## Facts

- The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes a federal hazardous-waste program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including regulations for hazardous-waste generation, transportation, storage, disposal, and a permitting system.
- RCRA allows EPA to authorize qualifying state hazardous-waste programs to operate “in lieu of” the federal program, subject to EPA oversight and possible withdrawal of authorization.
- Washington sought final EPA authorization to administer its hazardous-waste program statewide, including on “Indian lands,” as to the activities of all persons (Indians and non-Indians).
- EPA approved Washington’s program for non-Indian areas but refused to authorize it for activities on Indian lands, adopting the position that RCRA does not clearly permit state administration in Indian country.
- Washington petitioned for review, arguing that RCRA’s “all persons” coverage (including tribes) and “in lieu of” structure required EPA to authorize the state program on Indian lands.

## Issues

1. Whether RCRA requires EPA to authorize a state hazardous-waste program to apply to the activities of all persons, Indians and non-Indians, on Indian lands within the state.
2. Whether EPA reasonably interpreted RCRA to withhold state program authorization in Indian country absent a clear congressional statement granting state regulatory authority.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review and affirmed EPA’s decision.
- The court held EPA reasonably interpreted RCRA as not extending state-authorized hazardous-waste programs to Indian lands without clear congressional authorization.
- The court concluded that RCRA’s definition of “person” to include Indian tribes ensures federal coverage of tribal activities, but does not clearly confer state regulatory jurisdiction in Indian country.
- The court held the “in lieu of” language addresses substitution of administration where state jurisdiction otherwise exists and does not override the background presumption against state authority in Indian country.
- Applying deferential review to EPA’s interpretation of the statute it administers, the court declined to substitute a different construction.

## Legal Principles

- Absent a clear statement from Congress, states generally lack regulatory jurisdiction in Indian country; statutory silence is not read to confer state authority there.
- A federal statute’s inclusion of tribes within a regulated class (e.g., “persons”) may establish federal regulatory reach over tribal activities without authorizing state regulation on Indian lands.
- Statutory provisions allowing state programs to operate “in lieu of” a federal program do not, by themselves, expand state jurisdiction into areas where states otherwise lack authority.
- Courts give substantial deference to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions, particularly where the interpretation accounts for established limits on state authority in Indian country.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld EPA’s decision to approve Washington’s RCRA program only outside Indian lands, holding that EPA reasonably interpreted RCRA not to authorize state administration in Indian country without an explicit congressional grant of state regulatory jurisdiction.


State of Wash., Dep't of Ecology v. U.S. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1985)