3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL REGULATIONS

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
T1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PJ*OCEEDJJ1_GJ	26 3
MR, GUL1CK: Good morning. Trie reason we
started a little late, we were waiting for one of the
speakers to get here. She is not here yet. Eut I am
sure she can speak when she does arrive.
My name is Todd Gulick. I am an attorney with
the Office of General Counsel. The purpose of this
hearing is to discuss a proposed amendment to the under-
ground injection control regulations. The focus of this
hearing is not so much education of the public, but more
to simply elicit response comment on the proposed
regulation.
The comment period is now in process. This is
part of that comment proceedure. Comment period will
close on June seventh. The dockett, which will include
all the comments that we will receive, can be seen in
room 1045 of the East Tower here at this EPA
headquarters.
Transcrips of this hearing will be made and
will be available for review within two weeks at
regional offices and at headquarters.
Again the purpose of this hearing is to
receive public comments on this proposed amendment. All
major comments will be addressed in the final
regulations in the preamble to the final promulgation of

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the amendment, should we decide to go ahead and finally
promulgate.
At this point, I will introduce members of the
panel. At the far end,
Alan Morrissey, an attorney with the Office of
Legal and Enforcement Counsel?
Leigh Price, Indian Coordinator with the
Office of Federal Activities;
Francoise Brasier, Hydro-geologist, Office of
Drinking Water;
My name is Todd Gulick, again, Office of
General Councel;
To my right is Paul Baltay, Acting Director of
the State Programs Division, Office of Drinking Water.
And I will turn it over to Paul for some
opening remarks.
MR. Baltay: Thank you Todd. I guess it is ir.y
job to try to give you a quick explanation of what the
amendment is all about, or at least what we are trying
to accomplish with this amendment.
As you all know#[the Safe Drinking Water Act
requires EPA to establish an underground injection
control program, the purpose of which is to protect
underground sources of drinking water from potential
impairment by underground injection facilities of one

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sort or another.
According to the scheme of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, EPA is to accomplish this by first
promulgating minimum national requirements which are to
serve as a framework for defining effective state
programs to protect underground sources of drinking
water.
Even though the law basically requires minimum
requirements for effective state programs, it is not, in
every case, a state which is intended to administer a
UIC program. There are at least two major incidences
where EPA itself may be administering a UIC program.
First of all, when a state choses not to apply
for primacy under the UIC program, or when a state fails
to win approval for the program it presents to EPA. In
those cases, EPA then must prescribe a UIC program for
that state.
A second major instance is with respect to
Indian lands. Safe Drinking Water Act is explicit in
stating that it does not intend to change the status,
the legal status of Indians in any way. We have
interpreted this traditionally in EPA to mean that
jurisdiction over Indian lands, and I use that term
generically to include all varieties of reservations and
other kinds of legal relationships, the jurisdiction is

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
federal jurisdiction unless the state choses to make a
demonstration and successfully makes a demonstration
that for some reason the state does have adequate
jurisdiction over the Indians in question.
The fact that different agencies, the state or
EPA# were to have administered UIC programs was
originally not envisioned as a problem by us when we
created the minimum national requirements, since at that
time we envisioned that all UIC programs would
essentially stem from the same framework of minimum
requirements.
However, in December of 1980, the Congress
chose to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act by inserting
a new section, 1425. In section 1425, Congress provided
the opportunity to states to make an alternative
demonstration to obtain primacy for the oil and gas
portion of their programs. And rather than make a
demonstration, that a state's program, as far as oil and
gas regulation was concerned, met the requirements of
the minimum national regulations# 1425 provides the
opportunity for states to demonstrate that that program
meets the requirements of the Act directly.
In the way in which we have been reviewing
state applications and virtually all of the oil and gar;
applications to date have come in under the section
1425, we have allowed a greater degree of flexibility in

