Federal environmental regulators and water quality advocates want the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality to rectify a policy restricting who can submit water samples used to decide whether waters are too polluted and below Clean Water Act standards.
Currently, Wyoming only accepts water samples collected by the state and federal government and their subdivisions when it’s directly making “impaired” water determinations — that’s been the case since 2020, according to state officials who in March proposed to continue that policy.
The revision is part of a DEQ document titled: “Methods for Determining Attainment of Surface Water Quality Standards: Basis and Overall Approach.”
That wordy proposal triggered a number of concerned parties to speak up.
Among them, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In an April 24 letter to the DEQ, acquired by WyoFile through a Wyoming Public Records Act request, the federal agency’s regional office in Denver quoted language from its regulations implementing the cornerstone water-protection law.
When developing a Clean Water Act-required list of impaired and polluted waters, “each State shall assemble and evaluate all existing and readily available water quality-related data and information,” EPA Region 8 Water Division Acting Director Sarah Bahrman wrote to DEQ.
Wyoming’s policy, meanwhile, states that: “Data used to make use support determinations must be collected by a person employed by, or under contract with, a governmental entity.”
Bahrman urged DEQ to address the discrepancy. Wyoming’s method should consider federal regulations requiring states to use “existing and readily available data and information,” she wrote.
If DEQ chooses to exclude data, EPA’s guidance was also to provide a summary explaining why, including a “technical, science-based rationale.”
A handful of conservation groups echoed the concern included in the EPA’s comment letter.
Wyoming Outdoor Council staffer Lindsey Washkoviak wrote to the DEQ that its methods “unnecessarily restrict” credible data sources and contradict the Clean Water Act, agency rules and state statutes. She called the policy “fiscally irresponsible” and recommended that the agency strike the restrictive language.
Washkoviak also pointed out that parties that meet DEQ’s “rigorous quality assurance requirements” routinely collect water samples, including parties “that may have more rigorous training and qualifications than governmental entities.”
“These include the University of Wyoming researchers and their students, non-governmental organizations, private consultants, and trained citizen scientists,” she wrote.
Kurt Colhoff, with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, told the DEQ in a comment letter that the “restrictive, source-based language” about eligible data providers “has no place in this document and should be removed.”
“The state of Wyoming, with its small population base and large land area, should be seeking out ways in which to increase DEQ’s ability to monitor and assess water quality rather than limiting it,” Colhoff wrote. “A cursory review of Wyoming’s [impaired water list] illustrates this point.”
Wyoming has one of the smallest lists of impaired water bodies in the nation, he wrote, and “enormous swaths” of streams that have not been assessed.
In a joint comment letter, American Rivers, Protect Our Water Jackson Hole and the Powder River Basin Resource Council seized on the same issue.
The groups wrote that Wyoming’s former requirements were “source-neutral” and “quality-based” and that the state accepted data from tribes, universities and watershed groups for its impairment decisions. Starting in 2020, the nongovernmental data was relegated to a “secondary role.”
“Nothing in Wyoming statute requires this shift,” American Rivers staffer Justin Hayes wrote, adding that it “excludes otherwise scientifically valid data solely because of who collected it and thereby narrows the scope of usable data beyond what Wyoming law authorizes.”
Changes to the eligibility requirements for submitting water samples for “impairment” decisions follow a decade-old dustup between state regulators and the grazing-focused Western Watersheds Project. Data submitted by the group’s former employee, Jonathan Ratner, were deemed “non credible,” and E. coli-related impairments for three small western Wyoming streams were nullified.
In 2025, Wyoming DEQ proposed to again delist one of those streams, Lander Creek, after state regulators found that E. coli was still a problem — they argued that it was too small for swimming, and thus didn’t require a human health-related impairment.
The alleged unreliability of the Western Watersheds Project samples factored into why the state now restricts which parties’ data go into impairment decisions, DEQ Watershed Protection Manager David Waterstreet told WyoFile.
“We are ensuring that we are making the right conclusions every time,” Waterstreet said.
Ron Steg, DEQ’s Lander Office Manager, said that the data restrictions have not curtailed the waters that appear in Wyoming’s impaired waters report.
“I’ve been with the program since 2017,” Steg said. “I don’t recall seeing any data that would bump up against this requirement.”
DEQ officials declined to weigh in on the contention that their data restrictions are at odds with EPA’s regulations implementing the Clean Water Act. The state agency will have to evaluate and respond to the comments making that claim, Waterstreet said.
“I’ve got to run those [responses] up the management chain for their review,” he said.
State officials stood behind DEQ’s broader proposal. The 30-page document outlines elaborate procedures for determining whether Wyoming waterbodies, rivers and streams attain surface water quality standards. It covers a lot more ground than delineating which parties are eligible to submit the data that goes into impairment decisions.
“We want to make sure that our assessment procedure is transparent,” Steg said. “When someone asks, ‘What data do we need, and how do we need to collect it to determine if this use is supported or not?’ we want to have something we can literally hand to somebody.”
Steg called DEQ’s overall update to its methods a “huge positive step forward.”
Even groups critical of DEQ’s data source requirements agreed with that assessment.
