Loading...
03. Lake County RequestLAKE COUNTY -- f0s iw¢. S. Pel�eD. ieDtHDH R91RRC► April 28, 1994 Bruce Williams City Manager City of Kalispell P. Q. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Bruce: Thank you for allowing Alan Mikkelsen and I to meet with you on April 21st. The issue that we discussed pertained to "Treatment As a State" (TAS) by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) of the Flathead Reservation. TAS allows Indian tribes to be treated as state governments for the purposes of fulfilling the Clean Water Act (CWA). This means that Indian tribes could have the opportunity to set water quality standards and enforce those standards. TAS applications are approved by EPA,. under subsection 518 of the CWA. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have applied to EPA for TAS treatment. This application was made over a year ago. Approval has not been issued so far. This is largely due to the objections voiced by the State of Montana, Lake County, Polson, Ronan, and the three irrigation districts operating as the Flathead Joint Board of Control. This is an issue that will have impacts off the reservation, also. Any governmental entity upstream of the reservation should be concerned and opposing the TAS application of the CSKT. The City of Albuquerque is now being forced by an Indian Pueblo several miles downstream from the city to clean up the Rio Grande River. The pueblo has received TAS approval from EPA and is forcing Albuquerque to make the Rio Grande clean enough to drink for "ceremonial purposes". Although Albuquerque has been operating an EPA and state approved and permitted facility, they are now faced with a possible $250 million expenditure to meet the tribal standards. Enclosed are copies of newsclippings from Albuquerque. The same potential exists for the cities of the Flathead Valley upstream of the Flathead Reservation. The CSKT are now engaged in a campaign to force EPA approval. They have asked the 1200 Tribal employees to write Senator Baucus and EPA, urging approval of the tribal request. Enclosed is a copy of a tribal memo. Bruce Williams Page 2 We are asking that the City of Kalispell write to Senator Baucus and Senator Burns, as well as EPA Region VIII Administrator William Yellowtail and EPA Administrator Carol Browner, stating your opposition to TAS status possibly to be awarded to the CSKT. If it is necessary for Alan and myself to appear before your council to make this request, we welcome the opportunity as soon as possible. Recently the Flathead County Commission voted to oppose the Tribes TAS application and we respectfully request each city to do so as well. Sincerely, /* 0�4-& Mike Hutchin Lake County Commissioner jd Encs. FLATHEAD BOARD CONTROL .; BOX 639 1, 9 April 11, 1994 Dear Irrigator: In March representatives of the Joint Board of Control (JBC) met with Congressional staffs and high-ranking EPA officials in Washington, D.C. Several issues that affect irrigators were discussed. Among those issues was tribal environmental regulatory authority. Following are some of the points we discussed with the people we met with. First, we emphasized that the issue before us is not one in which we challenged the competence of a tribal government to develop water quality standards or regulations, but whether it has the legitimate authority to develop and enforce them for activities on nonmember land, thus imposing it's political and policy decisions on non-members who cannot participate meaningfully in tribal government. Second, we stated that a long list of recent U.S. Supreme Court cases (Brendale; Duro; Bourland; Hagen; and others) have severely limited tribal jurisdiction over non-member lands and activities. The Supreme Court has clearly spoken to the limits of tribal sovereignty, although some tribes have clearly not heard the message. Finally, government works best when the governed are active participants in the process. In fact, if one is excluded from full rights to participate in the entire political process, they cannot be expected to respect the results of that process. It simply lacks legitimacy in the minds of the people excluded. obviously, this concerns the Tribes. All 1200 tribal employees have received a memo (attached) orchestrating a tribal letter writing campaign. The memo asks tribal employees who support tribal jurisdiction over non-members to contact various officials, suggests two form letters, and then asks employees to furnish copies of the letters to tribal officials, along with a list of calls the employees make. This creates a lot of pressure on the tribal employees to call and write, knowing their effort is being monitored by the tribal legal or administration departments. The JBC urges you to carefully read the attached tribal memo and write to the same individuals, expressing your opinion regarding tribal regulation of non-member lands and activities. Sincerely, JBC Memo -Tribal Employees April 8, 1994 Page 2 Carol Browner Administrator U.S. EPA 401 M. Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 Ph. 2021260-4700 Congress is currently working on major pieces of federal legislation that will effect the Tribes' environmental protection efforts. Please voice your support now to ensure that Congress does the right thing. Send a copy of your correspondence to Marion Yoder in the Legal Department or Velda Shelby in Administration. Please let them know if you called any of these officials. Thank you. For your convenience, I have attached the following two sample letters for you to send: LETTER 1 Dear I am a (member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes/ resident) of the Flathead Indian Reservation in northwest Montana. I enjoy the beauty, the quality of life and the unspoiled environment of the Reservation. I feel that these things exist here today for my enjoyment Iargely because of the environmental ethic and efforts of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Government. I understand that there are several pieces of environmental legislation pending that may threaten the Tribes' ability to manage and regulate activities on the Reservation in a uniform manner. Those pieces of legislation include reauthorization of the Clean Water Act (S. 1114, Safe Drinking Water Act (S. 1547) and Superfund or CERCLA (S.1834). Clean Water Act I want you to know that I support continuation of the "Treatment as a State" (TAS) provisions as they stand in the current lesislation because they allow Tribes to protect Reservation water quality for all residents in a unitary, uniform manner. Tribes should be authorized to designate watershed management units in Indian Country or provide specific consent to requests by Governors to make such designations involving Indian Country lands. I also encourage increasing the set -aside for Indian prograrms under this act, because of the unequal funding Tribes receive in comparison to States. Since this Act's passage in 1972, States have received $43 billion while $25 million was devoted by EPA to Indian programs. I ask that the set -asides in the current legislation be increased and considered as minimums for Indian programs, such as sewage treatment plant construction, rather than maximums. Safe Drinkin' Water .act "Drinking water supply areas" should be able to be designated for special protection by appropriate Tribal and State officials alike, with respect to lands and waters subject to their regulatory authority. Specifically, states should Memo -Tribal Employees April 8, 1994 Page 3 not be able to include "Indian Country" within the definition of state drinking water supply areas, without specific Tribal consent. Also Tribal officials should be allowed to declare lands and associated waters in Indian Country subject to their authority as water supply areas. Groundwater protection grants should be made available, in fair proportions, to both Tribal and state ooverriments, as appropriate. Prfund-CERCLA Tribes pursuing Natural Resource Damage Claims should be entitled, as other trustee governments are, to the benefits of the rebuttable presumption of "regularity" of their damage claims when they choose to follow the Department of Interior damage claim regulations. Tribes should be added to existing Section 107 (f) (2) (c) as a Trustee government entitled to this legal benefit. Thank you for the opportunity to express my viewpoints on these critical pieces of environmental legislation. Sincerely, Dear As a (resident of the Flathead Reservation/ Tribal Member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes), I am writing to express my firm support for Tribal sovereignty on the Flathead Reservation. With the current tribal environmental standards, we have all enjoyed Reservation recreational activities and would like the Tribes to continue protecting and maintaining Reservation resources. I understand that there are several pieces of federal environmental legislation pending which may effectively restrict the Tribes' ability to regulate their ow7t environmental standards on the Flathead Reservation. The pending legislation includes: Reauthorization of the Clean Water Act (S. 1114), the Safe Drinking Water Act (S. 1547) and Superfund or CERCLA (S. 1834). With regard to the Clean Water Act, I support Section 518 in its present form which recognizes Tribal Governments in the " Federal -State partnership" relationship. I am opposed to the proposed provision that allows a State to include Reservation lands in watershed management units. The proposed Clean Water Act legislation also poses a serious threat to already underfunded tribal programs such as sewage treatment plant construction. I encourage you to revise the proposed language to state that "no less than 1 % of the state revolving fund for sewage treatment plant construction be set aside for tribal programs instead of "no more than." This would provide the Tribes more opportunity to construct much needed sewage treatment plants on the Flathead Reservation. With regard to the Safe Drinking Water Act, S.1547, I oppose any attempt to allow States to include "Indian Country" in their defined drinking water supply areas without specific Tribal consent. Tribes should be allowed to designate such areas in Indian Country. Also, the funding process should be refined so that Tribes are not required to complete elaborate and