proposed coal export terminals in Oregon and Washington,” reads the draft letter. “We also request that you hold public hearings in Montana in order to gather public testimony from all affected people. Missoula and other Montana cities will be significantly impacted from coal that will be transported by train from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming to terminals along the Pacific Coast.”

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, he writes, “such analysis is allowed for, and most likely required.”

Strohmaier also notes in his letter that coal traffic could reach as many as 60 trains a day with ports operating at full capacity due to energy demands in Asia.

Montana Rail Link officials, though, have said geographic features such as two steep mountain tunnels are a barrier to moving that many train cars. Last year, the company ran 15 trains a day on average, with an estimated five being coal trains; even doubling that haul is more than MRL projects will happen in a decade.

The Conservation Committee is scheduled to meet 2:35 p.m. Wednesday, May 16, in Council Chambers, 140 W. Pine St.

***

It isn’t the only recent public forum where the issue has been raised. During last week’s council meeting, Bryan Nickerson, an organizer with the Blue Skies Campaign, shared a series of photos of a machine operating in the railyard and kicking up a cloud of black dust on a clear day.

The coalition aims to prevent pollution and stop more coal trains from running through Missoula.

“Some of the pictures portray the fact that the wind currents are bringing that particulate matter directly into homes on the Northside,” said Nickerson, who used to live in the neighborhood and sometimes found “literally black dust” on the railing outside his home.

A friend of his still lives in the area and called him on April 13 after seeing “a big plume that was completely black.” His friend feared a spill had taken place, so Nickerson grabbed his camera and shot pictures for a couple hours.

“It’s just kind of an injustice,” he said. “The railyard just sits right there, and it’s low-income housing on the Northside, so all the people have to breathe in all that nasty coal dust. I guess I can’t say it definitely is coal dust because we aren’t 100 percent positive, but it looks like coal dust.”

MRL spokeswoman Lynda Frost, though, said it isn’t, and the last spill in the Missoula yard was six years ago; it was ethanol and in a different area than the one in the photos.

“We do not believe coal dust is being swept,” Frost said in an email to the Missoulian. “As discussed, we are unaware of any coal dusting off of rail cars on our system.”

In fact, she said the machine running in the railyard is a “ballast regulator” being used to contour the surface and shoulders of the railroad track structure.

“The one shown in the photographs is equipped with a rotating broom sweeping the dirt and rocks from the surface of railroad ties,” Frost said. “In the case of this regulator photographed in the Missoula yard, it is sweeping material which hasn’t been regulated and swept in many years.

“The content of the dust is likely a combination of dirt, rocks, sand and other miscellaneous material, accumulated over numerous years, and akin to what might be found along roadways and other sites within our community.”

The material isn’t being swept up, but it’s being swept off the rail ties and adjacent right-of-way, she said. The lighter ballast seen in the photos is “fresh from the crushing operation and had been recently washed,” and MRL adds fresh ballast as needed under the purview of Federal Railway Association track safety standards.

Regulating the track, replacing ties and adding new ballast are part of normal maintenance for the company; they are done as needed on the system of more than 1,000 miles, but a likely cycle is every 10 to 20 years, Frost said.

***

After requests from City Council members, the Missoula City-County Health Department hired the McCrone Research Institute to sample dust near the railyard and determine its makeup. Environmental health director Jim Carlson said Tuesday he’s hoping to receive results “within the next week.”

The debate may continue even after the Health Department receives lab results, though. Nick Engelfried, co-founder of the Blue Skies Campaign, said he’s glad the sampling is taking place, but he would like to see “a systematic, long-term study” take place as well.

“It’s very disturbing that MRL representatives claim there’s no issue with coal or coal dust, when we have photos of what looks like a large amount of coal spilled in their rail yard,” he wrote in an email. “Even more alarming is the cloud of dust which the pictures show drifting toward a residential area. Coal dust contains toxic mercury and uranium, and if it’s getting into neighborhoods that’s a big problem. Of course, if proposals to bring many more coal trains into town go through, the chances of something like this happening again will skyrocket.”

