“The SDWA authorizes the EPA to administer the currently applicable federal UIC program in areas over which an Indian Tribe exercises governmental jurisdiction until the Tribe assumes primary enforcement responsibility.”

💡 The MHA Nation has no choice but to rely on EPA enforcement since the tribe has not assumed primary responsibility for Underground Injection Control on the reservation.

“The SDWA authorizes the EPA to assess a civil penalty of not more than $13,946 for each day of violation, up to a maximum administrative penalty of $348,671, for violations occurring after November 2, 2015, where penalties are assessed on or after December 27, 2023.”

💡 The EPA had authority to impose penalties up to $348,671 but assessed only $3,681, demonstrating enforcement that fails to match the severity of violations endangering tribal water.

“Respondent submitted its 2022 Annual Monitoring Report on February 27, 2023. The 2022 Annual Monitoring Report lacked the required lifetime cumulative injected volume.”

💡 Oasis submitted the report 12 days late and omitted critical data required by the permit, beginning a pattern of noncompliance.

“Respondent submitted its 2023 Annual Monitoring Report on March 7, 2024. The 2023 Annual Monitoring Report lacked the required lifetime cumulative injected volume.”

💡 The company repeated the identical violation in the following year, demonstrating systemic disregard for permit requirements rather than isolated error.

“Respondent submitted the lifetime cumulative injected volume as of the end of 2023 on August 14, 2024.”

💡 Oasis provided the required data only after 18 months of noncompliance and only after EPA enforcement proceedings had begun.

“The Well has latitude of 47.836159 and longitude of -102.212987 and is located within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.”

💡 The violations occurred on land under tribal jurisdiction, placing environmental burdens directly on the MHA Nation community.

“Part 144 requires UIC permittees to comply with all conditions of their permit and provides that any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the SDWA and is grounds for enforcement action, for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification, or for denial of a permit renewal application.”

💡 Federal regulations make clear that permit violations are serious matters warranting strong enforcement, yet this case resulted in minimal consequences.

“The Permit, at section II(D)(4), requires Respondent to submit an annual report (Annual Monitoring Report) containing a summary of monitoring data for each calendar year to the EPA by February 15 of the following calendar year.”

💡 Annual monitoring reports exist to enable regulators to detect threats to drinking water sources before contamination occurs, making timely and complete submission essential.

“For the purpose of this proceeding, Respondent: admits the jurisdictional allegations in this Agreement; neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations in this Agreement.”

💡 The consent agreement allowed Oasis to settle without acknowledging wrongdoing, avoiding any public admission that could be used in future litigation or enforcement.

“In accordance with the Consolidated Rules of Practice, completion of the terms of this Agreement resolves only Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties for the violations alleged in Section V, above.”

💡 The settlement closes the enforcement case after payment of a nominal fine, with no requirement for operational changes or enhanced protections for tribal water sources.

“Respondent: waives any right to contest the allegations and any right to appeal the proposed final order accompanying this Agreement; acknowledges that the EPA has provided an opportunity for a hearing and waives any right to a hearing in this proceeding.”

💡 By waiving hearing rights, Oasis avoided any public examination of its compliance practices or the reasons for repeated violations.

“Respondent agrees, by signing this Agreement, that all alleged violations have been corrected.”

💡 The company claims to have corrected violations, but the agreement imposes no independent verification, third-party auditing, or enhanced monitoring to prevent recurrence.

“Nothing in this Agreement shall relieve Respondent of the duty to comply with all applicable provisions of the Act, any regulation, order, or permit issued pursuant to the Act, and any other federal, state, or local laws.”

💡 The agreement reiterates existing legal obligations but imposes no new requirements, meaning Oasis continues operating under the same conditions it previously violated.