## Re vised In te rpr et at ion of the Clean Wa te r Act TA S P ro vision: P ro posed rule
Information W ebinar USEP A Of fice of Science and T

echnology September 10, 2015

1

# Summar y

• Wa te rs on the majority of Indian reser vations do not ha ve water quality st andards (WQS) under the Clean W ater Act (CWA) t o pr ot ect human health and the en vir onmen t.

Only 40 of over 300 tribes with reservations...  Have been fo und eligible to be treated in a similar manner as a state (T

AS) f or WQS, **AND**  Have adopted WQS that EP A has approved
• **EP A pr**  **oposes to** **s treamline**  **how tribes apply f or**  **TA S f** **or the**  **WQ S pr** **ogr am and other**  **CW A r**  **egula to**  **ry pr ogr** **ams.** • This would reduce the burden on applic an t tribes and facilit ate tribal in vo lvement in pr ot ecting reser vation water quality without changing st atutory or regulat ory r equirements. 2

# To da y’ s T

opics

• Backgr ound • EP A’ s In te rpr et ation Since 1991 • Developments Supporting a R ein te rpr et ation • EP A’ s Pr oposal • Ne xt St eps • How t o Commen t on the Pr oposal • How t o Obt ain Mor e Information

3

# Backgr ound – Ke y T

erms

• **TA S**  – treatment of tribes in a similar manner as a state, for the purposes of administ ering EP A pr ogr ams. • **Tr ibe**  – one of the 566 Indian tribes that are feder ally r ec ogniz ed, of which over 300 ha ve reser vations. • **Re ser** **vat ion**  – either a formal reser vation or tribal trust land outside of a formal reser vation. • **Nonmember fe**  **e lands**  – lands within a reser vation that are owned outrigh t (“in fee simple”) by nonmember s of the tribe . • **Re gula**  **to ry**  **progr am**  – one of the following CWA pr ogr ams:

4 • Sec. 303(c) water quality standar ds • Sec. 303(d) listings and TMDLs • Sec. 401 water quality certifications • Sec. 402 NPDES permits • Sec. 404 dr edge or fill permits

# Backgr ound – CWA T

AS P ro vision

• Section 518 of the Clean W ate r Act authoriz es EP A to tr ea t a tribe in a similar manner as a s tate fo r purposes of a re gulatory pr ogr am if:

5 1. The tribe is feder ally r ecogniz ed and has a r eserv ation.* 2. The tribe has a governing body carrying out subst antial governmental duties and powers. 3. The functions to be ex er cised pert ain to the management and pr ot ection of w ater resources within the r eserv ation. 4. The tribe is r easonably expect ed to be capable of carrying out the functions of the pr ogr am. * **Reservation** means all land within the limits of an Indian reservation notwithstanding the issuance of an y paten t, and including rights of way running through the reservation.

# Backgr ound – Tr ibes with T AS

6 • Re gulatory pr ogr ams  303(c) WQ standards and 401 certifications ..............50 tribes appr ove d  303(d) listings/TMDLs ............................T AS pr ocess under consider ation  402 NPDE S ............................................some interest, no tribes appr ove d  404 dr edg e or fill ..............................limited interest, no tribes appr ove d • Gr an t pr ogr ams*  106 management pr ogr ams......................................269 tribes appr ove d  319 nonpoint sour ce management..........................183 tribes appr ove d * Gran t programs are not discussed further in this presen tation. Tribal gran t applicants do not need to demons trate regulatory jurisdiction.

# EP A’ s In te rpr et at ion since 1991
• EP A has followed a cautious appr oach that re quir es each applican t tribe to **demons tr** **ate i**  **ts inher ent**  **authority** under principles of feder al Indian common law in or der t o re gulate waters and activities on its r eserv ation. Fo r e xa mple, a tribe with nonmember- owned fe e lands on its reservation mus t gather data to show it meets the “Montana test ” 

### • EP A has s tate d its appr oach wa s subject to change in the ev en t of further congr essional or judicial guidance. 7

# Developmen ts Supporting a Re in te rpr et at ion EP A’sanalysis is presented in the proposal. It includes ref erences to: 

