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 />A. Establishment of the 404 Permit Program <br /> <br />In 1972,as the FWPCA amendments progressed through Con- <br />IS, the term "navigable waters" was utilized in both houses as the <br />sdictional definition for all purposes of federal clean water policy. <br />: House bill3. appeared to adopt traditional principles of navigabil- <br />"The term 'navigable waters' means the navigable waters of the <br />ted States, including the territorial seas."37 The Senate bill38 con- <br />ed the germination of a broader jurisdiction by including tributa- <br />to traditionally navigable waters: "The term 'navigable waters' <br />LnS the navigable waters of the United States, portions thereof, and <br />tributaries thereof, including the territorial seas and the Great <br />.es.,,39 With little fanfare or explanation, the Conference Commit- <br />defined "navigable" as "the waters of the United States": "The <br />1 'navigable waters' means the waters of the United States, inc1ud- <br />the territorial seas."4O <br />! The Conference Committee Report and Hoor debates were amaz- <br />r silent on the issue of section 404's jurisdictional reach or other <br />~ents of the program. Seemingly little time or attention was paid <br />04, and the wetlands protection aspect of the program, which was <br />lecome so controversial in a few short years, did not arise as a <br />erial part of the 1972 legislative history. Rather, the focus of the <br />Z Act, as seen through the express wording of the statute and its <br />;Iative history, was on point source control of pollutants through <br />ion 402 and cooperative state/federal planning for nonpoint source <br />trol under section 208,4' Discussion centered on the Refuse Act <br />nit program under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,42 <br />Dugh that Act, the Corps had become the primary protector of the <br />gable waters for the purpose of commerce. Through court inter- <br /> <br />4. Natural Resources Defense Council v, Callaway, 392 F. Supp. 685 (D.n.c. 1975). See 3 <br />LATlVE HISTORY OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT. supra note 27, al 347-48. <br />5. See 3 LeOlsLATIVE HI!ITORY OF THE CLEAN WATER Act, supra note 27, at 531- <br />6. H.R. 11896. See 1 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, <br />note 26. at 893. <br />7. I LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE WATER POLLUTiON CONTROL ACT, supra note 26, at 1069. <br />8. S.2770. See 2 LEGISLATIVE H,STORY OF THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, supra <br />6, at 1534. <br />~. ld at 1698. <br />1 I LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL Acr, supra note 26, at 327. <br />1. 33 U.S.c. fi 1288 (1982). <br />Z. Act of March 3, 1899, ch. 425, 30 Slat. 1148 (codified as amended al33 V.S.C. ~ 401 (1982)). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.