FLOOD05728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, lor secnon "tV'+, wnue auolng secuun lUl\.!U l.O Ult:: 1-\.(';l., (.:J.t:'WIY s that Congress intended the Corps and EP A to accommodate lacement of structures in the waters of the United States to facili- :he exercise of water rights in accordance with established state '<lures. The Corps' definition of the public interest, of which ress was aware, reflects the very basis and purpose for which a establishes water rights. The Corps' public interest review, along environmental protection values, takes into account and serves ublic's interest in "recreation, water supply and conservation, . . . y needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, consid- inS of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare e people."l2' The second sentence of section IOI(g)l29 intends lecisions pursuant to the public interest review and the 404(b)(1) lines are to be made in a manner that does not supersede or abro- :he exercise of water rights. 2. The 404(b)(1) Guidelines, Antidegradation, and Alternatives Analysis :mposition of the EPA's section 404(b)(1) guidelinesl30 upon , projects can cause direct conflicts with section 10 I (g). As a :r of commerce clause jurisdiction, there is no doubt that the I can determine, subject to EPA's veto authority, whether :ed or fill material may be placed in the waters of the United ; for the purpose of constructing and operating waterworks. Sec- 404(f)(2)'31 clearly establishes jurisdiction for permit review an area of the navigable waters may be put to a new use, and the Jr circulation of the waters may be impaired or the reach of the s reduced thereby. Although section 404 requires that the Corps ~P A jointly develop and apply guidelines by which to consider It decisions, implementation of the 404(b)(1) guidelines is not ex- from section 101(g). To the contrary, Congress realized the ex- linary reach and effect the guidelines and permit decisions ng them could have on state water law as a result of Callaway. 132 . 33 C.F.R. ~ 320.4(a). Colorado recognizes impoundment of water for recreation as a benefi. COLO. REV. STAT. ~ 37-92-103(4) (1973); see In re May, 756 P.2d 362 (Colo. 1988); Zigan Gravel, Inc. v. Cache la Poudre Water Users Ass'n, 758 P.2d 175 (Colo. 1988). 33 V.S.C. ~ 1251(g) (19H2). See supra ted accompanying notes 111-12. 40 C.F.R. ~ 230.1-,12 (1988) (EPA regulations governing CQmpliance with the guidelines); 3J U.S.C. ! 1344(1)(2) (1982). Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway, 392 F. Supp. 68.5 (D.D.C. 197.5).