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the state programs that we have accepted as adequate for
primacy purposes. This is particularly true in
procedural matters, and the manner in which some of the
technical requirements are applied by the state.
This leads to a potential situation where a
state may apply for a primacy within its jurisdiction
within the state for oil and gas, to run one kind of a
UIC program. EPA may directly become responsible for
prescribing and implementing a UIC program on the Indian
land within that state# which may create a situation
where differing UIC requirements are applied on the
state on the one hand and EPA by the other.
I need not point out to you, I think, that in
the Safe Drinking Water Act, oil and gas operations are
accorded a certain special legal status, that EPA is
enjoined by the Act not to interfere with or impede oil
and gas production unless it becomes necessary to
protect underground sources of drinking water.
So, in an attempt to avoid situations where
conflicting or differing procedural and technical
requirements may be applied to operators within a state,
we have proposed this amendment, which is very simply
intended to provide EPA with greater flexibility when
EPA is to prescribe and implement the program on Indian
lands for oil and gas only.

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Wow# I use the term flexibility. I do not
necessarily mean, "Less stringent, or looser". What wg
envision is a process of consulting with the state where
the Indian reservation or land is located, consultations
with the Indians in question to examine their
preferences, with any other interested parties, and with
due regard of course, to the responsibilities of the
administrator under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
And through that process of consultation,
then, with this amendment, we believe EPA would then
have the flexibility to tailor make a program that
would be particularly apt for the circumstances in which
you would have to use that program.
MR. GULICK: Fair enough. Alright we will go
directly into the comments. This hearing is by no means
a formal judicatory hearing. Speakers are simply
requested to come to the front of the room. There is a
chair over there in which you can sit, or stand nearby,
and present your - - - your views.
You can do this by reading from a prepared
text. If you do that, we would ask you, if you have an
extra copy, to give a copy to the reporter, or you can
simply speak extemporaneously. You also have the option
of simply submitting written comments without making an
oral presentation. All comments will be inserted into

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the record, and be considered in responding to comments
and preparing the final promulgation.
Any speaker who comes up, you are not required
to ansv;er any questions, however, sometimes it is
helpful for us if members of the panel car. ask
questions. And I will ask each speaker individually
whether you would be willing to answer questions from
the panel.
Sometimes, there is a time limit. I don't
think we have enough speakers today to have that be a
problem, so there will be no time limit today. Any-
written comments that you have that are not going to be
presented orally, please give to Judy Long here in the
front row.
The speakers who have signed up so far to
speak this morning are, T. A. Ilinton, and Ellen Brown.
Anyone else present is welcome to speak. We would like
you to fill out a registration card if you have not
already done so, and indicate on the card your intention
to speak, if you wish. If you are simply here for
informational purposes/ and do not wish to speak, fill
out a registration card anyway, and we can put you on a
mailing list for notices of any future developments with
these UIC matters.
Without further ado, I will call the first
speaker, T. A. Minton.

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MP.. MINTOrJ: My name is T. A. Mir.tor.. I ar.
from the State of Oklahoma. I am the Class II
Underground Injection Control Director for the- State cf
Oklahoma. I am on the Corporation Commission, and ]
feel a little bit unnecessary today. It didn't turn out
to be a very big hearing, did it?
I hope somebody else out there is interested
in speaking to this subject. It is one that has gotten
to be near and dear to our hearts in Oklahoma, because
we have been involved in a long and friendly wrangle
about who is responsible for the regulation of UIC type
of wells, in Oklahoma.
We attempted to address that in our primacy
application and were partly successful and partly
unsuccessful. We were - - - we regulated those kinds of
wells ir. Oklahoma, the Corporation, the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission has.
I suppose you would have to say we have
regulated them by tradition, because we have regulated
them over the years. But we apparantly do not have
sufficient statutory r.or case law background to give us
full and complete and total regulatory power over those
lands.
We have - - - we know we have permitted sorr
wells on Indian land in Oklahoma. We don't know

