WSP10231 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. c.....) t'-:> ....:! ,";r-. V'J . . River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976); United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978). According to the terms of the Wallop amendment, federal water quality regulation was never meant, and is not now meant, to impair these State law systems or rights acquired under these State law systems. The Conference Report to the Clean Water Act enunciates clearly the federal policy to respect State water rights systems and the rights to quantities of water obta'.ned under such systems: The conference substitute amends section 101 of the Act to add a new subsection declaring it the policy of Congress that the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within its juris- diction should not be superseded, abro- gated or otherwise impaired by the Act. It is further the policy of Congress that nothing in this Act, should be con- strued to supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of water that have been established by any State. Federal agencies are to cooperate with State and local agencies to develop solutions to prevent, reduce and ~liminate pollution in concert with programs for managing water resources. In addition, the Administrator is required to submit a report before July 1, 1978, analyzing the relationship between programs under this Act and State and Federal programs for allocation of water. ,This report is to include necssary recommendations. This provision is intended to clarify existing law to assure its effective imple- mentaion. It is not intended to change existing law. Conference Committee, Report No. 95-830, p. 236, Vol. 3, Leg. Hist. of 1977 Clean Water Act. -10- f