WSP10231 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. u.' 1'\) -.1 (L) . . D. Congress Left the Control of Non- Point Sources of Pollution to the States, In-PA~t Throu h Reco nition, o the Nee to Accommodate Vary~ng State Water Rights Laws and Management Systems. The Courts have held that the power to regulate non-point sources of pollution was not given to EPA under the Clean Water Act. ~ Appalachian Power Co. v. Train, supra, 545 F.2d at 1373. The 'control of non-point sources thus depends on the nature and extent of State law permitting regulation of non-point sources. The Clean Water Act was specifically tailored to respect the rights of the States to determine whether or not, and in what manner, they, individually, and consitent with State law, would choose to enact legislation and adopt regulations legally adequate to implement the federal Act: It is the poiicy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary res- ponsibilities and rights of the States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to p~an the development and use (includ~ng restoration, pre- servation, and enhancement) of land and water resources . .. -- Clean Water Act, Sec. 101(b); 33 U.S.C. l25l(b) (emphasis added). The remedy of the EPA administrator for failure of the State to demonstrate adequate legal authority for pur- poses of the Act is to disapprove the program and to ad- minister it himself, or, in the case vf section 208, to withhold federal financial support for waste treatment facilities. See Clean Water Act, Sec. 208(c) (1)&(2); 33 U. S.C. 1288 (c) (1) & (2). Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Costle, 564 F.2d 573, 580 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Section 208 is for the purpose of "encouraging and facilitating the -11- ill- :.'