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
particularly which ones they are, because we have a lot !
of Indian land in Oklahoma that is subject to question,
I suppose. It is dividea up into some very small
I
I
parcels, as small as two acres, and maybe fifteen,
twenty miles away from another piece of Indian land.
So we co have a little problem in tracking
that. We understand that we are going to have a good
set of maps, which tell us where all of that is in the
very near future from the office in Muskogee, Oklahoma,
by way of Region VI.
Region VI, I might parenthetically say, has
been extremely helpful in our liason with Washington arf j
in our talks with Washington over this, and I do want to
say that Oklahoma has completed, with the help of Region
VI, a memorandum of understanding with the Environmental
Protection Agency, which has not been signed by the
Environmental Protection Agency, but I assume that if
all goes well with this hearing and with the proposed
amendment, then EPA will be able to sign this or a
similar ir.emorandunm of agreement, which would in fact
allow the states or at least allow the State of Oklahoma
to retain regulatory authority over injection wells in
the State of Oklahoma with EPA, what is a good word for
it, with EPA being the final say, or the final sign-ofi
on each application,

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We, of course, forsee having an open dialoaue,
and open access of records with EPA, and EPA with us in
this circumstance, and we do look forward to being able
to get this last, we think fairly small, probler
ironed-out in our permitting process so that all the
wells that we permit will indeed be permitted in a way
that is satisfactory to both EPA and the State of
Oklahoma.
I am not prepared to say a great deal more
than that. This appears to be a hearing without too
much interest in it. I know it an important problem. I
know it is a much more important problem in other states
than it is in Oklahoma. I think, had there not been
other states with Indian lands of greater contiguity,
and more	Indians, I suppose.
Our Indians, in a large measure, don't seem to
be all that interested in being anything but Okies. And
I say with that with only a slight fear of being
corrected by an Oklahoma Indian but I would stand
corrected. We have established - - - not established
good rapport with the Indians - - - we are Indinans. We
are Indians. All of us are in Oklahoma. And we have
worked well throughout the years in doing this sort of
thing. And we hope to continue to. I hope this hasn't
changed anything in the way that we will actually hnnJJe-

-------
1:
v.
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it at the state level except that we do forsee Region VI
signing off on these permits when they get the authority
to do it.
Thank you.
Any questions?
MR. GULICK: Thank you very much.
The next speaker on our list is Ellen Brown.
I understand she has just walked in the door. For your
information we have gone through an introduction
explaining the basic purpose of the proposed amendment
and speakers are invited to give comments. If you have
written comments you can read from them or simply submit
them to the court reporter and/or talk as you wish. If
you are prepared to speak now, you are welcome.
MS. BROWN: My name is Ellen Brown. I am from
the Council of Energy Resource Tribes. The Council of
Energy Resource Tribes, or CERT, is an organization that
was formed by Indian tribes that own energy resources.
The purpose of CERT is to help the tribes manage the
resources for their own benefit. We offer technical and
management assistance to Indian tribes in all phases of
energy development including environmental protection.
The environment is very important to Indian
tribes. The land, the water, and the air make up a
heritage that is a link with their history and it is

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something to be passed on to future
generations.
For the Indian tribes that are developing
energy resources environmental protection is really
critical. Energy production represents a means of
providing revenue for tribal governments# but at the
same time it has potential for environmental impact.
CERT tribes are actively building a capability now to
manage and protect the environment.
Most of the laws under which EPA operates
delegate enforcement responsibility to state governments
but not to tribal governments. Often this is due simply
to an oversite on the part of Congress. EPA, which is
left with enforcement responsibility on reservations,
has made considerable effort to give tribes as much of a
role in its programs as is allowed under existing laws.
EPA's Policy for Program Implementation on American
Indian Reservations ia an excellent demonstration of
EPA's intention to promote opportunities for tribal
governments to play a central role in implementing EPA's
programs.
The proposed regulations for underground
injection in Indian lands are another example. CERT
once again congratulates EPA for proposing that the
first of the factors which the Administration must

-------
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consider in designing a UIC program for Indian lands be
the "interest and preferences of the tribal government."
In CERT's view, this first factor should be
the overriding one in designing the program for Indian
land. in part we feel this way as a matter of
principle. The tribal government speaks for its people
and represents its people and we feel that it should
have authority to determine the kind of program on its
land. While we recogize the desirability of program
consistency between adjoining jusisdictions, program
consistency may have very little meaning if one of the
jurisdictions is controlled by an Indian tribe.
Even if the same company is operating on one
field on both sides of the reservation boundary# the
operations on and off the reservation must be treated
differently by the company. This is true for several
reasons. The first is that all oil and gas operators on
Indian land must comply with a body of federal
regulations in 25 CFR that apply only on Indian land.
The regulations set out standards and procedures for
every phase of the operation.
Second, the operators gain access to Indian
land only by contractual agreement between the operator
and the tribal government. Years ago, most tribes
signed standardized leases with few requirements beyond

