FLOOD05728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1989] WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION The Riverside court was correct in turning down the irrigati district's challenge to the Corps' site-specific permit jurisdiction. T Callaway decision 162 and its aftermath-the determination of C( gress in 1977 to keep the broad jurisdictional predicate of "waters the United States" in connection with section 404--provide amI support for the court's conclusion upholding the Corps in requirin! site-specific permit application. However, environmental advocal are mistaken if they interpret Riverside Irrigation as reading secti, IOl(g) out of the Clean Water Act. 163 In National Wildlife Federati. v. Gorsuch,!" the court construed section IOl(g) as expressing co gressional "intent to minimize federal control over state decisions ( water quantity." The Tenth Circuit repeated the District of Columc Circuit's conclusion that, by adding section IOl(g) to the Clean Wat Act, "Congress did not want to interfere any more than necessary wi. state water management."165 This observation is best understo( when read in the context of the long history of deference accorded I the Congress and the United States Supreme Court to state wat, law.166 4. Preventing, Reducing, and Eliminating Pollution in Concert With State Programs for Managing Water Resources Section IO I (g), if properly interpreted and implemented in tar dem with other provisions of the Act, serves an important public pm pose in the fullest sense of federalism. The key to reconciling qualit and quantity is source control of pollutants, particularly toxic poilu tants, 167 because a water right obtained under a state allocation systen cannot serve its intended purpose if the quality of stream water di verted is not suitable for beneficial use. Likewise, the important publi, role of the federal and state governments in protecting the publi. health and the environment cannot be attained in the absence of con 162. Natural Resources Defense Council Y. Callaway, 392 F. Supp, 685 (D.D.C. 1975). 163. The Tenth Circuit described section 101(8) as "only a general policy statement," which can not nullify a specific grant of jurisdiction. Rivenide irrigation, 758 F.2d at 513. Herein lies a ((Uo irony. The purpose of the Clean Water Act, aCCOrding to the very same section of the Act, is tt "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters." Thi: language of general policy is utilized as the basis for EPA's antidegradation regulations and is heavil) quoted by environmental advocates in water quality proceedings. Yet they ignore subsection (g) of the same section. 164. 693 F.2d 156, 178 (D.C. Gr. 1982). 1M. Riverside Irrigation, 758 F.2d at 513. 166. See :supra part II. 167. See OFFICE OF WATER REOUI.ATJONS & STANDARDS, OfFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT & PERMIT.... Ir.S FN"VTI 'PUnT"'''''''''''''''''' .......-.. ....- - ....