 

Comments (0)
Categories : Clean Energy, Climate change, Coal, News

Kicking the coal habit – Audubon Magazine, May-June 2012

By Larry Winslow · Comments (0)
Tuesday, May 1st, 2012

http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles/climate/kicking-coal-habit?

BY TED WILLIAMS

Excerpts follow (click on link above to read full article)

 ***

“Coal is cheap,” Rosebud mine’s neighbor Nick Golder told me at his ranch just north of Lame Deer, “because the industry doesn’t pay its bills.” Golder started ranching here in 1947 and since then has spent more time than he can afford working to save the local livestock industry from the mine and power plant. “Ranchers are independent people,” he said. “But we saw we had to join together, and we formed the Northern Plains Resource Council. Anyone in the proximity of the strip mine has lost water. If reclamation was done properly, it would restore aquifers, too. Downwind of the power plant grass is stunted and won’t head out [go to seed]. Upwind it’s mostly fine. Misting [spraying ash water heavenward to evaporate it] puts the stuff back in the air that they took out in the first place. We laugh at a dog for chasing its tail, but at least he doesn’t pay to do it.”

Perhaps because of past overgrazing the Powder River Basin is often perceived as desiccated and dead, but it is rich wildlife habitat with rolling hills cloaked in grasses, shrubs, and trees. I was reminded of what’s at stake when Golder’s ranching partner, Brad Sauer, drove me in his pickup truck through backland too rough for my rental car. Barely visible on distant slopes, white pronghorn rumps mixed with black steer backs like rice and beans. Mule deer filed across ridgetops. Raptors soared. A cock pheasant sprinted into sage. At an ancient homestead a coal seam showed in a rock formation three feet above ground. We dismounted to inspect golden sandstone spires inscribed with Indian petroglyphs and 19th-century rancher graffiti. To our south rose Deer Medicine Rocks, on which Sitting Bull, inspired by a prolonged fast, carved his accurate vision of Custer’s approach.

Above the basin’s shallow coal deposits dwell cougars, bobcats, bears, elk, deer, black-tailed prairie dogs, black-footed ferrets, and 250 bird species. In the words of Mike Scott, this is “the iconic West that so many people on the coasts have seen in westerns but never get to experience—a landscape that breaks your heart with its desolate beauty and abundance of life.”

In Forsyth I met Clint McRae, another Rosebud neighbor, rancher, and Northern Plains Resource Council activist. When I asked him how he felt about the coal around his ranch going to China, he said: “If it’s for a plant in the United States, that’s one thing. But they’re talking about using condemnation to take my private land [for a rail line] so they can haul coal to a communist country. This is a game changer.”

McRae views what’s planned for the Powder River Basin in the same light as TransCanada Corporation’s proposal to seize the property of U.S. citizens and endanger them and their wildlife by piping the planet’s dirtiest oil across America’s middle for sale to China (see “Tarred and Feathered,” July-August 2011).

“There are people furious with Obama for calling the bluff of Congress and taking another look at the XL pipeline,” he declared. “He did a gutsy thing. Finally someone stood up. Republicans used to represent property rights; they used to represent me. Now they represent multibillion-dollar corporations. . . . Go to any ranch in Montana that has been there for 100 years like this one, and you’ll find one common thread—water quantity and quality. The mine and ash ponds are wreaking havoc with ranching operations. It wouldn’t be this way if the state and federal government enforced existing laws.”

But enforcement rarely happens. For example, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality has the authority to force PPL to clean up its ash ponds and to fine it $10,000 for every day it contaminates ground and surface water. It has done neither. And ranchers are suing the department for allowing Western Energy to dewater and poison their springs and wells.One of the litigants, Doug McRae (Clint’s cousin), reports that six of his cattle died when they drank from a spring polluted by mine runoff.

This hasn’t stopped Montana’s governor, Brian Schweitzer, from busily promoting the Asian coal market, and from preparing to sell the coal under its remote, wildlife-rich Otter Creek area. According to the National Wildlife Federation, the mining, transport, and burning of that coal will foul the planet with 2.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal is now a director of Arch Coal. And the current Wyoming governor, Matt Mead, a strip-mining enthusiast, “recognizes” Asia’s need for our coal.