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those embodied in federal regs. Now tribes often
negotiate agreements with operators that contain a
myriad of provisions to protect tribal interests
including provisions to ensure environmental protection.
These provisions are not necessarily consistent with
regulations that apply on surrounding lands. They are
enforceable by the Secretary of the Interior and in the
courts.
Finally* tribal governments themselves can
pass laws more stringent or just different from the
regulatory scheme imposed on operators by the federal
government. Again, these laws may differ from those
with which operators must comply on neighboring
non-Indian land.
For these reasons, if EPA were to give
priority to program consistency over the interests and
preferences of the tribal government the result could be
a heavy regulatory burden on operators simply because
the tribe, by contract or by tribal law may impose a
different set of requirements on the operator.
In CERT's view, therefore, the overriding
factor to be considered by the Administrator in
designing a UIC program should be the interests and
preferences of the tribal government.
A second point I would like to make is to urge

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EPA to give tribes the maximum opportunity that is
possible under current law to participate in the UIC
program. Although the Safe Drinking Water Act does not
authorize EPA to delegate enforcement responsibility to
tribal governments, tribes can take on much of the UIC
program through contracts and cooperative agreements.
This would be consistent with the efforts of tribal
governments to build the capability to regulate their
own environment and with EPA's Policy for Program
Implementation on Indian lands. It would help insure
that tribal regulatory programs be within the federal
regulatory framework.
Finally, CERT feels that the Act itself should
be amended to allow tribal governments primary
enforcement responsibility. Only in that way will
Indian tribes be brought fully into the fabric of the
federal program. And only in that way will tribal
governments be recognized fully as the governments
responsible for the protection of their land and people.
In closing, I would like to thank EPA staff in
the Office of Drinking Water and in the Office of
Federal Activities for taking the time to brief CERT's
staff and for their offers to conduct further briefings
for tribal staffs. This is one more example of EPA's
commitment to fill its mandate in a way that is

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consistent with the efforts of tribal governments to
protect the environment. We appreciate it very much.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
MR. GULICK: Questions?
MR. BALTAY: I have several.
MS. BROWN: O.K.
MR. BALTAY: Do you have any information at
all, even in general terms, what is the number of
situations where we can expect some kind of a situation
where a field may cross a reservation boundary and may
set up this potential for differential regulations on
two sides of the same field. Do you have any feel for
that kind of thing?
MS. BROWN: I don't have any numbers on that.
I don't think that is an unusual situation at all. The
fields generally don't follow reservation boundaries.
Yes.
MR. BALTAY: The second area that you raised
that I would sort of like to draw you out on is what - -
how much of a tension can we expect as we establish
these programs between the interests of the Indians or
the interests of the state? Is this an area - - -
MS. BROWN: Would you expect a lot of
conflict? Is that what you mean?
MR. BALTAY: I am asking you whether you can

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
give us an indication of how much we can expect.
MS. BROWN: I would expect very little. In
those cases though where there is a conflict, you know,
I guess our point is that you really should look very
seriously at the tribe's interest because the tribe does
have other ways of - - - of uh, getting its way,
actually, and it is not a good situation and actually
would subvert what you are trying to do if the tribe
were to go around you.
I wouldn't expect it to happen very much
though/ actually. You know, for the most part I would
think both the state and the tribe would have exactly
the same interests. So I would think it would be an
unusual situation.
MR. PRICE: May I ask a related question?
MR. GULICK: O.K.
MR. PRICE: Part of the regulation gives
recognition of a section in the statute that cautions us
not to regulate oil and gas production or underground
injection in a way that would restrict oil and gas
production. And so we wrote in that there is an issue
in there and one of the factors to be considered would
be consistency between jurisdictions, between
regulatory schemes.
So we would consider consistency between the

