Laserfiche WebLink
<br />!l1ouse committee Kepon mentlonen mar sucn areas \DCIUUeU <br />fllfish beds, breeding or spawning areas, highly susceptible resort <br />phes, and similar areas. "50 The Secretary of the Army was given <br />~er to override the EP A administrator's veto. 51 <br />: The Conference Committee took the 404 permit program from <br />'House version but excised the Corps' override of the Administra- <br />s veto and deleted the term "critical area." Instead, the Adminis- <br />or was empowered to prohibit disposal of dredged or fill material <br />ites where the discharge of such materials into an area will have an <br />Lacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish <br />s and fisheries areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wild- <br />, or recreational areas. "32 . <br />In summary, at the insistence of the House, Congress preserved <br />Corps' role in authorizing dredge or fill discharge activities. Inde- <br />dendy, the Conference Committee fashioned a jurisdictional defini- <br />1 that, following judicial interpretation, dramatically expanded the <br />.ps' role. After several attempts to confine its 404 regulations to <br />litionally navigable waters, the Corps was ordered by the court in <br />1975 Callaway decision to exercise the full scope of its jurisdic- <br />lal authority. Caught by surprise, Congressmen and Senators who <br />ed for the FWPCA Amendments in 1972 began to argue that Con- <br />;s had intended to cover only waters that were historically <br />igable. <br /> <br />B. The Navigable Waters Debate <br /> <br />Soon after issuance of the Callaway decision, Senator Robert <br />Ie of Kansas introduced a bill "to protect the navigable waters of <br />, country as the Congress originally intended," and, in June 1976, <br />joined twenty-nine other Senators in requesting President Gerald <br />jd to delay implementation of the dredge and fill regulations until <br />,gress could "clarify the provision." President Ford granted the <br /> <br />50. H.R. REP. No. 911, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 63, reprinted in I LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE <br />ER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, supra note 26. at 753. 816. <br />$1. Ie/. at 64, reprinted in 1 LEGISLATiVe HISTORY OF THE WATER POLlUTION CONTROL ACT, <br />r note 26, at 817. <br />52. H.R. CONF. REP. No. 1236, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 44, reprinted in 1 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF <br />WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, supra note 26, at 281, 325. In view of the great stir that <br />neneed three years later following Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway, 392 F. Supp. <br />D.D.C. 1915), it is interesting to note the abbreviated language with which the Conference Com- <br />e describes the 404 permit program. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I' <br />I <br />