But the main threat comes not from Montana or even Wyoming. It comes from the federal government, which owns the vast majority of the coal reserves in both states. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who proclaims that “the realities of climate change require us to change how we manage the land, water, fish, and wildlife,” has begun selling mining rights to an estimated 3.7 billion tons of Powder River Basin coal.

***

Comments (0)
Categories : Agriculture, Clean Energy, Clean Water, Climate change, Coal, Congress, Fossil Fuels, Landowner Rights, Member news, News, Northern Plains Resource Council

Montana ranchers back poll findings that favor clean energy over old, dirty energy – April 25, 2012

By Larry Winslow · Comments (0)
Wednesday, April 25th, 2012

Civil Society Institute website

View the report

 Water quality all-important in Montana

By Northern Plains Resource Council

BILLINGS, Mont. — For farmers and ranchers in Montana and the rest of the United States, clean water is the lifeblood of their livelihood.

In a March 2012 nationwide poll, eight out of 10 Americans agree that “water shortages and the availability of clean drinking water are real concerns. America should put the emphasis on first developing new energy sources that require less water and result in lower water pollution. Only 15 percent of Americans think that “America should proceed first with developing energy sources even if they may have significant water pollution and water shortage downsides.”

ORC International did the study for the Civil Society Institute and Northern Plains Resource Council, which was released during a national teleconference at 11:30 a.m. today.

“We are constantly told we have to sacrifice good water in order to develop more fossil fuels,” said Terry Punt, Birney rancher and member of Northern Plains Resource Council. “The verdict of this new survey is clear: Most Americans understand that sacrificing water is too high a price for dirty energy.”

Also important to Montanans and which the pollsters asked was about hydraulic fracturing, a process used in drilling for hard-to-reach natural gas that uses toxic chemicals and can damage underground water supplies. Nearly six in 10 Americans (56 percent) are now aware of  “fracking.”  Fewer than three in 10 Americans (28 percent) are “not aware at all” of this extraction process. Eight out of 10 Americans (81 percent) who are aware of fracking say that they are concerned – including nearly half (47 percent) who are “very concerned” – about the impact of fracking on water quality.

“Our ranch is leased for grazing and absolutely would not function without clean water. I am concerned about what gas development could do to the water,” said Cindy Webber, Big Timber rancher and member of Cottonwood Resource Council. “We need to protect our ranch from toxic pollution.”

“Educating the public is a priority for our organization – the Cottonwood Resource Council in Sweet Grass County. We realize that citizens cannot make informed choices without more transparency from the fossil fuels industry. Legislation and enforcement that protects our water quality and quantity is essential for all aspects of ours and our children’s lives.”

Pam Solo, founder and president, Civil Society Institute, said: “Our new survey is a clarion call to action:  Americans think that it is time for  decisive action toward a renewable energy future that will protect public health and provide reliable and cost effective energy.   It is only through the work of groups like Northern Plains Resource Council that this ‘bottom up’ process of change will take place.   And it is only through such a grassroots-driven process that we can shake off the partisan gridlock of Washington, D.C., so that Americans can focus on what is really important to them:  a clean energy future that does not sacrifice our water, air and health to politically powerful nuclear and fossil fuel interests.”

According to the poll, Republicans, Independents and Democrats all agree the United States should move away from its reliance on dirty energy sources that foul the air and water and toward a future that makes greater use of clean energy sources.

