Tribal Consultation Meeting

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
Ground Water and Drinking Water
Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada

February 24-25, 1999

Since 1996, EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) has held stakeholder meetings to help refocus priorities in the drinking water program and improve relationships between EPA, states, tribes, local governments, and the public. On February 24-25, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA) and OGWDW convened a tribal consultation meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada to discuss ways to involve tribal representatives, both tribal council members and tribal water utility operators, in the stakeholder process. Approximately twenty-five representatives of a diverse group of tribes attended the two-day meeting. The tribal representatives led and joined in discussions of issues ranging from future regulations to source water assessment and consumer confidence reports. The major meeting objectives were to:

1. Identify key issues of concern to tribal representatives;

2. Solicit input on issues concerning current OGWDW regulatory efforts;

• Solicit input and information that should be included in support of future drinking water regulations; and
• Provide an effective format for tribal involvement in EPA's regulatory development process.

The meeting consisted of a morning session during which OGWDW and ITCA staff presented an outline of EPA's responsibilities in implementing SDWA, including: identifying drinking water problems1, establishing priorities, creating a framework for analysis and action, issuing standards and guidance, and providing information regarding training, technical, and financial assistance. The afternoon session consisted of presentations covering the contaminant candidate list (CCL), the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule, the national contaminant occurrence data base, the radionuclides notice of data availability, the arsenic rule, and the impact these rules may have on tribal water systems (TWS). Presenters also discussed radon, and it's special issues arising from the SDWA, on the first day.

The second day of the meeting consisted of an overview of the microbial and disinfection by-product regulations, surface water treatment rules, and the ground water rule in the morning. The afternoon session covered the State Revolving Fund Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal Set-Aside (DWIG TSA) the new consumer confidence reports, and the new tribal operator certification program in development. The last session involved discussion of source water protection and grants available to tribes to perform source water assessments.

After each presentation, participants were given time for questions and discussion. The discussions at the end of each session produced many important insights and suggestions for OGWDW to consider in its efforts to involve tribal communities and their representatives in the regulatory process. These suggestions are listed below by general category:

Assessment of Costs, Benefits, and Affordability of Drinking Water Regulations: Tribal representatives recommended that EPA continue to assess the costs, benefits, and affordability of drinking water regulations in addition to the social and healthcare costs of not regulating certain contaminants. The tribal representatives emphasized that the tribes must, due to economic circumstances, depend on the federal government to pay for much of their drinking water services. Tribes do not have access to state and local taxes and spend very little on drinking water because they have many competing financial issues such as education and health care.

Tribal representatives told EPA that there is a great diversity among tribes, tribal water systems (TWS's) and standards of living from one reservation to another and that it was important for EPA to consider this diversity in defining regulations. Participants were especially concerned that EPA not use national averages to determine cost affordability in regard to tribes because tribal incomes are generally well below the national average.

While there is considerable support for multimedia programs for radon in air, tribes probably will not have enough money. Several tribal representatives also asked EPA to assist tribes in identifying the origins of drinking water source pollution and help tribes in the recovery of the costs associated with treatment from the responsible parties.

State Revolving Funds/Needs Assessments: In regard to the SRF Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal Set-Aside, the tribal representatives consider the 1½ % percent of tribal set-aside grants available inadequate to meet current needs, much less fund new requirements. They think the 1½ % is too small, and attribute the low percentage to OGWDW's inaccurate data regarding TWS's. The tribal representatives would like to see the percentage increased and said EPA must improve the accuracy of needs information and TWS inventory. In general, there was concern with the accuracy of needs portrayed by the Indian Health Service's Sanitation Deficiency System and the methodology used for EPA Drinking Water Needs Survey. They recommended EPA do it's own drinking water information survey or work closer with Indian Health Service (IHS) to improve the Sanitation Deficiency System.

Communication, Comprehension and Education: The tribal representatives urged EPA to improve their data and knowledge regarding tribal water systems. They believe that better comprehension of tribal system needs is the key to receiving more drinking water funds. The tribal representatives were confused regarding the definition of Tribal Water System, specifically non-tribal owned systems which served only Indian populations. They understood these systems to not be classified as TWS's and not eligible for SRF monies. EPA explained there is variation in what is considered a TWS for different programs purposes and that any system serving a tribal population is eligible for DWIG TSA grants. The guidelines for the DWIG TSA were provided for further details on grant eligibility. The representatives believe that once EPA has accurate information, the importance of increasing the tribal set-aside, and other forms of financial assistance, will be clear.