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tribal program and the state program, the tribal program
and adjoining other tribes, etc. In that sense, would
you expect to find a conflict. I mean we just
discussed whether there would be a conflict between the
tribal concerns and interests and the state.
What is your perception? Would you address
the question of would there be a similar viewpoint, a
differing viewpoint, between the tribe and the oil and
gas operators themselves?
MS. BROWN: I really can't, to tell you the
truth. I really don't know. I mean I wouldn't think,
you know, on the one hand the tribe and the oil and gas
operators have a mutual interest, and that is a
profitable operation. On the other hand, the tribe, the
government of the tribe is responsible for maintaining,
you know, the long term productivity of the land and
protecting the environment. The company is not. So, you
know, that is where the conflict is going to come. I
really couldn't answer that.
MR. PRICE: Thank you.
MR. MORRISEYi I only injected - - - I thought
you had several questions, I just thought related to the
one you just asked. Do you have others? Todd?
MR. GULICK: I had a question. You spoke of
the possibility of administration by Indians, by the

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Indian government. Is this - - is there a capacity now,
is there any sort of administrative hierarchy or
organization set up to do this?
MS. BROWN: Yes, definitely. Every tribe has
a government. It has got a legislative and executive
branch, and it has got a staff. They are - - they vary
a lot. I mean some of them are very small governments.
Some of them are truly embryonic. Others are very
sophisticated. Many of them have agencies. Many tribal
governments have agencies responsible for environmental
protection. And not only does it vary, but it is
changing. Tribal governments are growing.
MR. BALTAY: If I may just follow up though, I
would imagine that the actual permitting of oil and gas
injection wells and their inspection and surveillance
would probably require a fair degree of technical
competence, also a number of people if you have a
sizable number of wells. Would we consistently expect
that kind of resource and that kind of technical
sophistication in most of these instances?
MS. BROWNs In most tribes, in 1982, probably
not.
MR. PRICE: Would you also address CERT's role
in that?
MS. BROWNj Yes. In the - - you know, by the

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
end of this decade, very likely. And certainly there
are a number of - - well especially the oil producing
tribes that do have that capability now. In addition,
the oil producing tribes have access to CERT. And CERT
is mainly a technical assistance organization, so it
definitely has the capability. CERT's role in that
respect is to act as a kind of shared staff of the
tribes. We sort of work on a time sharing. They
request us to work on a specific project. We also have
them set the capability to continue.
MR. MORRISSEY: Are all of the tribes which
have, either oil and gas or other energy resources
members of CERTS, or indeed are there some Indian tribes
who chose not to become members?
MS. BROWN: There are some who are not
members.
MR. MORRISSEY: Would you imagine that we
would encounter circumstances where some of the tribal
governments might put maximization of their revenues
from the oil and gas above their environmental
concerns?
MS, BROWN: The question was would I - -
MR, MORRISSEY: Would you imagine there would
be some - -
MS, BROWN: I could imagine that.

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MORRISSEY: You could or couldn't?
You could imagine that.
MS. BROWN: Yes. I mean - -
MR. MORRISSEY: I am asking that because she
suggested earlier that we - -
MS. BROWN: - - and, you know, the priority of
the tribe varies from tribe to tribe.
MORRISSEY: Yes, I would agree with you, and
your earlier statement was that we should give greatest
emphasis to the tribal government wishes and following
the connections I just suggested to you, it might be
that in some cases those wishes of the tribe might be
not to take the environmental consequences very much
into account.
And our mandate, of course, is perhaps a
little bit different. It may not always be possible to
give exclusive - -
MS. BROWN: My understanding of this
regulation is that you are going to be - - you are given
flexibility in designing programs, but all of the
programs are to meet the same standards. The difference
between programs wouldn't be the amount of protection
afforded to the environment. Isn't that correct?
MR. MORRISSEY: It isn't that they would all
meet the same standards. But that they would all meet a