Besides clean water, the new ORC International survey of 1,019 Americans conducted March 22-25, 2012, shows that:

  • More than eight out of 10 Americans (83 percent) – including 69 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of Independents, and 95 percent of Democrats — agree with the following statement:   ‘The time is now for a new, grassroots-driven politics to realize a renewable energy future.  Congress is debating large public investments in energy and we need to take action to ensure that our taxpayer dollars support renewable energy– one that protects public health, promotes energy independence and the economic well being of all Americans.”
  • Even with high gasoline prices today, 85 percent of Americans – including 76 percent of Republicans,  87 percent of Independents, and   91 percent of Democrats –  agree with the statement “Energy development should be balanced with health and environmental concerns” versus just 13 percent who think “health and environmental concerns should not block energy development.”
  • More than two out of three (68 percent) think it is “a bad idea for the nation to ‘put on hold’ progress towards cleaner energy sources during the current economic difficulty.”
  • Two thirds of Americans (67 percent) think that “political leaders should help to steer the U.S. to greater use of cleaner energy sources – such as increased efficiency, wind and solar – that result in fewer environmental and health damages.”   Under a third of Americans (30 percent) think that “political leaders should stay out of the energy markets and let private enterprise have a free hand in picking energy sources and setting prices.”
Comments (0)
Categories : Agriculture, CBM, Clean Energy, Clean Water, Coal, Fossil Fuels, Member news, News, Northern Plains Resource Council

General Motors decides climate change is real, pulls support from Heartland Institute – Huffington Post, March 30, 2012

By Larry Winslow · Comments (0)
Friday, March 30th, 2012

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/general-motors-heartland-institute-climate-change_n_1391217.html

By Sharon Silke Carty

After getting called out by an environmental group, General Motors has pulled support from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit well-known for attacking the science behind global warming and climate change.

The automaker told the Heartland Institute last week that it won’t be making further donations, spokesman Greg Martin said. At a speech earlier this month, GM CEO Dan Akerson said his company is running its business under the assumption that climate change is real.

“We applaud GM’s decision and the message it sends — that it is no longer acceptable for corporations to promote the denial of climate change and that support for an organization like Heartland is not in line with GM’s values,” said Daniel Souweine, campaign director for Forecast the Facts, a group that urges meteorologists to talk more openly about climate change.

Internal documents leaked in February showed that the General Motors Foundation — which the automaker runs separately from its business — donated to the institute $15,000 in 2010 and again in 2011, with another $15,000 expected to be gifted this year.

Heartland, which identifies itself as a free-market think tank, has questioned the ideas on global warming through its newsletters, web site and associated scientists. Last year, the tagline for its annual conference on the subject was “Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?”

Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, said GM had been a Heartland supporter for 20 years. “We regret the loss of their support, particularly since it was prompted by false claims contained in a fake memo circulated by disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick,” he said in a statement. “We once again respectfully ask liberal advocacy groups such as Huffington Post, the Center for American Progress, 350.org and Greenpeace to stop attacking scientists who question the theory of man-made global warming and corporations and foundations that are willing to fund open debate on this important public policy issue.”

The Heartland Institute said the internal documents were stolen by someone posing as a member of the board, who asked for the material to be sent to a new email account. Since then, Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of climate research group the Pacific Institute, has confessed to the stunt and noted that he regrets his actions.

The bulk of Heartland’s funding comes from one anonymous donor, who has given the group $11 million since 2007.

Nonprofit groups are not legally obligated to reveal their donors. Previously Heartland was transparent about its funding, even posting a list of contributors on its website, but removed it in 2004.

“Critics who couldn’t or wouldn’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us,” institute representatives wrote after taking down the list. “After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors.”

GM was not the only automaker to fund the Heartland Institute: Ford and Chrysler also contributed to it in the past. Ford and Chrysler told The Huffington Post that they had stopped funding the organization over the past decade, but neither automaker had records detailing reasons for pulling that support.

Greenpeace has pressured companies to stop funding Heartland, said Kert Davies, Greenpeace’s research director. “Their brand of intervention on the climate discussion, bending the information, is noxious,” he said. “GM doesn’t want to be associated with this kind of nonsense on climate change, which is great.”

Jamie Henn of 350.org said Heartland has been spreading misinformation to confuse people.

The Center for American Progress did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

 

Comments (0)
Categories : Clean Energy, Climate change, Fossil Fuels, News

Keystone XL pipeline debate – The Dunwell Report, Beartooth NBC, Feb. 26, 2012

By Larry Winslow · Comments (0)
Friday, March 2nd, 2012

Segment 3 of 5 in this half-hour program

The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline that would transport Alberta tar-sands crude oil from Canada, across Montana and several other states to the Texas gulf port of Port Arthur is a highly controversial project that is stalled right now.

