CHEYENNE - Powder River Basin ranchers pressed hard Thursday for more state regulation of coal-bed methane water, saying that too much of it can be a serious problem.

Meanwhile, coal-bed methane producers presented case studies that extolled industrially produced waters as tremendously beneficial to both livestock and wildlife, with nary a mention that there were any problems. Indeed, the producers implied that coal-bed methane water horror stories emerging out of the Powder River Basin were an extreme minority of cases, attributable to poor communication.

In testimony before the state's Environmental Quality Council, the producers essentially argued that the current regulatory system works pretty well. The petitioners argued that the regulatory system is deeply flawed, indeed broken, because of an improper, long-standing assumption made by a state agency.

Attorney Kate Fox, representing 19 ranchers from the basin and the Powder River Basin Resource Council, readily acknowledged that there were benefits to coal-bed methane water. But she said there is "a dark side" to the by-product water when there is too much salt content and too much water.

Coal-bed methane production involves the release of groundwater to relieve pressure holding the natural gas in coal seams.

Fox maintained that the state's Department of Environmental Quality cannot do its job properly if it ignores the water quantity issue. Fox illustrated that point by noting the state's coal-bed methane industry has produced 380,000 acre feet of water to date, yet full development of the methane resource would mean another 7 million acre feet yet to come. An acre foot is the amount of water needed to cover one acre at a depth of one foot.

"Common sense says you cannot separate water quality from water quantity issues," Fox said.

The key problem is that DEQ makes the blanket assumption that the mere presence of coal-bed methane water, and access to the water by livestock and wildlife, is automatically a beneficial use. In contrast, the state engineer's office is tasked by law to make a determination of beneficial use in regulating water use.

"We have a regulatory void, not a conflict" between those two agencies, Fox said.

DEQ's assumption of beneficial use has had unintended consequences in the Powder River Basin, as a series of slide photographs showed n drowned cottonwood tree stands, salt-encrusted stream beds, erosion, ruined hay meadows and soils.

Under the Powder River Basin Resource Council proposal, the petitioners want to get rid of DEQ's assumption of beneficial use, Fox said. At the same time, that would not put in jeopardy the beneficial uses of coal-bed methane water.

Fox noted that both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Environmental Protection Agency agree that water quality and quantity are intertwined and cannot be separated. She said her clients are not asking for a standard of 100 percent beneficial use.

Eric Barlow, a Powder River Basin rancher and veterinarian, said the chemical content in water has to be understood within the context of the biological systems of soils, plants and animals. Current coal-bed methane water can result in widely differing results in terms of weight gain, health of calves, even toxic poisoning.

Methane producers and advocates countered with a series of ranchers testifying they appreciated the use of coal-bed methane water and were increasingly dependent upon it. Wildlife biologists with doctorates said industrially produced waters were beneficial to fish, birds, big game, wildlife habitat and wildlife food sources.

Harriet Hageman, an attorney for the Farm Bureau, warned the council that blending water quality and quantity issues should not be attempted by the council or DEQ, but that the state Legislature should be the entity to take on and resolve the issue.

Margo Sabec, an attorney representing Devon Energy, told the council that there is no such thing as excess water. Any methane water spilled on the surface would meet beneficial use if it was used by birds and invertebrates, regardless of the presence or absence of wildlife or livestock. Damages experienced by downstream property holders should be resolved in court, she recommended.

Harry LaBonde, deputy state engineer, essentially agreed with Fox, noting that state water law was predicated on water scarcity, not too much water. LaBonde said that as the law and regulations stand now, DEQ can regulate water quantity only so far as water quality is involved. He recommended that to go any further, the Legislature needs to be involved.

The council had not reached a decision or taken a vote on the petition by late afternoon.