### • Fe der al district court case in Mont ana (1996) Language supports the interpretation tha t section 518 includes a congr essional deleg at ion of authority 

### • EP A’ s in terpr etat ion of similar st at utor y languag e in the Clean Air Act (1998) Congr essional deleg at ion of authority applies to r eserv at ion ar eas 

### • Fe der al D.C . Cir cuit Court of Appeals decision upholding EP A’ s 1998 CAA appr oach (2000) Upheld EP

A interpretation tha t the Clean Air Act tribal pr ovision includes a congr essional deleg at ion of authority. Observ ed favo ra bly that section 518 of the CWA appears amenable t o the same appr oach. 8

# EP A’ s pr oposal EP A pr oposes to conclude definitively that section 518 of the Clean W ater Act includes an **ex pr** **ess deleg** **at ion**  **of authority by Congr** **ess** to Indian tribes to adminis te r re gulatory pr ogr ams ov er their en tir e re serv ations, subject to the eligibility r equir emen ts in section 518.

9

# EP A’ s pr oposal w ould...

• Eliminate the need for applican t tribes to demons tr ate inher en t authority to r egulate under the CW A. • Allow tribes to implemen t the congr essional deleg ation of authority unhinder ed by re quir emen ts not specified in the s tat ute. • Bring EP A’ s tr eatmen t of tribes under the CW A in line with EP

A’ s tr eatmen t of tribes under the Clean Air Act.

10

# EP A’ s pr oposal w ould...

• NOT r evise an y r egulatory te xt. Fo r e xa mple, EP

A’ s re gulations would continue to :  Re quir e tribes to identify the boundaries of the re ser vat ion ar eas ov er which they seek to e xe rc ise authority.  Re quir e EP

A t o pr ovide adjacen t state (s ), tribe(s), and other appr opriate governmental entities an opportunity to comment to EP

A on an applicant tribe’ s assertion of authority. 11

# EP A’ s pr oposal w ould...

• NOT affect the g eogr aphic sc ope of T AS. It would neither e xpand nor c on tr act the g eogr aphic sc ope of pot en tial tribal T AS eligibility. • NOT affect an y e xisting limit ations on tribal criminal enfor cement authority. The pr oposal relates solely t o civil regulat ory authority. • NOT affect the 50 previous appr ov als of tribal T AS for water quality st andards. • NOT affect the sc ope of e xisting st ate regulatory pr ogr ams appr oved by EP

A under the Clean W ater Act. • NOT chang e EP

A’ s c ase - by - ca se appr oach t o ev aluating the full record in special cir cumstances.
12

# Ne xtSt ep s

13

• Pr oposed interpretive rule published • Tr ibal consultation and coordination pr ocess begins • Outr each to states begins Aug. 7, 2015

EP A outr each to public, tribes, s tates • 60 - da y p ublic comment period ends • Tr ibal consultation and coordination pr ocess ends • Outr each to states ends Oct. 6, 2015 EP A r eviews, analyz es comments and issues If finalized: • Final rule published Mid - 2016 Until the proposal is finalized, EP A will continue to process tribal applications for T

AS under its 1991 interpretation of the CW A.

# Ho w ca n I pr ovide c ommen ts on the pr oposal?

• Pr ovide commen ts to the public docket **not la te**  **r than Oct. 6**  : • To www.r egulations.gov (use Docket ID No. EP A - HQ- OW 2014 - 0461) • Byemail, lette r, fax , or hand deliv ery t o addr esses in FR notice

14

# Fo r mor e in fo rma tion:

• See F act Sheet, FAQs, mor e on EP A’ s website at htt p://wate r. epa. gov/scit ech/swguidance/sta ndar d s/wqslibr ary/tribal.cfm
• Fo r ques tions on consult ation/coor dination: Thomas Gar dner

, ga rd ner .t homas@epa. gov

, (202) 566 - 0386
• Fo r an y other ques tions: Fr ed Leutner , Leutner .f re d@epa. gov

, (202) 566 - 0378
15

# Ques tions?

16 

### We will now consider
• Questions fr om the “Questions” cha t bo x

Ty pe in at an y time

• Questions fr om the phone lines

Wa it f or ins tructions