My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD05728
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
FLOOD05728
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:50:02 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 1:43:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
State of Colorado
Basin
Statewide
Title
Water Quality/Quanity Relationships
Date
6/1/1989
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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
<br />1989] <br /> <br />WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION <br /> <br />pretation,43 the Corps' role expanded to include regulation of ot <br />discharges of pollutants but excluded a very significant pollut <br />source, municipal sewage. An overlap of purposes between the ref <br />provision of the 1899 Act and the 1965 Federal Water Pollution 0 <br />trol Act, combined with the recognition that both programs failed <br />require the comprehensive control or treatment of pollutants at th <br />sources,44 led the bill's primary Senate sponsor, Edmund Muskie <br />Maine, to dwell on the necessity of an all-encompassing discharge p <br />mit program, which became section 402 in the Senate Commit <br />Report.45 <br />Under the Senate bill, discharge of dredged or fill material was <br />be regulated by EP A under section 402'" not under a separate perr <br />program. Senator Muskie summed up the purpose of the Senate bill <br />these words: <br /> <br />I mentioned, too, the objective orthe legislation and the commit- <br />tee's recommendation to set a national policy of eliminating the <br />discharge of pollutants by 1985 . . .. Progress toward the national <br />goal is to be asserted through the following steps: <br />The legal base for use of Federal permits to regulate the discharge <br />of pollutants is reinforced and improved. <br />The scope of the 1899 Refuse Act is broadened: [T]he administra- <br />tive capability is strengthened.47 <br /> <br />The thrust of the Senate bill was the "[i]ntegration of the Refu <br />Act permit program into the Federal Water Pollution Control Act" i <br />order to establish the "most effective control mechanism for poil <br />sources of discharge. ..48 Section 402 permits were to be "conclusive I <br />to the effect on water quality" in regard to dredge and fill activitic <br />permitted under section 10 of the Rivers and HarborsAct.49 The Set <br />ate thereby anticipated that the Corps' role would continue under th <br />Rivers and Harbors Act for traditional navigational purposes but th <br />EP A Administrator would regulate the pollutant effects of dischargin <br />dredged or fill material. <br />It was the House bill that introduced section 404 into fedefl <br />clean water law. Permit responsibilities were divided in the Hous <br />version between EPA and the Corps, with EPA being assigned th <br />section 402 point source program and the Corps, through section 404 <br /> <br />43. Zabel v. Tabb, 430 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1970). <br />44. B. HOLMES, supra note 25, at 134.35,226-27. <br />45. 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, supra note 26, al 149~ <br />46. 33 U.S.C. 9 1342. <br />47. 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Of. THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, supra note 26, at 1259 <br />48. Id. at 1490 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.