The revision is part of a DEQ document<\/a> titled: \u201cMethods for Determining Attainment of Surface Water Quality Standards: Basis and Overall Approach.\u201d<\/p>\n That wordy proposal triggered a number of concerned parties to speak up.\u00a0<\/p>\n Among them, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In an April 24 letter<\/a> to the DEQ, acquired by WyoFile through a Wyoming Public Records Act request, the federal agency\u2019s regional office in Denver quoted language from its regulations implementing the cornerstone water-protection law.\u00a0<\/p>\n When developing a Clean Water Act-required list of impaired and polluted waters, \u201ceach State shall assemble and evaluate all existing and readily available water quality-related data and information,\u201d EPA Region 8 Water Division Acting Director Sarah Bahrman wrote to DEQ.<\/p>\n Wyoming\u2019s policy, meanwhile, states that: \u201cData used to make use support determinations must be collected by a person employed by, or under contract with, a governmental entity.\u201d<\/p>\n Bahrman urged DEQ to address the discrepancy. Wyoming\u2019s method should consider federal regulations requiring states to use \u201cexisting and readily available data and information,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n If DEQ chooses to exclude data, EPA\u2019s guidance was also to provide a summary explaining why, including a \u201ctechnical, science-based rationale.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n A handful of conservation groups echoed the concern included in the EPA\u2019s comment letter.\u00a0<\/p>\n Wyoming Outdoor Council staffer Lindsey Washkoviak wrote to the DEQ<\/a> that its methods \u201cunnecessarily restrict\u201d credible data sources and contradict the Clean Water Act, agency rules and state statutes. She called the policy \u201cfiscally irresponsible\u201d and recommended that the agency strike the restrictive language.\u00a0<\/p>\n Washkoviak also pointed out that parties that meet DEQ\u2019s \u201crigorous quality assurance requirements\u201d routinely collect water samples, including parties \u201cthat may have more rigorous training and qualifications than governmental entities.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThese include the University of Wyoming researchers and their students, non-governmental organizations, private consultants, and trained citizen scientists,\u201d she wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n Kurt Colhoff, with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, told the DEQ in a comment letter that the \u201crestrictive, source-based language\u201d about eligible data providers \u201chas no place in this document and should be removed.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe state of Wyoming, with its small population base and large land area, should be seeking out ways in which to increase DEQ\u2019s ability to monitor and assess water quality rather than limiting it,\u201d Colhoff wrote. \u201cA cursory review of Wyoming\u2019s [impaired water list] illustrates this point.\u201d<\/p>\n Wyoming has one of the smallest lists of impaired water bodies in the nation, he wrote, and \u201cenormous swaths\u201d of streams that have not been assessed.\u00a0<\/p>\n In a joint comment letter<\/a>, American Rivers, Protect Our Water Jackson Hole and the Powder River Basin Resource Council seized on the same issue.\u00a0<\/p>\n The groups wrote that Wyoming\u2019s former requirements were \u201csource-neutral\u201d and \u201cquality-based\u201d 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 \u201csecondary role.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \t\tClick to enlarge: Frosted cow manure complements the lawn-like banks of Lander Creek in September 2025. Upstream portions of the Sweetwater River tributary contain unsafe levels of E. coli, but the state is proposing to reclassify the waterway so that it is no longer tagged with a bacterial impairment. (Mike Koshmrl\/WyoFile)<\/p>\n \u201cNothing in Wyoming statute requires this shift,\u201d American Rivers staffer Justin Hayes wrote, adding that it \u201cexcludes otherwise scientifically valid data solely because of who collected it and thereby narrows the scope of usable data beyond what Wyoming law authorizes.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Changes to the eligibility requirements for submitting water samples for \u201cimpairment\u201d decisions follow a decade-old dustup between state regulators and the grazing-focused Western Watersheds Project. Data submitted by the group\u2019s former employee, Jonathan Ratner, were deemed \u201cnon credible,\u201d and E. coli-related impairments for three small western Wyoming streams were nullified<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wyofile.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/IMG_3328-1024x765.jpg\")
Little Soda Lake, pictured at center in April 2026, has stayed a dramatic shade of red since 2024. Despite its head-turning color, the Sublette County waterbody is not labeled \u201cimpaired\u201d \u2014 and there\u2019s no process underway to determine whether it should be. (Wyoming Game and Fish Department)<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Lander-Creek-2-1024x683.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wyofile.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/DhiIN-1024x683.jpeg\")
Shoshone National Forest hydrologist Gwen Gerber and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality staffers Kelsee Hurshman, Ron Steg and Jillian Scott check out the shoreline of Brooks Lake Creek just below the outflow from Upper Brooks Lake in September 2023. Brooks Lake, lower in the watershed, suffers from an impairment. (Mike Koshmrl\/WyoFile)<\/p>\n