WSP10231 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. w l\:) -.j' m . . "pollution" and power to establish "water quality standards" to protect fish and aquatic life, argued that dams (in that case, an hydroelectric dam) could be regulated under its water quality legislation. The Court disagreed and ruled against the State's expansive view of its Act; the result should be the same if the issue arises in Colorado. C. Neither Colorado Nor Federal Water Quality Laws Permit Use of Water Qual,_ty Regulation to Require Minimum Stream Flows. Congress, in the Clean Water Act, and its predecessor, the 1972 FWPCA amendments, consciously recognized and avoided conflict with the States'water rights lawsby eschewing any system of regulation which would require minimum stream flows for water quality purposes. Clear legislative history demonstrates that dilution is not an alternative to waste treatment by the one who generates the waste. Hercules, ~. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 F.2d 91, 108 (D.C. 1978). The discharger is not required to clean up pollutants caused by another or naturally occurring in the waters which pass through his intake and discharge systems. Appalachian Power Co. v. Train, supra, 545 F.2d 1351,1377 (4th Cir. 1976). Flow augmentation for water quality pur- poses is authorized only with respect to federally funded projects in the context of a recommendation to Congress as part of proposed project budgets. Clean Water Act, Section 102(b)(1)-(6); See Report No. 92-911, p. 767, Vol. 1, Leg. Hist. of 1972 FWPCA; Report No. 92-9414, p. 1430, Vol. 2, Leg. Hist. of 1972 FWpCA; and Report No. 92-1236, p. 284, Vol. 1, Leg. Hist. of 1972 FWPCA. Acquiring water for minimum stream flow or flow augmentation purposes as part of the costs of a federal project -8'- . .ii i