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
certain minimum standard that would be dictated by the
Safe Drinking Water Act. So, yes, we wouldn't do any
program anywhere that didn't meet the basic federal
minimum standard.
MS, BROWN: Because in our looking at this we
didn't really see this necessarily as a question of,
more or less, a protection to the environment. We saw
this more as different ways of going about it. You
know, we didn't see it as that kind of question.
I mean I suppose it is conceivable that EPA
might be more concerned about the environment than the
tribal government. I dont't think it is likely, but I
think it is certainly conceivable.
MR. PRICE: Well, thank you.
MR. GULICK: Any other questions from the
panel? Thank you very much.
MR. MINTON: Are questions allowed from the
floor?
MR. GULICK: If uh, if she is willing.
MS. BROWN: I am willing.
MR. MINTON: This is not a hostile question.
MS. BROWN: Who are you?
MR. MINTON: In Oklahoma we have a - -
MR. GULICK: Excuse me. Could you introduce
yourself for the speaker's benefit?

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MINTON: T. A. Minton, Director of
Underground Injection Control.
In Oklahoma we have statutory and legal
authority over the five civilized tribes, the so called
five civilized tribes, but we also have, we have
restricted Indian land I guess it is called, of
thirty-one other tribes. These lands, as I indicated
earlier, are spread over the entire State. And they
are comprised of very small, in many cases, very small
parcels, as small as two acres, and your question about
tribal government peaked my, my - - whatever peakes. I
- - for instance we have Modak land in Oklahoma. I have
lived in Oklahoma all my life and I have never met a
Modak Indian. And I don't know whether anybody else
has. But in cases where there are small parcels like
this, you don't visualize dealing with a tribal
government.
MS. BROWN: Is this alloted land?
MR. MINTONs I am not sure what the
terminology is. It is land that belongs to someone
until they die, is my impression, and then it reverts
to, to the tribe and is so given to - - done something
with - - someone else until they die. I don't know the
exact mechanisms of it. But it is a - - reverts to
tribal ownership with - - everytime whoever is running

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it either dies or moves away or whatever happens to
them. We have thirty-one tribes who are represented
with that kind of land . And they are some rather
obscure tribes. I have never heard of the Citizens of
- - either. But that is less obscure in Oklahoma, at
least, in Peoria. Some of those Indian tribes, I don't
believe, have tribal governments, do they?
MS. BROWN: They probably do.
MR. MINTON: They do? But do they have a
representative in Oklahoma?
MS. BROWN: They probably do. I mean in
Oklahoma we represent the Cheyenne, the Arapaho, and
the Cherakee. And they certainly have tribal
governments.
MR. MINTON: The Cherakee may already have
jurisdiction - -
MR» GULICK: I understand there are some
representatives from the Bureau of Indian Affairs here.
If you have any, anything to contribute to that kind of
a question as the fact that many small holdings might
exist and whether a state or EPA might have to deal with
each one, each small ones individually, whether there
might be a single representative, or something along
those lines.
MR. SPIEGEL: There are a large group of

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tribes in Oklahoma that are, have what we call alloted
land. They are tribes that are federally recognized.
And therefore they have sovereignty, have their own
tribal government, and have to be consulted on anything
done on land that is of reservation status.
When it is alloted land, it must be dealt with
with the individual owners at the time. If there is - -
something happens to those owners under the heirship
laws it passes back to the tribe and there again as Mr.
Minton has said, it has to be parceled out to another
member of the tribe as alloted land. Your one big
exception in the State of Oklahoma, and that is the
Osage reservation, which is a very heavily involved
tribe as far as - - reservation land as far as oil and
gas production is concerned. So oil and gas production
at the Osage reservation is conducted entirely by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. A BIA operation. In this
case, anything that is done concerning the Osage
reservation would most likely be best accomplished
through cooperation with BIA.
In addition to any of the problems concerning
tribal relationship in almost all cases where something
of this nature is involved with regard to the trust
responsibility that is in the hands of the Secretary of
the Department of Interior, it must receive approval by

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Secretary before it becomes an accepted method of
utilization.
MR. GULICK: Thank you. Any more questions?
Excuse me?
MR. PRICE; For the stenographer's sake, could
you introduce yourself?
MR. SPIEGEL: I am Sidney J. Spiegel, of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. I am a hydrologist from the
Office of Trust Responsibilities.
MR, GULICK: Mr. Spiegel has indicated on a
registration card that he would like to speak, so if we
are finished with your testimony - - we thank you, and
Mr. Spiegel, if you would like to continue your comments
for our benefit.
MR. SPIEGEL: Mr. Chairman, panel, as I just
stated I am Sidney J. Spiegel, a groundwater hydrologist
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and I have
accompanying me Mr. Frank Khattat, who is an
environmental specialist on our environmental staff.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs welcomes this
opportunity to speak on behalf of the Indian tribes that
are not represented at this meeting, and to convey to to
the Environmental Protection Agency our concern about
implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 on
Indian trust lands.

