FLOOD05728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:er quality I quantity showdowns are avoided through a comprehen- ~ program of controlling point and non point sources of pollutants, luding wasteload allocations that assign pollutant load control re- nsibilities. ! 58 When a conflict between quality and quantity arises he context of a section 401 certification!S9 or 404 permit decision, a mit adjustment for point source dischargers and additional control oonpoint sources should occur rather than a restriction on deple- IS authorized by state water decrees or permits.!60 Dams and diversion structures are properly subject to best man- ment practices that promote maintenance of water quality in the :rvoir body and downstream, while allowing the structure to be It and operated for its intended purpose. Such management prac- :s are among the legitimate "incidental effects" envisioned under tion 101(g). However, the agencies and the courts must guard jnst administrative abuse of the 404 permit process, so that the )Iic's interest in a stable, secure, and clean water supply for benefi- I use is not undermined by one-dimensional second-guessing of the :e's water allocation determination. Nevertheless, the section i(c) EP A veto authority is a legitimate safety valve in the event of lcceptable threats to the enumerated, overriding national environ- ntal concerns.161 158. See OFfiCE OF WAT.ER REGULATIONS & STANDARDS, U.S. ENVTL. PROTECTION AOENCY. CHNICAl.. GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR PERFORMING WASTE LoAD ALLOCATIONS. STREAMS AND :'RS (1981). 159. 33 U.S.C. i 1341(0) (1982). 160. Point source discharge permits are subject to renewal every five years and can be modified "e then. in order ~o adjust to changes in the seven-day/lO-year low flow upon which effluent Iimita- are set. See Hobbs & Raley, supra note I, at {I 24.04[2] 0.195. How, and whether. the state shares locates the expense of additional treatment resulting from water right depletions is a matter for the lalive branch to address. There is no constitutional or statutory right to be insulated rrom in. oed water pollution treatment costs. See Mack v. Town or Craig, 68 Colo. 337, 191 P. 101 (1920). 161. 33 U.S.c. i 1344(o} (1982). On its race, Riverside Irrigation appeared to raise a conflict between the South Platte River com. COLO. REV. STAT. ~ 37-65-101 (1973), 44 Stat. 195 (1926), and the Endangered Species Act, 16 :. ~~ 1531-1543 (1982). An actual conflict did not exist. The court spotted this and ruled accord. Riverside Irrigation, 758 F.2d at 513-14. Nevertheless, the Tenth Circuit's decision has had a >nnd effect. Local and state concern about possible rederal preemption and a loss or state water lements has led to an effort among Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado to work with the federal rnment, water users, and environmental interests to resolve endangered species problems on the e River in concert with water rights, equitable apportionment decrees, and interstate compact lements. A similar process is well underway in the Upper Colorado River Basin, with the states of ming, Utah, and Colorado cooperating in the effort. See Hobbs, Federal Environmental Law and 'Water Law: Accommodation or Preemption, NAT. RESOURCES & ENV'T (Am. Bar Ass'n), Winter ,at 23.