EPA and conservation groups challenge Wyoming’s “impaired” water sample limits

Body

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and conservation groups are pressing Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality to change a proposed approach for deciding when rivers and streams do not meet Clean Water Act water-quality standards. The dispute centers on who may collect and submit water samples that the state uses to determine whether a waterbody is “impaired.”

In a draft document titled “Methods for Determining Attainment of Surface Water Quality Standards: Basis and Overall Approach,” Wyoming outlined procedures for assessing whether surface waters attain applicable standards. But the most contested language concerns eligibility for the underlying data: the draft says that “Data used to make use support determinations must be collected by a person employed by, or under contract with, a governmental entity.”

EPA’s Region 8 office challenged that restriction in an April 24 letter to DEQ that was acquired by WyoFile through a Wyoming Public Records Act request. EPA Region 8 Water Division Acting Director Sarah Bahrman wrote that when developing a Clean Water Act-required list of impaired waters, “each State shall assemble and evaluate all existing and readily available water quality-related data and information.” Bahrman urged DEQ to address what EPA described as a discrepancy between the state’s sampling limitation and the federal requirement.

Conservation groups echoed the concern. Wyoming Outdoor Council staffer Lindsey Washkoviak told DEQ in a comment that the methods “unnecessarily restrict” credible data sources and contradict the Clean Water Act, agency rules and state statutes. Washkoviak also said that parties that meet DEQ’s “rigorous quality assurance requirements” routinely collect samples and that those data sources can include the University of Wyoming, non-governmental organizations, private consultants, and trained citizen scientists.

Greater Yellowstone Coalition member Kurt Colhoff similarly argued that restrictive “source-based language” about eligible data providers “has no place in this document and should be removed,” adding that Wyoming’s “small population base and large land area” should lead the agency to seek ways to monitor and assess water quality rather than limit who can contribute data. Colhoff pointed to what he described as a small impaired-waters list and “enormous swaths” of streams that have not been assessed.

Other groups focused their comments on Wyoming’s shift over time in how nongovernmental data is treated. In a joint comment letter, American Rivers, Protect Our Water Jackson Hole and the Powder River Basin Resource Council said Wyoming’s former requirements were “source-neutral” and “quality-based,” and that the state accepted data from tribes, universities and watershed groups for impairment decisions. They said that starting in 2020, nongovernmental data was moved to a “secondary role,” and said no Wyoming statute requires that change.

The groups linked the eligibility restriction to a prior controversy between Wyoming and the Western Watersheds Project, which involved data submitted by a former employee, Jonathan Ratner, that state regulators had found “non credible.” In the current debate, Wyoming officials also pointed to the alleged unreliability of Western Watersheds Project samples as part of the rationale for narrowing who may contribute data for “impairment” decisions, according to comments reported by WyoFile.

Wyoming DEQ Watershed Project Manager David Waterstreet said the state is restricting eligibility to ensure it reaches correct conclusions, telling WyoFile, “We are ensuring that we are making the right conclusions every time.” Ron Steg, DEQ’s Lander Office Manager, said the restrictions have not curtailed the waters included on Wyoming’s impaired waters report, saying, “I’ve been with the program since 2017,” and “I don’t recall seeing any data that would bump up against this requirement.”

Waterstreet and Steg said DEQ would have to respond through its process to the comments claiming the state’s data restrictions conflict with federal regulations implementing the Clean Water Act. Steg said the agency’s broader update to its methods aims to make the assessment process transparent, adding, “We want to make sure that our assessment procedure is transparent,” and describing the goal as giving the public a clear, usable explanation of what data is needed and how it should be collected to determine whether a use is supported.

Even groups critical of the eligibility limits said the overall update to the methods was a step toward meeting statutory responsibilities. Washkoviak wrote that “Overall, we see these updated methods as a positive step forward for the DEQ,” and said the agency should continue moving them forward to meet its responsibilities under the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act and the Clean Water Act.