The first conclusion I took away from the Conference is that the present situation with respect to coal bed methane development is somewhat reversed. Promoters appeal to state and federal statutes which encourage development and to the pressing national need for domestic energy supplies. The opposition looks to county authorities and the possibility of forming local zoning districts to slow or alter development.

But, second conclusion, the county authorities do not have the financial or technical resources to control coal bed methane development, and where local ordinances have been enacted, they have generally been tossed out by the courts. This was clear in Gary Bryner's review of 10 Colorado cases where development was contested. Given the "conservation" clause in most western state constitutions, in which the states are enjoined not to "waste" natural resources, this result is not at all surprising.

The third conclusion, however, is that coal bed methane is very much a local issue. Water quality, the crucial concern of those who are wary of development, varies enormously from one site to the next. As was pointed out, water from CBM wells goes directly into the Gillette water system, while in other places it is toxic. There are no over-riding generalizations about the environmental impacts of development.

Where do we go? First, those who want to temper the pace and character of development should not concentrate their efforts on local ordinances. It was clear to me that the political issue here is a state issue, and will be resolved in the state legislature, and perhaps also in federal courts. At the same time, more money has to be made available to local authorities from state and federal agencies to conduct the base-line studies without which development is unguided.

Second, with the mistakes already made in Colorado and Wyoming clearly visible, both the developers and individual land/mineral owners can and must work out the details of an acceptable lease agreement. Nancy Sorenson, a rancher from Wyoming with long experience in this area, had some valuable suggestions. The situation is complicated by the prevalence of "split estates." But it is in both landowner's and mineral owner's interest to work together.

Randy Udall supplied a helpful larger perspective. Montana natural gas is only going to grow more valuable. We can afford to take our time to do it right, particularly since full-scale and immediate development would not appreciably alter the national energy picture. The only way in which that picture can be appreciably altered is by way of systematic energy conservation on the one hand and the development of renewable energy resources on the other.