“Overall, we see these updated methods as a positive step forward for the DEQ,” Washkoviak at the Wyoming Outdoor Council wrote. “[W]e commend the agency for moving them forward in order to fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act and Clean Water Act.”
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FACTOR: Wyoming is one of only a few states which allow oil field production water to be discharged into the receiving waters of the state; that being rivers, streams and lakes. The theory is that dilution will then make the discharge waters complaint with CWA standards. In most states, production water must be injected.; however, that water is commonly called brine whereas a lot of Wyoming’s discharge water has a lower TDS content.
Therefore, we must have additional monitoring of discharge waters by third parties since DEQ and even the EPA only monitors discharge water on a sporadic basis. Our water monitoring program sometimes puts the fox in charge of the chicken coop whence the production companies submit water samples several times a year. It took over 50 years for DEQ to finally hold Aethon Energy to Wyoming water quality discharge standards for the discharges going into Boysen Reservoir. DEQ finally determined that the discharge water could not sustain aquatic life – DAH!!! The problem has now been largely resolved although the streams still have significant quantities of sludge deposits in the upper stretches. And, there are 48 EPA issued discharge permits on the Wind River Indian Reservation which DEQ does not have regulatory authority over. If you have ever read the article” Loophole allows toxic water to flow over Indian lands” it exposes the potential problems with those discharges which flow into the Big Wind River and the Little Wind River and then into Boysen. No wonder Boysen has algae blooms. I suspect there is almost no water quality monitoring of the wells which the tribe took over from Merit Energy.
Water quality monitoring should include third parties such as conservation groups, the University of Wyoming and the conservation districts – Trout Unlimited should absolutely be involved. DEQ, EPA and the oil companies cannot be trusted to enforce water quality standards – we learned that the hard way.
And, DEQ’s water quality regulations have several ingenious methods to circumvent water quality standards – we found that out when we addressed the Boysen discharges. DEQ’s regs favor the production companies over the environment and the water quality of our receiving waters. Beware.
Cut to the chase, sue the EPA and you will win, and bring Wyoming DEQ into the 20th (not 21st) century. Count 2: TMDLs are required for all impaired waterbodies listed.
steve kelly, Bozeman
Good morning! Well my American Brothers and Sisters could the “steam valve” is being turned “up” just a bit to see how much heat can be “handled at the valve? We in Wyoming are getting a little taste of what’s up ahead because of the “Wate Compact Act” and what REAL WATER RESTRICTIONS OR PROTOCOLS are in place for submission to the “ACT”?
HMMMMMMM 🤔 have you wondered or considered whose wallet is thicker the EPA or the DEQ? Now that you’re thinking about that. How much “authority/wallet thickness” do we believe our current President believes the EPA’S wallet should be?
On the surface it appears that this is going to really highlight were the RINOS are and stand (I’m seriously curious aren’t you?) The water restrictions that are written and in place compared to what has been proposed “We the people” of Wyoming better get out our magnifying glass and read between the lines!
There’s a PRECEDENT that was proposed and you wouldn’t believe your eyes if you read it or if I spoke it you, you wouldn’t be your ears either.
Folks remember how long a homosapien can survive without water, the PLEASE REMEMBER what hell on Earth that Wyoming individual went through because he built a “water pond” on “HIS OWN PROPERTY” with ALL APPROPRIATE licenses, permits required by WYOMING! That was incredible then but also remember what Presidential administration was in also…?
I would love to believe that our Wyoming DEQ is ALL ABOUT THE STATE OF WYOMING with utmost respect for it’s constituents, due process of elections and just maybe the Director is a Wyoming NATIVE?
BELIEVE! This situation/mission/cause/protocol just didn’t appear overnight and this “authority” isn’t presumed real. This is the best example I can give but I believe the “principal” is the same:
We’ve/You’ve heard of the: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY? “AUTHORITY” is a very strong word to use and can be quite intimidating “BUT” how did they become such an AUTHORITY who delegated that AUTHORITY and I surely don’t remember voting such AUTHORITY especially at the municipality government/service, do you or anyone remember voting that in or???
I may not always agree with our current elected President but I have to say the EPA needs/needed a little more oversight and I believe that is EXACTLY our Wyoming State Legislature is doing through proper procedures and protocols and this H2O situation is better deliberated bu our “ELECTED” TRUSTING that SEDITION is not any part or piece of those ELECTED… WYOMING is the “trusting, breathe of fresh air, water with a real frontier and home grown environment” regardless of “other State imports”, legislative maneuvering Wyoming people may be interpreted as being silent but should NEVER be confused with WEAK… SOMETIMES you just have to use patience, Kentucky windage, hand out as much rope needed, stay up a little late, get up a little early and to some that’s “Ol’ fashioned/behind the times” when it’s just another day but when the going get rough they just smile and plant their feet and HOLD, RATTLE, SHAKE and prepared for what falls, fails, lied, misrepresented and clean-up because I really do believe WE don’t wanna see WYOMING DIG IN IT’S HEELS!!! SEMPER FI!
It’s been my experience that the DEQ is just retired personnel on the states payroll, they don’t care about the air or water as long as the entity is permitted, even when they are out of compliance. They are such cowards they have used my name when the complaint was filed negating their own responsibilities.