Clean water in Montana survived an under-the-radar attack in the U.S. Senate in April. And it’s a good thing, too, for it jeopardized Montana’s famed fish and wildlife populations, as well as our drinking water and irrigation supplies.

During debate before passage of the Senate’s Energy Appropriations bill, Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota introduced an amendment to block implementation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s so-called Clean Water Rule. The agency developed the rule several years ago at the request of industries that wanted clarification on which of the nation’s waters merit protection under the federal Clean Water Act.

The rule, which was subject to a long public comment period and reviewed in numerous meetings and congressional hearings, simply affirmed that waters protected under the law when the act was passed 40 years ago — including headwater streams in Montana — still merit protection. Sen. Jon Tester continued his strong support for clean water by voting against this unsuccessful amendment. Perplexingly, however, Sen. Steve Daines voted for the amendment.

In a recent op-ed Senator Daines touted his efforts to protect Montana’s lands and waters, and the jobs they support, by voting for the Energy Bill, which included permanent authorization of the popular Land and Water Conservation Fund. For that, he deserves thanks. However, Sen. Daines also undermined his stated support for fish and wildlife by then voting to kill the Clean Water Rule.

He thereby supported dropping protection for water quality and important habitat supplied by Montana’s headwater streams and some wetlands. These contradictory positions are inexplicable.

The Senate energy bill will now have to be reconciled with a U.S. House version. This process will likely include more discussion of permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It will also provide Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke an opportunity to demonstrate that he indeed, as he often states, identifies with Teddy Roosevelt, one of the nation’s most celebrated conservationists. He can do that by supporting full authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and, by demonstrating he supports protecting Montana’s headwater tributaries and streamside wetlands from pollution by reversing his position opposing the Clean Water Rule.

Rep. Zinke recently stated unequivocally in an op-ed published in several Montana dailies that the EPA’s Superfund program in Montana has failed. He cited this as a reason for not using this program to advance the stalled cleanup of toxic materials at the Columbia Falls Aluminum site. He said he prefers working things out with the responsible party at the site, Glencore, a large Swiss-based corporation. Glencore, however, has demonstrated little interest in cooperating.

As with the Clean Water Rule, Rep. Zinke needs to take a second look at Superfund in Montana. Without this program and the funding and legal hammer it brings to the table, more than half a billion dollars of cleanup and health-related aid to folks contaminated by asbestos in Libby would not have occurred. Certainly W.R. Grace wasn’t going to help. Similarly, without Superfund, the heirs to the assets of the Anaconda Company, BPA-Arco, would not have been prodded into investing hundreds of millions into cleanup and restoration of the severely mine damaged upper Clark Fork basin from Butte and Anaconda to Milltown. The result so far has been a cleaner river, healthier communities, more trout and a restoration economy that has been a huge economic boon to the region. Certainly, Columbia Falls deserves as much.

To some in Congress it is fine sport to deploy slogans and parrot industry in bashing EPA and federal laws that protect our water, air and lands. But this is one sport Montana’s congressional delegation need not be part of.

Schustrom, of Whitefish, is chairman of Montana Trout Unlimited.