WSP12557 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

000(;93 CWA "expressly treated pollutants as emanating from nonpoint sources" - that those "provisions make reasonably clear that pollutants could derive from any source, not merely from point sources." This conclusion, he wrote, was supported by the legislative history of seCtions of the CWA other than that of the definitions. Finally, although Judge Alsup found nonpoint source pollution to fall within the scope of the TMDL program, he agreed with the plaintiffs that Congress did not authorize the EPA to regulate state land-use practices. He found that "EPA received no authority to review land-use restrictions placed (or not placed) on timber-harvesting permits by [the California Department of Forestry] or any other practice permitted for agriculture or silviculture." Further, the judget noted that California is "free to select whatever. if any, land- management practices it feels will achieve the load reductions called for...." or to "moderate or to modify the TMDL reductions, or even refuse to implement them." The judge stated that the CWA was "clear that states should finally decide whether, and to what extent, land-management practices should be adopted to mitigate runoff," adding that "[a]lthough such steps might provoke EPA to withhold federal environmental grant money, California is free to run the risk." A copy of the decision is available from Council offices or from EPA's website at: www.epa.gov/owow/tmdlllawsuit.html. WA TERQUALlTY Clean Water Act - Section 303(d) Impaired Waters The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on March 31 that it was revising its water quality planning and management regulation to remove the requirement in most cases for states and tribes to submit lists of their "water quality limited waterbodies" by April 1, 2000, EPA is not changing the requirement where there is a court order or consent decree or commitment in a settlement agreement executed before January 1, 2000. Otherwise, states must submitt their lists on April 1. 2002 and thereafter in even years. In other TMDL-related news, EPA representatives indicated at a recent forum discussion on Nonpoint Sources and TMDLs, sponsored by the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, that it is willing to revise some of its proposed regulations - which were released last August _ in response to comments received on the proposed rule. Some of the revisions will likely include: (1) a 15- year timeframe for establishment of TMDLs; (2) a 4-year listing cycle; (3) a 4-part list. with the State having flexibility to choose where to list a specific waterbody; data compatibility - national guidance will be issued in consultation with the States and other stakeholders; (4) delisting - States can receive petitions from dischargers to delist and States may submit to EPA petitions to delist at any time, although EPA will make delistingdecisions annually; (5) the priorities section will be deleted, with language indicating that a state is encouraged to (or should) consider ESA, etc., but is not required to do so; (6) the offset. threatened waters. and public participation provisions will be deleted; and (7) the implementation section will be streamlined and an iterative process of implementation will be incorporated, As outlined in the Pronsolino decision. there is a clear distinction between point and non point sources and hence the implemeritation plans can be significantly different as well. The enhanced 319 programs will be counted within the context of 303(d) as long as it is clear how 319 plans track to water quality improvements within the watershed, The EPA representatives also indicated that the agency is drafting a letter that will be sent to the Congress and the states highlighting the changes EPA anticipates making before issuing a final TMDL rule in June, (). (-~'