Fracking in Indian Country: The Federal Trust Relationship, Tribal Sovereignty, and the Beneficial Use of Produced Water

IF 1.2 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Yale Journal on Regulation Pub Date : 2014-07-15 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2364376
Heather Whitney-Williams, H. M. Hoffmann
{"title":"Fracking in Indian Country: The Federal Trust Relationship, Tribal Sovereignty, and the Beneficial Use of Produced Water","authors":"Heather Whitney-Williams, H. M. Hoffmann","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2364376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article focuses on wastewater discharges generated by hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as “produced water,” onto Native American lands. Produced water discharges are a hazardous byproduct of hydraulic fracturing operations, and current federal laws do not require operators to disclose all contents of produced water, or any associated health and safety risks. This Article will explore the legal landscape that evolved to allow produced water discharges in Indian Country, using the Wind River Reservation’s history to explain how such a system develops. That system, today, includes a statutory and regulatory framework under two major environmental laws. First, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ordinarily prohibits toxic waste discharges, but EPA’s regulations define compounds contained in produced water as a “special waste,” exempting them from the permitting requirements of the statute. Furthermore, despite their sovereign status, because Congress did not delegate regulatory authority under RCRA to tribes, courts have held that they therefore lack authority under RCRA to impose permitting standards of their own. Second, the Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits water-based discharges of toxics contained in produced water, but EPA’s regulations allow produced water to be used “in agricultural and wildlife propagation” west of the 98th meridian, including in Indian Country. Theoretically, Congress has delegated authority to tribes to regulate water-based discharges under the Clean Water Act, but has imposed a series of standards that are financially burdensome and difficult for many tribes to meet, leaving many tribes, such as the Wind River tribes, unable to regulate because they lack this special status. Together, these statutory and regulatory exemptions under RCRA and the CWA form a “livestock loophole,” allowing untreated produced water disposal in Indian Country. In Part I, this Article describes the fracking process, how produced water is generated, and the toxins known to occur in produced water discharges. Part II will discuss the legal components of the livestock loophole, from RCRA, the CWA, and the regulations under each statute that allow produced water discharges on native lands and in native waters. Part III discusses the Wind River Tribes’ history, including various treaty negotiations with the federal government and the concurrent development of the federal trust responsibility to these tribes. Part IV will discuss the Federal Trust Doctrine and relevant provisions of RCRA and the CWA, as well as trade secrets laws, which serve to undermine the effective implementation of both statutes. Part V will discuss necessary changes to the RCRA and CWA regulatory structures to eliminate the livestock loophole and curb unregulated produced water discharges. Part VI concludes by encouraging federal officials at EPA to implement the suggestions from Part V to improve water quality, human health, the health of wildlife and domestic livestock throughout Indian Country.","PeriodicalId":46196,"journal":{"name":"Yale Journal on Regulation","volume":"32 1","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale Journal on Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2364376","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This Article focuses on wastewater discharges generated by hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as “produced water,” onto Native American lands. Produced water discharges are a hazardous byproduct of hydraulic fracturing operations, and current federal