Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Second, the notion of a "state water authority" seems to <br />contemplate a state agency which would have power to direct <br />how, when, where. and under what circumstances water is used. <br />Unless and until major changes are made in our current water <br />rights system and laws.. it is futile to tallt about such an <br /> <br />agency. for it would have no such role to play. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Third, with respect to the issues of whether the Water <br />Quality Control Division and Water Quality Control Commission <br />should be transferred from the Department of Health to the <br />Department of Natural Resources, the Board would observe that <br />the department in which those agencies are housed will not <br />affect the basic nature of the regulatory decisions which they <br />are charged with malting. This is because the programs for <br />which the division and the commission are responsible are <br />largely creatures of federal law. not of the organizational <br />chart for state government. In the Board's judgment, the real <br />issue is not where the division and the commission should be <br />housed, but rather whether the state. given the constraints of <br />federal law, wishes to continue to administer these federally <br />mandated water quality control programs or prefers to return <br />that function to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as <br />other states have done. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Groundwater <br /> <br />Non. tributary groundwater <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-8- <br />