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Basically, BIA is concerned about the establishment of
sound, effective and workable Class II Underground
Injection Control Program that will meet with the
objectives set forth in the Act. Safety of drinking
water is not primarily the concern of State and local
governments, with the exception of how it applies to
Indian reservations. Tribal and Federal government,
EPA# BIA and Indian Health Service combined must share,
assist, reinforce, and set standards for Indian tribal
lands that are in trust status. By trust status we mean
those that are Indian reservations or alloted lands that
are separate off of a reservation.
The assistance should be in the form of
enabling tribal governments to make their own decision,
whether they want:
(a)	A State sponsored program
(b)	An EPA sponsored program
(c)	A joint EPA-BIA sponsored program
(d)	A program of their own, or in some cases
(e)	No program at all
We must realize that some reservations are
located in more than one state and others cover major
portions of a state. Clearly, no uniform UIC standards
can be established on Indian reservations, nor standards
of neighboring states can be applied uniformly on a

-------
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
single reservation. Tribal socio-cultural patterns and
form of tribal governments on Indian reservations are so
varied, that a program must be designed on a tribe by
tribe basis. Here is where BIA expertise lies, with our
day to day association with the tribal governments that
we work with.
Such a program with assistance and involvement
of BIA would implement a workable and relevent program
on the reservation level, A basic EPA program across
Indian lands, won't work. The presence of two or more
Class II Programs within a state is not inconsistent
with self-determination of the Indian people and won't
be a burden on affected oil and gas operators, so long
as consolidated permit program administering the
procedural aspects of the program remain the same.
Let us establish the substantive standards of
the program on Indian reservations first and then
develop the procedural requirements that would be
carried out to enforce the UIC Class II Program. This
is consistent with self determination and self
government that each tribe is entitled to.
EPA should not further delay or wait for state
determinations to place into effect the rules and
regulations for the Class II Programs on Indian
reservations. EPA should prescribe and implement

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Underground Injection Control programs on Indian
reservations as early at the earliest possible time. It
is recommended that EPA take a flexible approach and
consideration of the pertinent tribal government be
taken into account in designing an appropriate Class II
UIC program for a particular Indian reservation or for
allotted Indian lands that are in trust status. In
general, the rules and regulations for a particular
block of Indian land should parellel the Class II
regulations of the state in which they are located with
such modifications as are acceptable to the tribal
government of the reservation. In the case of
individual reservations being located in more than one
state, a single set of regulations should be prescribed
to cover the Class II programs of that reservation.
It is imperative that the Class II program be
implemented on Indian reservations in compliance with
the Safe Drinking Water Act mandates.
In the event that EPA cannot provide the
manpower to implement the Class II program the minimum
effort should be toward the designing of the program,
the funding of the program and delegation of the
authority for monitoring and enforcement of the program.
As stated in the GAO report of September 10,
1980, on the Navajo Indian Safe Drinking Water Program

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the EPA needs to follow the same good management
practices that it imposes on states assuming primacy.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs agrees with GAO on the
need for formal plans for the implementation of the Safe
Drinking Water Program and the rules and regulation of
the UIC CLASS II waters should be no exception.
Thank you. Are there any questions?
MR. GULICK: Are there any questions from the
panel?
MR. MORRISSEY: If I might. You emphasized a
number of times that you feel that we should get a Class
II Program for the various Indian lands as soon as
possible. Is that just Class II that you are - - or is
that only because that is what this hearing is about or
do you feel that all of the UIC Classes should be
implemented as soon as possible on the - -
MR. SPIEGEL: I think all of the Safe Drinking
Drinking Water mandates with regard to Indian
reservations should be implemented at the earliest
possible date.
MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you.
MR. GULICK: Any other questions? Let me ask
a question. At the same time though, you recognize
there might be a problem if a state program does not
already exist in the state, but we anticipate that it