The representatives also expressed frustration with communicating with EPA. They pointed out inconsistences in what the regions tell headquarters about tribal projects and what is actually being done at the system level. Sometimes a regional program may appear successful to headquarters when the tribe feels it is not.

In addition, information regarding Agency regulations is not getting to the right people at the tribal level. OGWDW and EPA's American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) need to improve their lists of contacts so tribes have more opportunity to participate in drinking water programs and the regulatory process. It was also pointed out by the tribal representatives that tribes have to put forth more effort in providing updated contact lists to EPA.

They also recommended that OGWDW, and EPA in general, should provide education to tribal people concerning regulatory activities and contaminant risks through established tribal communication networks. The tribal representatives emphasized strongly that public education is crucial and urgently needed. Tribal people need to be educated about the Consumer Confidence Report, point-of-use and point-of-entry devices, and even education regarding the need for water treatment in general. They also stressed the importance of using formats and language that are culturally sensitive to tribal people.

Source Water Protection: Tribal representatives appreciate the source water protection programs but told that EPA funding alone would not increase the performance of source water assessments; they lack time and staff to even apply for assistance. TWS operators typically have broad responsibilities beyond the drinking water system. Since the resources and time of TWS operators are already spread thin, worthwhile projects, such as source water protection, may go uncompleted.

Operator Certification: Input was also provided regarding the Operator Certification program that is in the planning stage at EPA. It was recommended that EPA consider that there may be only one operator for several different TWS's currently, and they do not wish to have more undue burden. The tribal representatives also suggested that EPA use flexible language in the operator certification program and allow for time to find new operators if one resigns. They said this is very important since the certified operator requirement will be tied to grant monies.

Level of Protection/Health Concerns. Tribal representatives urged EPA to not exempt tribes from requirements. Rather, it was seen as essential for the Agency to dedicate adequate resources to ensure equal health protection was available for customers of tribal water systems. Tribal representatives emphasized that high incidence of chronic illnesses of Native American populations suggest they are candidates for treatment as sensitive subpopulations under SDWA. The disproportionate exposure to other sources of pollution and problems arising from dietary deficiencies also support special consideration. The representatives supported standards that were protective of all vulnerable populations.

Drinking Water Regulations and Setting Standards: Tribal representatives viewed the radon alternative maximum contaminant level (AMCL) as posing significant tribal concerns. The tribes are concerned about where funding will come from to mitigate homes. These representatives felt that the multi-media mitigation (MMM) program may not be a realistic option unless grant monies can be diverted to this activity. Tribal representatives had questions regarding how many homes would have to be tested for radon in air and for how long after implementing a MMM program. They also asked that EPA ensure that decisions regarding MMM consider differential standards across TWS's and tribal communities. They requested more guidance on what are reasonable multi-media approaches. Some representatives said it may be easier to explain to their customers, and more practical for the system, to remove the radon in the water down to the established MCL.

Microbial Contaminants and Disinfection Byproducts: Participants stressed their interest in learning more about the M/DBP, Filter Backwash, and Ground Water Rules and how they may affect their systems. Because many tribes have ground water systems, participants expressed concerns about the Ground Water Rule which is currently being developed. Specifically, they had concerns about how the primacy agent would determine significant deficiencies identified in a sanitary survey and how the sensitivity assessment would be conducted.

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR): In regard to the UCMR Rule, tribal representatives recommended that EPA conduct a pre-survey of water systems, especially tribal, to guarantee that the limited sampling was focused on systems likely to have contamination.

Consumer Confidence Report (CCR): As far as the CCR requirements were concerned, tribes approved of the treatment as a state (TAS) approach adopted in the CCR. The tribes recommended that the determination of TAS for the PWSS program be kept. Tribes explained that they need more time to comply with regulations. This additional time is needed because tribes serve dual roles, as both regulated entity and regulator, because they perform some state functions.

Next Steps. A report of the consultation along with materials explaining the various regulations and programs will be disseminated through the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC). If you have questions concerning OGWDW efforts to involve tribal people in the drinking water regulatory development process, please contact Corry Westbrook (202) 260-3228; or westbrook.corry@epamail.epa.gov.

Safewater Home | About Our Office | Publications | Links | Office of Water | En Español | Questions and Answers

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us