Specifying "sewage, waste water" appears to mean septic tank effluent from recreational vehicles.
Don't forget "waste...material." If the definition of "waste" does include "feces" -- unrelated and unconnected to septic tank effluent from RVs -- you would agree that §261.11(d) requires disposal of feces by removal from the area or by deposit into receptacles provided for such purposes, wouldn't you? The 9th circuit said precisely this. Wasson was pooping in a bucket, and the 9th circuit said he violated §261.11(d).
Given the commonly and historically accepted practice of burying human waste, I think it could be argued that nothing in §261.11 could be used to enforce use of WAG bags.
If enforce means require, I agree. But if you don't use the wag bag, you would still need to carry your waste out under the default rule.
Circling back to a point I made in my original point, I think the forest service has broad authority to "provide" waste receptacles i.e. cat holes, whether via informal agreement with a single individual (Wasson), statements on the forest's website or visitor's guide (numerous examples online), possibly/probably even verbal ok's from a ranger (which I think would certainly get you off the hook if you were cited for violating §261.11(d)). None of these would require a forest order, but there is nothing stopping a forest from issuing a forest order about it either. But you have none of this in the Whitney Zone currently.
You could make a generic "it's a common and accepted practice" argument to make if ever cited for burying waste in the Whitney Zone, but that wouldn't necessarily nullify national policy (waste must be removed from the area) as promulgated in the forest service's own sanitation regulation. (That was in 1977, presumably the practice of burying waste was known to the forest service then; why would it require removal of waste if it was ok with burying waste? Nothing in the regulatory history about RVs.)