-------
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will be coming in. Should EPA hurry to promulgate a
program on the Indian lands there might be some
difficulty in coordinating with the state program yet to
come in. You would support, I take it, from the latter
part of your statement, as much cooperation with the
state in which the Indian lands lie, as possible. Is
that correct?
MR. SPIEGEL: That is correct. The program
that is on the reservation should parallel somewhat
whatever the state regulations will be that will be
approved by EPA. There is no question about - - EPA is
going to have to approve a minimal basic program,
whether the state conducts it or EPA conducts it on
their behalf. I think that little time should be lost
in implementing that type of minimum program on the
Indian reservations for protection of drinking water
from underground sources, at the earliest possible date.
MR. BALTAY: May I follow up on that question?
Earlier in your testimony I thought I understood you to
recommend that in the case of an Indian land which
stretched across two or more states, there should be a
single program for that Indian land. Now you seem to be
suggesting that we do have to have some regard for the
state regulations also. How would you recommend that we
balance what seem to be conflicting?

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
l
MR. SPIEGEL: Well, ve have one fir.e example
of that. It is the permanent one which is on the Navaho
reservation, which covers New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah,
And there is oil and gas development in the four corners
area of that reservation going on all the time. Some
happy medium is going to have to be reached as to what
the regulations are for that particular reservation. It
will have to combine the various acceptable control
programs of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. And it will
have to be acceptable to the Navaho tribe's tribal
council,
MR. GULICK: Do you anticipate that the Bureau
of Indian Affairs would be providing any, or would wish
to provide any administration for any of these UIC
programs on Indian lands?
MR. SPIEGEL: It could very well honor a
memorandum agreement of - - or some sort of
understanding between EPA and BIA.
MR. MORRISSEY: Do you have any indication of
whether or not the tribal councils might prefer to have
your agency as their administrative arm as opposed to
the state agency as their administrative arm, regulating
the wells on their lands?
MR. SPIEGEl; I off hand don't know of any
states - - or of any tribes that have invited the states

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in to conduct this kind of a program on the
reservations. They prefer to have BIA do it for them.
MR. MORRISSEY: They would prefer to have BIA
to do it rather than to have the state agency do it ?
MR. SPIEGEL: As a general rule. I think this
would be almost the general of what their opinions would
be on how a program would be conducted on the
reservation.
MR. MORRISSEY: And perhaps some of the larger
tribes might wish to conduct their own administration.
MR. SPIEGEL: That is correct. Some of the
tribes are setting up to the point where they could take
over the program on a, what we call a 6 38 program#
self-determination act, and they can contract with BIA
to do that on behalf of the BIA or EPA under the same
circumstances.
MR. GULICK: In any event, all this that we
are speaking of is dependant or. the flexibility that
would be inherent in the proposed ammendment, and I take
it you are in favor of the ammendment as proposed?
MR. SPIEGEL: Yes, I am very much in favor of
it.
MR. GULICK: Any further questions? Thank you
very much Mr. Spiegel.
That concludes the speakers that I have before

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
me as wishing to speak. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak today?
In that case, I think we can consider this
hearing closed. As I said, transcripts of this hearing
should be available within about two weeks, either from
headquarters, contact the Office of Drinking Water, Judy
Long, or from the regional offices.
Thank you very much.
(Whereupon, at 10:02 a.m. on Wednesday, June
2, 1982 the hearing adjourned. )

-------
I
2
.1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AUTHENTICATI ON
This is to certify that the attached proceedings
before the U. S. Environmental Protection Agpnry	,
in the matter of: Public Hearing - Proposed Amendment to
the Underground Injection Control Regulations
Date: June 2, 1982		,
Docket Numbef:	
Place: Washington D. C.	
was held as herein appears, and that this is the original
transcript thereof for the files of the Agency	.
Barbara J. Becker
Free State Reporting, Inc.

-------