1 of 2

EPA’s Potential Reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act Provision Regarding Tribal

Authority

– Meeting with Council of State Governments

Wednesday , July 16 , 2014

2 :00

– 3 : 0 0 p.m. EDT Meeting Summary

EPA P r esenter s : Fred L e utner, EPA Office of Science and Technology

Tod Siegal. EPA Office of Gene ral Counsel Participants : E dgar Ruiz, Executive Director, Council of State Governments (CSG) West

Martha Castañeda, Director of Intern ational Programs, CSG West Alma Lopez, Policy Analyst, CSG West Luis Tapia, Inte rnational Programs Coordinator, CSG West Senator Jim Honeyford, Ma jority Assistant Floor Leader, Was hington State

Senate Senator Michelle Stennett, Idaho State Senate Minority Leader, Idaho State

Senate Representative Gayle L. Batt, Vice Chair for State Affairs, Idaho House of Representatives Andy Karellas, Director of Federal Affairs, CSG Rebekah Fitzge rald, Environment and Energy Policy Director, CSG

The meeting began with introductions. Fred Leutner then provided a n overview of the potential

EPA action to reinterpret the tribal authority provision of the Clean Water Act

. The overview was followed by a more detailed presentation and discussion based on the EPA letter from Betsy Southerland, dated June 18, 2014 , available at EPA ’ s website at http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm

.

The meeting continued with an opportunity for questions and comments from participants. The following is a list of questions and comments received from participants during the mee ting

. For each of the questions, the EPA presenters provided responses that were consistent with the presentation materials

and other information available at http://wa ter.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm

. V iews and comments were acknowledged, and will be considered by EPA in developing the proposed rule.

 I n 1987, did the tribes actually make the request to manage water resources on their

lands ?

 Will this apply to reservation property only or will it also apply to usual and ac custom ed (U&A) areas ?

 If a tribe has jurisdiction , would they still need approval for a use attainability analysis (UAA)? Would the tribe have the final say , or would that remain with EPA ?

 Woul d that include fee schedule s, for example to obtain a permit?2 of 2

 If there are private lan d s within reservation borders, w ould these lands fall unde r tribal or state jurisdiction?

 If a river boundary is shared by two states and a tribe, who has authority? W ho is the final arbitrator on the boundary?

 During the review process for a tribal WQS program, the second step is no longer needed

because EPA is relying on c ongressional delegation of authority. If that step is removed, can we assume that the findings wit h regards to the t ribe would be on the third step? Is there a chance for states/local govern ments to provide comment on EPA’ s reliance on the

c ongressional delegation of authority?

 W e have committees interested in this issue. We will share information in our upcoming meeting , and will provide any feedback to EP A . We would be h appy to further the information sharing.