BOARD01656

• Board Meeting Date: 7/1/1985
• Description: Meeting Notes & Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

for cost-sharing by non-Federal interests. ,H.R. 6 would also .
recreate the abolished U.S. Water Resources Council in the form
of a National Board on Water Resources POlicy.

FOllowing Board discussions of the various provisions of
the bills. Mr. Getches moved. seconded by Mr. Smith. that the
Board not support the creation of a National Board on Water
Resources POlicy but take no position on other provisions of
the bills. Motion adopted unanimously.

b. Amendments to Clean Water Act - Appendix C

Commenting on amendments to the Clean Water Act. Mr.
McDonald reported that,S. 1128 has already passed the Senate
and that H:R. 8 is ready for floor action in the House; which
will probably occur in July.

Of the many amendments to the Clean Water Act contained in
these bills. none are addressed to section 404 dredge and fill
permits. The sponsors of both bills apparently decided to
avoid the continuing controversy over section 404 so as to
enhance the chance of getting'a bill passed.

A provision of the bills which is of concern is an
amendment to the Clean Water Act which would enable a ,
downstream state to'trigger an,- enforcement procedure against an
upstream state for alleged violations of the downstream state's .
water quality standards caused by pollution orig-inating in the
upstream state.,' Despite the problems which this interstate
enforcement provision could pose to a sCate such as Colbrado.
it appears that there is widespread support in Congress for
this amendment. Indeed. ,there has been. to Mr. ,McDonald's
knowledge. no effort from any quarter to attack this
provision., Under the circumstances. Mr. McDonald sees no
reason for the,Board to pursue deletion of this provision.

, .

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum members were.
however. able to obtain an amendment to this provision in the
Senate through Senators Hart and Wallop. which provides that
the interstate enforcement mechanism shall not ".'. ~ apply to
any pOllution which is subject to the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act." Greg Hobbs. on behalf of the, Colorado
Water Congress. was instrumental in gaining this revision.

Because the seven state Salinity Control Forum has not met
prior to the passage of S.1128 by the Senate. the above
amendment had not been discussed by the states. A~ a Forum
meeting last week. the states'agreed-that the interstate
enforcement mechanism should not apply to salinity in the
Colorado River Basin. To accollimoda,te concerns raised by
California. the Forum agreed to seek bill language when H.R. 8
is acted upon by the House which states that the enforcement .
provision shall not "... apply to any pOllution which is

-6-