MISSION — The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla County (CTUIR) hosted a virtual town hall on June 17 to take questions, comments and concerns regarding the CTUIR’s draft nuclear energy policy.
The town hall was led by Elizabeth McManus with the consulting firm Ross Strategic as well as her staff members Martha Madrid and Piper Casey, CTUIR Energy and Environmental Sciences Program Manager Mason Murphy, tribal attorney Martha Izenson and EES energy analyst Aaron Luke.
Izenson, who is the attorney assigned to work with the CTUIR’s Energy Strategy Team (EST), said the need for a draft Nuclear Policy became clear in 2025 as dozens of legislative concepts that promoted nuclear energy as a “clean” energy source moved forward in Oregon and Washington legislative sessions.
No bills were passed in those sessions, though some came very close. For example, HB2410, which would have allowed the Energy Facility Sitting Council to issue a site certificate for a small modular nuclear reactor (SMNR) energy facility demonstration project in Umatilla County. The bill’s chief sponsors were Representatives Bobby Levy and Ed Diehl and Senator David Brock Smith.
“The (EST), with input and feedback from many additional tribal staff, committees and commissions, has drafted a policy that maintains a strong position of opposition to nuclear activities that threaten tribal values, rights and resources, while recognizing the importance of establishing clear conditions that would mitigate harm from adopted legislation or projects,” Izenson said in an email.
CTUIR adopted the Hanford policy in 2007, which lays out five objectives: identifying and informing the CTUIR about the conditions at Hanford about natural and cultural resources and how they are affected by pollution and weapons development; protecting the health of tribal members; evaluating cleanup efforts; informing other governments regarding Hanford and the CTUIR’s interest; and encouraging government-to-government partnerships.
In 2018, CTUIR updated the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, including Objective 5.15, which focuses on energy:
“The monitoring of impacts to the Reservation from off- Reservation energy and infrastructure development is an ongoing issue for the protection of Treaty rights. The energy developments producing power using nonrenewable fossil fuels also produce environmental effects, including air and water pollution. These pollutants have negative Treaty rights impacts. The challenge is to be actively involved and utilize Tribal sovereignty to protect the Treaty rights by monitoring and involvement with regional and national decision makers to minimize these negative impacts. To rise to these challenges, the CTUIR must educate everyone about Tribal sovereignty and to develop plans to protect Treaty rights better.”
The CTUIR Board of Trustees (BOT) and tribal technical staff began discussing the need for a comprehensive draft nuclear policy in 2022, which incorporated the objectives of the Hanford Policy and the 2018 Comprehensive Plan.
During the town hall, Izenson said the overarching goal of the draft policy is that any future nuclear energy development, whether on-reservation — which would be directly opposed — or off-reservation, does not infringe CTUIR members’ rights, which include access to traditional-use areas where members exercise their Treaty Rights, harvest First Foods and engage in cultural practices.
“And in the policy, there is just unequivocal, full-stop, period opposition to nuclear weapons development, testing, storage within CTUIR’s jurisdiction or abroad,” Izenson said. “ Also, CTUIR would unequivocally oppose nuclear projects that are proposed to be cited within the exterior boundary of the (Umatilla Indian Reservation) or beyond the boundary, but under the regulatory jurisdiction or civil jurisdiction of the tribe, or are cited beyond those boundaries but within the traditional use areas without any sort of government-to-government consultation, subject to board approval.”
After a presentation narrated by a computer-generated voice detailing the need for an updated draft policy, attending tribal members were given the floor to ask questions or provide comments, whether by speaking directly or submitting anonymously via the chat.
Many of the questions or statements focused on the draft policy’s protection of treaty rights and transparency regarding tribal members and their access to information relevant to the policy.
CTUIR member Donald Williams asked about the process of integrating tribal member perspectives in the EST or DNR.
“This policy had a lot of eyes and a lot of hands on it, and several CTUIR members participated in the development of the policy,” Murphy said. “The policy has been reviewed by all DNR programs; it’s been reviewed by six separate committees and commissions and we’ve incorporated all of those comments.”
Izenson corroborated Murphy’s comments, saying that to the extent that tribal employees may also be tribal members, and that committees and commissions are made up of tribal members, there has been a large amount of feedback received both from staff and committee and commission members.
A question was submitted anonymously asking what specific measures ensure tribal members have timely access to environmental data, risk assessments, financial agreements, as well as the potential impacts to treaty rights and First Foods and what accountability exists if information is withheld or misrepresented.
“ What we’re doing today is, is an example of how we’re trying to make this policy process and the adoption of the policy transparent to the extent that we can,” Izenson responded. “ The goal is to be as transparent as possible within the parameters that have already been set up by the CTUIR tribal government and its various departments.”
Another question asked about the emphasis on protecting treaty rights and cultural resources, and how that evolves when potential tribal enterprises and economic activities related to the nuclear industry are concerned.
“We want to maximize our ability to practice our treaty rights, and that being said, at least as far as I know, all nuclear development with today’s technology has an impact to that,” Luke responded. “We won’t know until we know, but for now, we draw the line at, ‘Does it impact our ability to practice our treaty rights?’”
Murphy answered an anonymous question regarding the transportation of nuclear waste or spent fuel, if the draft policy anticipates the waste being transported through traditional use areas and what plans coincide with emergency response.
“ Yes is the short answer; it definitely anticipates nuclear waste or spent fuels being transported,” he said.
Murphy also said potential agreements with private companies that solidify and remove the spent fuel to understand what the transportation would look like and how to benefit from it, anticipating that routes for disposal would likely include train and vehicular travel through I-84. He added that funds from the Department of Energy, the Public Safety Department and the Tribal Fire Department will help with emergency response.
The overall response from the town hall was opposition to nuclear developments interfering with traditional use areas and cultural resources, aligning with the draft policy’s strong position of opposition to nuclear activities that threaten those values.
