A battle between ranchers and the state over coal-bed methane water discharges has festered for nearly 10 years in the Powder River Basin. Now the controversy has spilled over into the Wyoming Supreme Court.

"I think it's an important issue. If it's not decided in this case, it will have to be decided down the road in another court," said Reed Benson, a professor at the University of New Mexico's School of Law.

Benson, who recently taught water law at the University of Wyoming College of Law, said he's familiar with the lawsuit filed by Bill and Marge West and L.J. and Karen Turner against the Wyoming state engineer and Wyoming Board of Control. The case was recently appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Although the West/Turner lawsuit deals with water discharge permits particular to their own ranching operations, ranchers throughout the Powder River Basin have fought for years to find legal footing to allow them to reject coal-bed methane water on their properties

In the Powder River Basin, more than 4 billion barrels of groundwater have been pumped through coal-bed methane wells and dumped on the surface. Some of the produced water is used in irrigation and stock watering. However, the volume of water produced in the basin far exceeds practical uses and sometimes floods low-lying pastures.

It's a particular problem in the Powder River Breaks country between Gillette and Buffalo, where the surface terrain is susceptible to erosion and leaching salts. In this region, coal-bed methane wells can produce large volumes of groundwater for more than two years before priming gas production.

The state has long held the view that the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has authority to permit or deny surface discharge applications based on water quality considerations. The question of water quantity is the authority of the state engineer alone, according to state officials.

Early on in the development of coal-bed methane in the basin, the state engineer's office made the determination that the production of methane constitutes a "beneficial" use of the water pumped from coal aquifers. With that determination, the state, on several occasions, allowed dozens of discharges from multiple companies in a single drainage without considering the cumulative effects of water volumes on ranching and other existing uses.

"The state engineer is supposed to consider the interests of all the parties involved: landowners and people who lease the land," Marge West said. "But he was considering the methane companies and not considering any of the people who have use of the land."

Benson said that in addition to the "beneficial use" determination, the state engineer is still obligated to make a "public interest" determination in each discharge permit application.

"On one hand, you have this industry that's very important to Wyoming. On the other hand - and this case illustrates it well - you have all these interests that are potentially harmed by (discharging water on the surface)," Benson said.

He explained that because of the dynamic nature of topography and soil quality in the vast Powder River Basin, coal-bed methane water discharges may have a minimal or dramatic effect on other existing uses, including ranching and wildlife.

"Those kind of impacts could mean we should deny an application or impose conditions on it for the sake of protecting these other interests," Benson said. "That's the kind of determination that the state engineer has not been making in any formal or systematic way on these applications."

In April 2007, Gov. Dave Freudenthal ended a yearlong rulemaking process by the state Environmental Quality Council when he refused to approve it. The rulemaking would have required DEQ to demand valid data in support of applications to discharge coal-bed methane water on the surface, ultimately forcing it to consider volumes of water in regard to its effect on water quality.

"The governor continues to maintain that the regulation of the quantity of CBM discharges - for the sole purpose of regulating quantity - is a matter of the state engineer's jurisdiction," said Freudenthal's press secretary, Cara Eastwood.

A legislative task force attempted to address the issue in 2007, which resulted in a bill that would have allowed the state engineer to order the construction, or expansion, of waterways through properties where a landowner didn't want water discharges. The measure failed.

"This is a very important issue that we have been actively attempting to address within existing statutory and regulatory authorities, but one that needs the support of the Legislature to fully resolve," Eastwood said.

Benson said the legal question has ramifications beyond the coal-bed methane industry.

"A standard like the 'public interest' determination gives a lot of discretion to a state agency without very much guidance on how to exercise it. And it's not a discretion that they are very comfortable in exercising," he said. "These are two industries that are so fundamental to Wyoming's economy and its sense of itself - ranching and energy. Throw wildlife in there, and it really does go to the question of, 'What's the best water use for the good of the state?' That is inherently controversial."