We have two guests to talk about the pipeline and its impact on Montana.

Beth Kaeding is a Past Chair of the Northern Plains Resource Council, a grassroots conservation and family agriculture group.

Dave Galt is the Executive Director of the Montana Petroleum Association, an industry organization representing gas and oil interests among other issues.

Comments (0)
Categories : Clean Energy, Climate change, Fossil Fuels, Landowner Rights, Northern Plains Resource Council, Pipeline

Guest editorial: Cleaner energy can power America by 2050 – Billings Gazette, December 3, 2011

By Larry Winslow · Comments (0)
Monday, December 5th, 2011

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/guest/guest-opinion-cleaner-energy-can-power-america-by/article_f56f926b-c6eb-54d4-94d1-da67bc01d366.html#ixzz1fg6tNYRG

By ED GULICK
We’ve all been aware for a long time that renewable sources of energy like the sun and wind are better for our health and our planet than fossil fuels like oil and coal. But many have also assumed — and fossil fuel industries have certainly claimed — that renewable sources are more expensive. Fortunately, this is not true, and there’s an excellent resource to prove it.

Northern Plains Resource Council joined the Civil Society Institute recently in releasing a major new report that outlines a realistic and affordable path to a cleaner and less expensive energy future. Yes, you read that right: A clean energy future can be a more affordable energy future for Montana and the rest of the United States.

All levels of government have sought to shift financial and operational risks of coal plants from private industry to the ratepayer and taxpayer. This also goes for oil and natural gas drilling. Although renewables and energy efficiency technology have received some taxpayer and ratepayer largesse, they pale in comparison to the historical bias toward fossil fuels.

How do we get out of (or at least beyond) this unproductive pattern? Rather than shift risks from private business to the public in order to force construction of older and dying technologies (such as coal-fired power plants), we should be looking at which energy resources offer the least design, construction, and operational risks to both the public and private investors and that also can meet electric energy demand reliably.

A good place to start is the Synapse report recently published by the Civil Society Institute and available at www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/synapsereport/. It persuasively makes the case for phasing out all coal-fired power and phasing in aggressive energy efficiency and renewable energy, such as wind and solar, investments to replace that power by 2050.

The report compares status quo trends with a “Transition Scenario” that maps out a much cleaner energy future by 2050. The Transition Scenario is superior to “Business As Usual” in terms of cost, public health, water usage, and carbon dioxide emission reductions. It also creates jobs. This is done with off-the-shelf technologies and efficiency, and makes no assumptions about as-yet-unreleased innovations currently in research and development.

New job creation

The Transition Scenario also harbors other benefits that would reduce cost and health risks to private investors and the public. If implemented, the Transition Scenario would reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the electric sector by 81 percent. Under Business As Usual, they rise 28 percent. There is also far less water use in the Transition Scenario.

Finally, the study estimates the creation of 310,000 full-time equivalent jobs in the first decade of the transition to a more sustainable energy sector.

There is something for everyone in this approach. Some people will like the fact that net savings over 40 years are projected to be a whopping $83 billion. That’s great news for consumers! Others will embrace the notion that eliminating pollution from dirty coal-fired power plants by 2050 will mean roughly 55,000 fewer premature deaths over the next several decades.

Saving in Billings

We see the economic and environmental benefits of this approach every day in our offices on South 27th Street in Billings. The combination of energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar panels has resulted in 79 percent lower utility bills to heat, cool, and light the building compared with current energy codes. And the renovation of the 1940s building was achieved with a construction budget that was 20 percent lower than constructing a new building to current energy standards. We know it works!

The bottom line for Montana is clear: We need to start focusing on the bigger issue of our clean energy future and how we get there.

Ed Gulick of Billings is immediate past chairman of Northern Plains Resource Council.

