Indigenous peoples around the world are concerned about the long-term impacts of industrial activities and natural resource extraction projects on their traditional territories. Environmental impact studies, environmental risk assessments (EAs), and risk management protocols are offered as tools that can address some of these concerns. However, these tools are not universally required in jurisdictions, and this Forum intervention considers whether these technical tools might be reshaped to integrate Indigenous communities’ interests, with specific attention to traditional knowledge. Challenges include unrealistic timelines to evaluate proposed projects, community capacity, inadequate understanding of Indigenous communities, and ineffective communicatio, all of which contribute to pervasive distrust in EAs by many Indigenous communities. Despite efforts to address these problems, substantive inequities persist in the way that EAs are conducted as infringement continues on constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. This article highlights challenges within the EA process and presents pathways for improving collaboration and outcomes with Indigenous communities.

In the United States, treatment as a state (TAS) provisions enable eligible Native American tribes to assume the same responsibilities as state governments in setting and implementing water quality standards (WQSs). Following the introduction of TAS through 1987 amendments to the US Clean Water Act (CWA), forty-four US tribes have enacted TAS tribal standards, which may be more stringent than those of neighboring states; can incorporate cultural and/or ceremonial uses; and can be used to influence pollution levels coming from upstream, off-reservation users. To evaluate TAS as a model for Indigenous water co-governance, we examine how Native American tribes are advancing tribal sovereignty and environmental sustainability through TAS, and we engage with conflicting views on whether and how Indigenous self-determination can be advanced through existing bureaucratic and colonial governance systems. We specifically analyze environmental pollutant listings in tribal water quality standards for the forty-four TAS tribes. Findings suggest that TAS tribes are creating more culturally relevant WQSs, which are typically as comprehensive as, and often more stringent than, analogous state regulations. Tribal standards are diverse, and TAS tribes can set standards independently from neighboring states and one another. Further analysis reveals the complexities of TAS policy, whereby colonial entanglements both enable and constrain enhanced Indigenous self-determination.