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 />I <br />:v.............u.ul5 U.l.....u.,,;, l'1'uuJ.u...., Vl .t""""J.I,,4.l..1vuaJ. aJ.ca~. .uc; VI!;;;J.] lUU(1::)- <br />Df this provision contemplates that adverse effects may occur. <br />:n a 404(c) veto of a water structure is being considered, a very <br />: test must be met by the EP A Administrator in light of section <br />g). Freezing the hydrologic status quo is not the purpose of the <br />n Water Act; this would derogate from state water allocation sys- <br />. that operate to authorize additional depletions for beneficial use. <br />ustify a veto, an adverse effect must also be "unacceptable," and <br /><\.dministrator must hold a public hearing and consult with the <br />~tary of the Army before the Administrator may exercise this ex- <br />:dinary authority. As a general rule, the "unacceptable adverse <br />Lct" should be clearly tied to a clearly expressed federal statutory <br />mstitutional basis that identifies the impact upon a significant na- <br />II resource of the kind named in section 404(c). Examples of un- <br />ptable effects would be destruction of critical habitat of an <br />ngered species; 148 filling of a critical spawning ground for fish or <br />fish which could destroy a valuable commercial fishery; 149 and <br />itigable injury to unique ecological systems of national impor- <br />:, such as wildlife refuges, "0 wilderness areas," I or wild and <br />c rivers.152 As to water storage and diversion activities, even the <br />mgered Species Act, arguably the most forceful of all the federal <br />'onmental laws, contains a provision that states "the policy of <br />~ress that Federal agencies shall cooperate with State and local <br />cies to resolve water resource issues in concert with conservation <br />.dangered species." 153 <br />In sum, federal statutory environmental policy is very carefully <br />led to operate in concert with water rights, unless the conflict is <br />irresolvable and federal preemption applies. "4 Use of the <br />>)(1) guidelines must accord with this statutory policy. <br /> <br />7. J3 U.S.C. ~ l344(c) (1982). <br />B. 16 u.s.c. ~~ 1531-1543 (1982). <br />9. 16 u.s.c. II 755-711J (l982). <br />J. 16 U.S.C. I 668dd (1982). <br />1. 16 U.S.C. I~ 1131.1136 (1982 & Supp. 1988). <br />Z. 16 U.S.C. ~I 1271-1287 (1982). <br />1. 16 U.S.C. ~ 1531(c) (1982). <br />t Even if federal preemption occurs, however, permit denial or modification may constitute a <br />If slate-created water rights. which requires compensation under the fifth amendment. See infra <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.