 

Comments (0)
Categories : Clean Energy, Climate change, Coal, Fossil Fuels, Guest Editorial, News, Northern Plains Resource Council
Next Page »
  • News
  • Search
Recent Posts
  • Study coal shipments’ environmental effects, says Missoula councilor – Missoulian, May 15, 2012
  • Yellowstone County planning board seeks rail traffic study – Billings Gazette, May 14, 2012
  • Routine blast unleashes torrent in mine – Helena Independent Record, May 15, 2012
  • Kicking the coal habit – Audubon Magazine, May-June 2012
  • Free movie ‘Gasland’ May 17 at Yogo Inn in Lewistown

What People are Saying About Northern Plains:

"This thriving citizens organization exemplifies the ideal of public involvement in public processes… Northern Plains Resource Council gives a large group of Montanans an effective voice. We may not always agree with Northern Plains, but we commend the group for holding public decision-makers accountable."
—Billings Gazette editorial,
Nov. 16, 2001
"...it has been incredibly successful at bringing credible, if sometimes dissenting, viewpoints to public debates about ranching, mining and the general lifestyle enjoyed by this region. In the consideration of any number of issues, the group has been the key that opened public debate."
Billings Gazette editorial,
Nov. 27, 1991
"With a dogged, can-do attitude, this citizens group has helped to shape the future of Montana in the face of mounting pressure for the development of our natural resources."
—Sen. Max Baucus, quoted in Havre Daily News,
June 29, 1992
"What sets NPRC apart from many groups is their complete dedication to working with community people… The process of citizen involvement, at least in the context of small town Montana life, has been raised to an art form by this organization."
—Western Network, Citizen Involvement: Learning From Experience, 1994
“I am stunned by the courage you’ve had collectively, by your endurance over the past 37 years. You have always fought long odds.”
—Randy Udall, quoted in Billings Gazette,
Nov. 16, 2008
"Many have attacked members of the Northern Plains Resource Council for taking a stand on methane development. I think we ought to thank our lucky stars for their foresight, and their determination to protect the interests of farmers and ranchers in southeastern Montana."
—Roger Muggli, op-ed, Miles City Star,
Apr. 6, 2001
"But the birth, evolution, and sustained record of NPRC’s successes are, in some ways, unique to rural America, and, more broadly, unique to post-modern American environmentalism and should give all Montanans–or at least those vitally concerned about natural resources, land use, ranching, and family farming–some measure of optimism."
—Keith Edgerton, Montana State University / Billings, 2002,
Bridging Ideology in Rural America: The Northern Plains Resource Council, 1971-1975 
"Birthed out of an unusual coalition of ranchers and environmentalists, Northern Plains maintains this tradition of working with diverse groups, an anomaly in today’s era of conflict and divisiveness."
—Greg Gordon, Orion Afield Magazine,
Summer 2000
"They confound the common view that ordinary people are powerless in the face of industry."
—Billings Gazette editorial,
May 11, 2000
They’ve squared off against some of the world’s largest multinationals, this interesting amalgam of young environmental activists, farmers, ranchers and citizens concerned about mineral and other developments in the Northern Great Plains.
—John A. Alwin, 1982,
Eastern Montana: A Portrait of the Land and its People
"To say the agreement between Stillwater Mining Co. and Northern Plains Resource Council and its affiliates in Stillwater and Sweet Grass counties is remarkable understates its significance. The ‘Good Neighbor Agreement’ sets a standard beyond Montana’s borders for how citizens concerned with resource protection and a major mining company concerned with resource development can work together to resolve conflict.”
Billings Gazette editorial,
May 1, 2000
"Ten years after this legally binding agreement (the Good Neighbor Agreement) was signed, it remains a testament to the benefits of communication and cooperation."
—Billings Gazette editorial,
June 3, 2010

Follow changes on the Northern Plains website by subscribing to our RSS:

Subscribe to RSS
Find us on Facebook

  • Archives
  • Categories
Archives
Categories

Go paperless!

Join our e-mail list:
Home | Contact Us | Career Opportunities | Membership | Site Map | Photo Credits
Find us on Facebook | Subscribe to RSS | LOGIN | Copyright © 2012 All Rights Reserved
Northern Plains Resource Council
Site design by Element L Design