My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board Meeting 09/08/1983
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Board Meeting 09/08/1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/21/2014 3:58:16 PM
Creation date
11/21/2014 3:58:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/8/1983
Description
Minutes, Agenda, Memorandums September 08,09, 1983
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
On the House side, H.R. 3282 was introduced with language <br /> which would reportedly "strengthen" the section 404 permit <br /> program by providing greater protection to wetlands . I have not <br /> heard of any.proposals in the House this year to reduce the <br /> Corps ' jurisdiction or make adjustments along the lines of those <br /> being proposed in the Senate. <br /> Section 404/Wildcat Reservoir Decision <br /> The decision in Riverside Irrigation District v. Andrews has <br /> also raised questions about the desirability of seeking <br /> amendments to section 404. I have asked the Attorney General to <br /> report at length on the decision and the issues concerning its <br /> possible appeal by the State of Colorado. Very briefly, the <br /> court held that the Corps acted properly in denying the <br /> District 's request for a nationwide permit to discharge fill <br /> material in Wildcat Creek, a tributary to the South Platte, on <br /> the grounds that the operation of the proposed reservoir, which <br /> Platte River, would likely <br /> deplete the flows of the Pla Y <br /> would ep <br /> jeopardize the continued existence of the whooping crane and <br /> away modify its critical habitat over 250 miles aw y in <br /> Nebraska. The lack of any adverse water quality impact did not <br /> prevent the Corps from denying the permit. <br /> The court ' s view of the case can be summarized with the <br /> following quotations: <br /> . . . [T]he plaintiffs correctly point out that <br /> congress has had a long-standing deference to <br /> state water law . . . and that the Clean Water <br /> Act does not evidence a contrary intent in <br /> this case. Basically, they make these <br /> arguments: <br /> 1 . Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is <br /> only directed at water-quality changes caused <br /> by the discharge of fill materials, and <br /> therefore does not apply to changes in water <br /> quantity caused by such discharge; <br /> 2 . Section 101 (g) of the Clean Water Act <br /> . . . demonstrates congress 's intent not to <br /> affect in any substantial. manner state water <br /> rights; <br /> 3 . Congress could not affect state water <br /> rights in any manner inconsistent with the <br /> South Platte Compact. <br /> MEMORANDUM -4- September 6, 1983 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.