Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />"pollution" and power to establish "water quality standards" <br />to protect fish and aquatic life, argued that dams (in that <br />case, an hydroelectric dam) could be regulated under its <br />water quality legislation. The Court disagreed and ruled <br />against the State's expansive view of its Act; the result <br />should be the same if the issue arises in Colorado. <br /> <br />C. Neither Colorado Nor Federal Water Quality <br />Laws Permit Use of Water Qual._ty Regulation <br />to Require Minimum Stream Flows. <br />Congress, in the Clean Water Act, and its predecessor, <br />the 1972 FWPCA amendments, consciously recognized and avoided <br />conflict with the States'water rights lawsby eschewing any <br />system of regulation which would require minimum stream <br />flows for water quality purposes. Clear legislative history <br />demonstrates that dilution is not an alternative to waste <br />treatment by the one who generates the waste. Hercules, <br />Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency! 598 F.2d 91, 108 <br />(D.C. 1978). The discharger is not required to clean up <br />pollutants caused by another or naturally occurring in the <br />waters which pass through his intake and discharge systems. <br />Appalachian Power Co. v. Train, supra, 545 F.2d 1351, 1377 <br />(4th Cir. 1976). Flow augmentation for water quality pur- <br />poses is authorized only with respect to federally funded <br />projects in the context of a recommendation to Congress as <br />part of proposed project budgets. Clean Water Act, Section <br />102(b) (1)-(6); See Report No. 92-911,p. 767, Vol. I, Leg. <br />Hist. of 1972 FWPCA; Report No. 92-9414, p. 1430, Vol. 2, <br />Leg. Hist. of 1972 FWFCA; and Report No. 92-1236, p. 284, <br />Vol. 1, Leg. Hist. of 1972 FWPCA. <br />Acquiring water for minimum stream flow or flow <br />augmentation purposes as part of the costs of a federal project <br /> <br />.~ <br />1379 <br /> <br />-8- <br />