EPA gives Wyoming town to Indians

[oldno7]

How does the EPA have any power in this case?



http://governor.wy.gov/media/pressRe...onHoldand.aspx


[COLOR=#000000][FONT=times new roman]CHEYENNE, Wyo.

[ratagonia]

Hmmm. Interesting case. A more balanced view:

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/scienc...ng-5118789.php


Just like in Utah, the Governor's office is a political institution, not an expert in the law.

"Mark Howell, lobbyist for the Northern Arapaho, on Monday forwarded comments from O'Neal and two other members of the Northern Arapaho Business Council blasting the state's petition to the EPA.

"The petition is full of inaccurate statements," O'Neal stated. "The state's petition completely ignores the doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction. It's totally inaccurate to suggest that restaurant food will become unsafe or that people in jail will go free...."

Business Council Co-Chairman Ronald Oldman said the state's petition "makes you wonder if there is anyone in state government who actually understands these issues, and is willing to have an honest discussion."

Councilman Dean Goggles said the council is disappointed with the state's petition to the EPA.
"We have made every effort to cooperate with the state," Goggles said. "Instead of cooperating, the state is resorting to scare tactics. The citizens of the state deserve better. This isn't the 1800s." "

Tom

[oldno7]

Thats all fine, Tom.

I quoted off the Governors Page for legitimacy, is all.

But, answer my question---How does the EPA go about giving away something that had congressional approval, at one time. Congress set Reservation Boundaries in this case, if I'm not mistaken.

Still studying though.......

[Scott P]

But, answer my question---How does the EPA go about giving away something that had congressional approval, at one time. Congress set Reservation Boundaries in this case, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't understand every aspect, but from reading through what I can find, it appears that the EPA isn't giving away any land. It sounds like from a regulatory standpoint they are treating the land with a different status as they would Wyoming State, private, or federal land. Is this correct?

It appears that the indians applied for the land around Riverton to be treated as a different state as far as the clean air act goes.

Regardless of the EPA, all maps show all lands around Riverton as being part of the reservation.

The town of Riverton Website itself has a bunch of Indian feathers on it.

http://www.rivertonwy.gov/

Here is a map of the town itself showing reservation lands vs other lands.



Are they talking of the same lands marked as reservation land, or different land?

-How does the EPA go about giving away something that had congressional approval, at one time.

Couldn't it be turned around to say how congress can give away land who was owned by people living there for hundreds of years? Tough issues for sure and in the past. It is true that it isn't the 1800's and a whole other topic.

[Bootboy]

Sorry, I gave the articles little more than a cursory glance, but could this be a move to block resource development? I.e. Oil and gas?

I guess I'm trying to see something deeper here.

[ratagonia]

I don't understand every aspect, but from reading through what I can find, it appears that the EPA isn't giving away any land. It sounds like from a regulatory standpoint they are treating the land with a different status as they would Wyoming State, private, or federal land. Is this correct?

I think Scott nailed it pretty good. You a lawyer or something?

Tom

[Scott P]

but could this be a move to block resource development? I.e. Oil and gas?

I guess I'm trying to see something deeper here.

You mean blocked from the EPA or blocked from Wyoming state?

Because I have written several environmental applications/permits et al while working for the State on highway projects, I have a good guess about what might be going on here. I don't know for sure, but I've seen this type of thing before.

Unfortunately, my knowledge and experience is related to water pollution rather than the the Clean Air Act.

Keep in mind that this is only my speculation of what might be the problem and not fact.

An example:

When I worked for the highway department, I had to write specifications to mitigate water pollution from highway projects and I actually had to inspect those projects as well. Agricultural land has a higher threshold of allowable pollution than does a highway project. Contractors are quick to point out questions such as "why is that farmer over there letting runoff into the waterway while we are not allowed to?" The answer is something like "good question, but it's because it is the law". Then there is the usual grumbling, comments about #$%6 bureaucracy, etc, and then more or less everyone gets along.

There are situations where it gets messy though. What if the runoff is coming from the agricultural land and on to the highway project? Things can get ugly. Because farms and other agricultural lands have a higher threshold of allowable pollution, they usually aren't breaking the law. Once the same pollution drains onto on a highway construction project though, guess who's pollution that it is and who is responsible for mitigating it? Hint: It's not the farmer. Can you see where things get ugly?

If you ever drive by a rural construction project and there is a farm field located uphill of the construction site, take a peek to see if there is a silt fence or row of erosion logs at the perimeter of the construction site. This is to keep the runoff away.

These water pollution laws were written with good intent, but there are quirks, loopholes, and problems. It's hard to juggle them.

Anyway, going back the WY vs the reservation dilemma, I do not know all the laws concerning air pollution (I dealt mostly with water). If air pollution laws act in the same manner as water pollution laws, I can see the conflict. If the Reservation is held to a different standard as other lands, technically they could legally pollute and if the air pollution left the reservation (as it inevitably would) it would be possible that the state of Wyoming could be accountable if the pollution thresholds were exceeded.

If this is the case, I can see why the state of Wyoming would be pissed off. I don't know the legality behind it all though.

I just know that as an inspector I could only state was the law was even if I felt bad at times about doing so.

Once again this is only one plausible guess as to what may or may not be going on. I actually don't know the details.