laws do not require operators to disclose all contents of produced water, or any associated health and safety risks. This Article will explore the legal landscape that evolved to allow produced water discharges in Indian Country, using the Wind River Reservation’s history to explain how such a system develops. That system, today, includes a statutory and regulatory framework under two major environmental laws. First, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ordinarily prohibits toxic waste discharges, but EPA’s regulations define compounds contained in produced water as a “special waste,” exempting them from the permitting requirements of the statute. Furthermore, despite their sovereign status, because Congress did not delegate regulatory authority under RCRA to tribes, courts have held that they therefore lack authority under RCRA to impose permitting standards of their own. Second, the Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits water-based discharges of toxics contained in produced water, but EPA’s regulations allow produced water to be used “in agricultural and wildlife propagation” west of the 98th meridian, including in Indian Country. Theoretically, Congress has delegated authority to tribes to regulate water-based discharges under the Clean Water Act, but has imposed a series of standards that are financially burdensome and difficult for many tribes to meet, leaving many tribes, such as the Wind River tribes, unable to regulate because they lack this special status. Together, these statutory and regulatory exemptions under RCRA and the CWA form a “livestock loophole,” allowing untreated produced water disposal in Indian Country. In Part I, this Article describes the fracking process, how produced water is generated, and the toxins known to occur in produced water discharges. Part II will discuss the legal components of the livestock loophole, from RCRA, the CWA, and the regulations under each statute that allow produced water discharges on native lands and in native waters. Part III discusses the Wind River Tribes’ history, including various treaty negotiations with the federal government and the concurrent development of the federal trust responsibility to these tribes. Part IV will discuss the Federal Trust Doctrine and relevant provisions of RCRA and the CWA, as well as trade secrets laws, which serve to undermine the effective implementation of both statutes. Part V will discuss necessary changes to the RCRA and CWA regulatory structures to eliminate the livestock loophole and curb unregulated produced water discharges. Part VI concludes by encouraging federal officials at EPA to implement the suggestions from Part V to improve water quality, human health, the health of wildlife and domestic livestock throughout Indian Country.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
印第安国家的水力压裂:联邦信托关系、部落主权和采出水的有益利用
本文关注的是水力压裂产生的废水,也被称为“采出水”,排放到美洲原住民的土地上。采出水排放是水力压裂作业的危险副产品,目前的联邦法律并未要求作业者披露采出水的所有成分,或任何相关的健康和安全风险。本文将探讨在印度发展到允许采出水排放的法律环境,使用风河保护区的历史来解释这样一个系统是如何发展的。今天,这一体系包括两个主要环境法下的法定和监管框架。首先,《资源保护和回收法》(RCRA)通常禁止有毒废物的排放,但EPA的规定将产出水中含有的化合物定义为“特殊废物”,使其免于法规的许可要求。此外,尽管他们拥有主权地位,但由于国会没有根据RCRA将监管权力授权给部落,法院认为他们因此缺乏根据RCRA实施自己的许可标准的权力。其次,《清洁水法》(CWA)禁止以水为基础排放采出水中含有的有毒物质,但EPA的规定允许采出水用于“农业和野生动物繁殖”,包括在第98子午线以西,包括在印度。从理论上讲,国会已经授权部落根据《清洁水法》管理基于水的排放,但却强加了一系列的标准,这些标准对许多部落来说是财政负担和难以达到的,导致许多部落,如风河部落,无法监管,因为他们缺乏这种特殊地位。RCRA和CWA规定的这些法律和监管豁免共同构成了一个“牲畜漏洞”,允许在印度境内处理未经处理的采出水。在第一部分中,本文描述了水力压裂过程、采出水是如何产生的,以及采出水中已知的毒素。第二部分将讨论牲畜漏洞的法律组成部分,从RCRA, CWA,以及每项法规下允许在本土土地和本土水域排放采出水的规定。第三部分讨论了风河部落的历史,包括与联邦政府的各种条约谈判以及联邦对这些部落的信托责任的同步发展。第四部分将讨论联邦托拉斯原则、RCRA和CWA的相关规定以及商业秘密法,这些都有助于破坏这两个法规的有效实施。第五部分将讨论对RCRA和CWA监管结构进行必要的修改,以消除牲畜漏洞并遏制不受监管的采出水排放。第六部分的结论是,鼓励环境保护局的联邦官员执行第五部分的建议,以改善整个印第安国家的水质、人类健康、野生动物和家畜的健康。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
3.60%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
FOIA’s Common Law Empiricism and Privacy Policies in the Restatement of Consumer Contract Law New Tech v. New Deal: Fintech as a Systemic Phenomenon Presidential Administration in a Regime of Separated Powers: An Analysis of Recent American Experience Eliminating Conflicts of Interests in Banks: The Significance of the Volcker Rule
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1