cumbersome "treatment as a state" process simply to apply for these grants. Finally, I am opposed to Section 107(f) (2) (C) of Superfund (CERCLA) S. 1834 which unfairly excludes Tribal Trustees from using the "rebuttal presumption of regularity" in establishing tribal natural resource damage claims. Tribes should be provided the same benefits as Federal and State Trustees to the "rebuttal presumption of regularity" of their damage claims when they choose to follow the Department of Interior damage claim regulations. Please consider these recommendations with the pending legislation. Again, I would like to express my full support for maintaining tribal environmental regulations and tribal management on the Flathead Reservation. Sincerely, ALI ___; I 112th Yehr, No. 246 It 104 Pages In Water Rides Could Cost 2 5` 0 Mffiolill City Facing Expensive Indian; EPA Proposals ` 1 By Rene k1mball JOURNAL. STAFF WRITER Albuquerque, officials now say the city could face a $250 million hill if Itil sewage effluent must meet strict water -quality standards beingg sought by Isleta Pueblo. Gene I.eyendecker, head of the City Wastewater Utility Division, said Tuesday at a news conferebi b called by C1#y Coudcil President Pauline Gubbels that his "guesstimate" of the cost to meet Isleta's ' standards would be In the ballpark of 250 million -- rott rqly tbg�, iquivalemt ot° the rnotiey Albuquerque has invested In Its South Valley sewage -treatment plant. "We'd have to duplicate thl8 Who down here," Leyendecker said later, gesturtng toward the trickling filters And settling ponds outside laid dffice At the be*dr plant. Isleta earlier thla yMr adopted water - quality staridat•di that city bfflciald Bay essentially mdfin the Rld Grande would have to meet federal drinking water stan- dards. In a separate Issue, the U.S. Envtronmen= tat Protection Agency is proposing to lower the litnits ai Aeve'ral tlollutAirtA lit Ilia blty'e effluent. L,eyendecker EsIHAted the cost of neW treatment t'quipment to meet the new EPA limits for AmmonlA chlorine, silver, boron and cyanide tvoula ind the city W million to $106 million. Lyendecker said he didn't make It rle-O' n an Interview eacller t"oio week teat those figures covered only the cost of new treatment plants to mbkt the proposed EPA standards. If the city has to bring effident up to drinking -water quality, eg he Mid Isleta MORE: See WATER on PAGE A4 Water Rtdes Could Cost $250 0 CONTINUED FROM PAGE Al Pueblo Is seeking, the total figure then rises to $250 million. City officials have said Isleta wants the new standards In part because some residents drink river water in ceremonies. Private and community wells sup- ply regular pueblo drinking water. Isleta Pueblo Gov. Alex Lucero and Tribal Co—uncit President Verna Williamson did not return calls to their offices Monday and Tuesday. The federal Clean Water Act allows Indian tribes to be treated as states by the EPA and Betepmtne their own water quality standards. lsleta's proposed standards are being reviewed by the EPA, and city officials believe they will be approved. City officials predict the matter ultimately will be settled to court. In letters to pueblo leaders and their Albuquerque attorney over the past year, city officials have asked for meetings with Isleta to discuss ongoing water -quality stud- ies the city Is doing. L.eyendecker Paid pueblo officials have been unresponsive. One of the city's complaints is that, according to the state Water Quality Control Commission, sources such as sewage treatment plants and industrial plants amount to only 2 percent of the pollution in the Rio Grande. So, even if Albu- querque were to dump only drinking -water quality effluent Into the river, that wouldn't do much to clean up the Rio Grande. The remaining 98 percent of the contamination — such things as silt and heavy metals — comes from widely dispersed sources as storm runoff and activities such as min- ing, Leyendecker said. Cities around the nation are fac- ing tougher sewage cleanup re- quirements under the federal Water Quality Act of 1987, said. David Bary, spokesman for the EPA In Dallas. Albuquerque's discharge permit expired in June 1991, but the city continues to operate its sewage treatment plant on the Itandards contained In that permit, Leyen- deckersald. ' The city has applied for a new five-year permit. EPA has written a draft permit, that includes the the 1-'eter limits for ammonia, boron, silver, chlorine and cyanide. The city expects EPA to hold a public hearing on the proposed permit. Gubbels called the news confer- ence to Introduce the Idea of con- structed wetlands as a' possible answer to the city's effluent predicament. She and Eernalillo County Com- mission Chairman Pat Baca are endorsing a study of artificlat wet- lands to filrther treat sewage before It Is dumped Into the Rio Grande or reinjected Into the aquifer. Gubbels said a constructed wet- lands could be designed as a park or community open space with mar- shes or pondh that also could nrn- ._t3_ 9 1.. - .0 4g� IV t-wiff w . p A a Ap�A A °,Cr c: . rs •gip �, � ��. . �, �. g y� � � ill M R 40 O N F* Y. M FIA o.�SKI:1 I,A11-160 1 A � . cr :off ��ggj c �oO,o Lj 6 f 10