1 of 2

Meeting with Western States Water Council (WSWC) on EPA’s Potential Reinterpretation

of the Clean Water Act Provision Regarding Tribal Authority

Monday, August 11, 2014

Meeting Summary

EPA Moderator: Shaun McGrath, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8

EPA Presenters: Fred Leutner, EPA Office of Science and Technology

Tod Siegal, EPA Office of General Counsel

Diane Evans, EPA Region 6

George Parrish, EPA Region 8

Participants: Andrew Sayers-Fay, Alaska Department of Environment of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC), Division of Water (Deputy Director)

Brock Tabor, ADEC, Division of Water

Jackie Schafer, Alaska Attorney General's Office

Jeff Trembly, Arizona Department of Water Resources

Jerry Rigby, Idaho member of the WSWC

Scott Verhines, New Mexico State Engineer

Dave Glatt, North Dakota Department of Health

Meg Nielsen, North Dakota

J.D. Strong, Oklahoma Water Resources Board (Director)

Shellie Chard-McClary, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, 

Water Quality Division (Director)

Kent Woodmansey, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, Feedlot Permit Program

Stephen Bernath, Washington Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program

Tom Laurie, Washington Department of Ecology, Tribal and Environmental 

Affairs

Carlee Brown, Western Governors’ Association

Tony Willardson, WSWC

Nathan Bracken, WSWC

The meeting began with introductions. Shaun McGrath welcomed the participants and gave 

opening remarks. Fred Leutner gave the presentation, “Potential Reinterpretation of a Clean 

Water Act Provision Regarding Tribal Eligibility to Administer Regulatory Programs,” available 

at EPA’s website http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm.

EPA then addressed a list of issues and comments from WSWC dated 8-11-2014 (available in 

the docket for this rulemaking). EPA presenters provided detailed responses consistent with the 

presentation materials and other information available at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm.

The following is a list of questions and comments received from participants during the meeting. For each 

of the questions, the EPA presenters provided responses that were consistent with the presentation 

materials and other information available at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm. Views and comments 

were acknowledged, and will be considered by EPA in developing the proposed rule. 
2 of 2

 What is the difference between “Indian Country” and “Reservation”? 

 Does jurisdiction also refer to the extent it may influence WQS upstream?

 If a stream flows from one state to another and then back to the first state how would that 

work for tribes?

 Oklahoma has no reservations and in Alaska there is only one, the Metlakatla.

 Would the Alaska situation change if DOI puts any tribal lands into trust?

 Are you going to put anything into your language stating that the policy is not intended to 

change jurisdictional rules? 

 Is appropriate notification of standards adoptions going both ways? Is there anything in 

the formal process that requires tribes to make sure the states hear about standards 

adoptions?

 How can states comment on a tribe’s TAS application?