FLOOD05728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

--~~..._~..., .. -........._~......._~ ....-. _..~.t"......_.u....., ~.. &..-.. ................-...-. The 1977 amendments contained no basic compromise with re- to fills designed to convert wetlands to drylands. Section 101(g) esses state allocation systems and water rights, affording them a :rred status over other applications when permit decisions are hed. Accordingly, structures necessary to turn water from its nat- course to beneficial use under state law are entitled to a public est presumption not accorded to other 404 activities. The exercise liter rights that depletes the stream for a beneficial use is necessar- 'ater dependent; indeed, the appropriative water law doctrine ex- ~d functions primarily to guarantee a right to sever water from ,atural stream for beneficial use elsewhere. iConsequently, section 101(g) imposes different duties upon the )s and EPA when considering fills that implement water rights, as !Sed to those that do not. These agencies are charged with consid- : such terms and conditions as will carry forth the congressional lion to respect water rights and, at the same time, will protect the m's interest in water quality and wetlands. Largely through a ess of negotiated mitigation, these purposes have proceeded since ompromise of 1977 in a way that generally serves federalism well. dual agency assignment in the current 404 context can be difficult, nsive, and lengthy for permit applicants, and there will be a con- II longing among water interests for the lost Wright/Tower Idment141 from time to time. However, section 404 implements nportant check and balance procedure between the Corps, which ,rically has been oriented towards allowing projects to go forward appropriate mitigation, and EPA, whose mission favors the sin- ~ dimension of environmental protection. The people of the na- are better served by a mechanism that allows for consideration of ublicly held values. As frustrating as it may be for all parties at I, the current 404 process provides for open public comment and rnplishes full consideration by the reviewing agencies, state and governments, and interested citizens. Whenever a water project applicant seeks a permit, EP A's ten- y might be to have the alternatives analysis of the 404(b)(1) guide- standing alone, dictate how the state should have made the r allocation decision, or that the state should have an overall O. See supra part I.A. I. See supra part I.B.