Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />II <br />!I <br />:i <br /> <br />" <br />i <br />. <br /> <br />Western States Water Council <br />Water Quality Committee <br /> <br />Sheridan, Wyoming <br />October 5, 2006 <br /> <br />T AS Del1egation to North Cheyenne Tribe <br /> <br />I actually read through the decision document and for an EP A document, it's very <br />understandable. On the Region 8 website, there is a link that gives the transmittal memo and the <br />decision document, which is 32 pages. It really focuses on mediation and cooperation in the <br />litigation aspect that we are interested in. Ben wanted to make sure you knew. <br /> <br />I don't know legally how much of a role EP A can take because we are part of the litigation <br />process. There's a good quote in the last sentence that EP A is prepared to facilitate such discussions: <br />"EP A encourages an inclusive discussion among all concerned entities in the area to help promote <br />cooperative approaches to implementation of CW A programs. EP A is prepared to help facilitate <br />such discussions, including through formal mediation or similar procedures." <br /> <br />There are a couple of things going on. We've had discussions with the Northern Cheyenne <br />seeking permanent standards because they have tribal adoption standards at this point. Actually, one <br />thing that the State of Montana spoke to concerning this is common agreement on water quality <br />standards. We share a common boundary on the Tongue River, so the Tongue River water quality <br />issues art: really complicated. Our official state position was to oppose T AS on the previous <br />administration, and we were hoping to withdraw and support T AS status in exchange for coming to <br />an agreement over standards. Standard negotiations broke down over a trust issue where there was <br />staff miscommunication. Since then, we've been trying to get those negotiations in T AS back on <br />track. We issued permits on the Tongue River above the reservation and tried this appurtenent <br />challenge. We ended up in court. <br /> <br />Susan Burke: Was Montana arguing originally on the T AS as a state boundary, or state <br />territory? The state was arguing the equal footings doctrine - - that the waters of the river belong to <br />the state and it's up to states to regulate. The tribe argued that it's their reservation. Roger wasn't <br />sure as he was not involved with the standards discussions. <br /> <br />Bob Bukantis: I think that sounds right Susan. I don't think our new governor has taken a <br />much more cooperative position to try to smooth it at the state level. I'm not sure where that is right <br />now. <br /> <br />Bob was asked if the tribal standards were much more stringent than the state's? He <br />responded that in some respects, the state's are more stringent. We have an SAR of three on the <br />Tongue. The tribe does some different things. For example, for tribal purposes they have two SARs <br />at the upper end of the boundary. I'm not sure how you deal with that because it's sort ofa boundary <br />thing. In one sense, the tribe has a more restrictive antidegradation approach. There are a variety of <br />Issues. <br /> <br />Question: How does EP A make a prudent water quality standard when its views this as a <br />shared water body? <br /> <br />13 <br />