Laserfiche WebLink
The recent decision of the U.S. District Court (Dist. of • <br /> Colorado) in the Wildcat Reservoir litigation (Riverside <br /> Irrigation District v. Andrews) has also raised the question of <br /> whether amendments limiting the Corps' jurisdiction under section <br /> 404 should be sought. Finally, the Northern Colorado Water <br /> Conservancy District is urging Senator Hart to seek a clarifying <br /> amendment to the irrigation ditch exemption found in section <br /> 404( f) (i) (C) . <br /> Each of the these three issues is discussed below. <br /> Non-Point Source Pollution Regulatory Program <br /> To date, non-point source pollution has been left to the <br /> states through the planning processes and procedures of section <br /> 208 (areawide waste treatment manangement plans ) . There has been <br /> no federal regulation of non-point sources of pollution nor any <br /> requirement that such sources be subjected to regulation if water <br /> quality standards are not being met. <br /> Proposals by Senator Durenberger and Congressman Oberstar <br /> are now being circulated which would require the states to submit <br /> non-point source management programs to EPA for approval . Such <br /> programs would have to identify the managment practices which a <br /> state "commits to implement" for each source (including land use <br /> requirements ) , the legal authorities available for implementation <br /> of various practices, schedules for implementation, etc . EPA <br /> could require revisions or modifications to a state 's program if <br /> EPA determined: <br /> that adequate authority does not exist to <br /> carry out the described program or that the <br /> program is otherwise insufficient to control <br /> non-point sources of pollution and to reduce <br /> pollutant loadings resulting from such <br /> non-point sources. <br /> Particularly troubling is a provision in Representative <br /> Oberstar' s proposal which states that: <br /> where the waters of more than one state are <br /> affected by non-point source pollution, a <br /> downstream state may petition [EPA] . . . to <br /> require any upstream state to develop an <br /> implementation plan. . .which is compatible <br /> with the implementation plan adopted by the <br /> downstream state. <br /> For a state such as Colorado, such a provision would impose an <br /> onerous and unreasonable burden. The mischief which downstream <br /> states could effect with our compact entitlements is apparent and <br /> totally unacceptable. <br /> MEMORANDUM -2- September 6, 1983 <br />