WSP03203

• File Number: 8021
• Description: Section D General Correspondence - Western States Water Council
• State: CO
• Basin: Statewide
• Date: 2/10/1995
• Author: Western States Water
• Title: Western States Water 1995 - Issues 1082-1121
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

~ .' - l '.
OUIJt

.

WESTERNg-'

:j ~c

c~\,,~o ST A TES,ii~'>c
'2", \~~ ,I
\l. ., ... Il
~\' -"OO'l'l~'..<WATER.. (E..
Co\v't'!a\\O{\
co{\lEt0

recycl paper
s water

THE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL

Creekview Plaza, Suite A,201/942 East 714550./ MidvaIe, Utah 84047 / [phone] / FAX [phone]

Chairman, Larry Anderson; Executive Director - Craig. Bell; Editor, Craig Bell; Typist- Cheryl Redding

WATER QUALITY

Clean Water Act. Update

.

The House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure overwhelmingly approved last week a
revised version ofH.R. 961, "The Clean Water
Amendments of 1995." Observers believe it is headed
for easy passage on the House floor when it comes up,
probably in May. However, it is expected to be
moderated in the Senate.

.

The bill would result in significant changes to current
law. It would rely on voluntary efforts by individuals, and
require states to develop 15-year plans, to control non-
point source pollution. It would replace the stormwater
management program with an approach similar to that
for non-point sources in general. It would authorize and
encourage states to participate in voluntary watershed
management programs. It woulctrequire EPA to develop
and publish a risk assessment and to certify net benefits
to society before issuing any standard, effluent limitation,
water quality criterion, water quality-based requirel11!!nt,
or other regulatory requirement that, if a rufe, would
result in costs of $25M ayear or more. The bill contains
a new provision requiring thaf EPA consult and
substantially involve state and local governments in
Clean Water Act decision making and implementation
efforts. It exempts such meetings from the Federai
Advisory Committee Act. It would amend Section 518 of
the Act to require EPA to respect the terms of any
cooperative agreements that address the authority of a
state or Indian tribe to administer the Act. EPA would be
required to issue regulations providing for resolution of
disputes arising from differing water quality standards
than may be issued by state and Indian tribes located
around common bodies of water. The United States
district courts would be granted jurisdiction to review any
EPA determinations under Section 518.

. Thebillauthorlzes.state revolving fund capitalization
grants at $2.56 each year for fiscal years 1996 through
2000, and in. addition authorizes SRF. capitalization
grants at $500M each year for the same years for
purposes of establishing a non-point source pollution
control revolving loan fund.

The bill contains a new title with regard to wetlands
conservation and management. .It. would replace
existing Section 404 with a new comprehensive program
to regulate discharges of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States. It would continue to prohibit
an activity in a wetland or waler of the United States
without a permit from the Secretary of the Army, but
exempts any activity occurring in a type C wetland.
Wetlands are classified into three types. Type A is the
most valuable and type C is the least valuable. Type C
wetlands include those areas which serve limited
wetland functions,. including prior converted croplands
and areas that are within developed areas and do not
serve significant wetlaRd functions. The provision also
requires that a property owner who has a portion of his
or herprQPerty value diminished by 20% or more by an
agency action under the section be compensated by the
federal government for that amount. The section also
identifies further activities requiring a permit and those
that do not require a permit, such as normal fanning,
silviculture, agriculture and ranching activities. The bill
sets standards for delineating wetlands, building on the
definition of wetlands used by the Corps of Engineers,
but requiring that all three criteria (hydric soils, hydrology
and vegetation) must be met.

The bill clarifies that the Clean Water Act does not
abrogate a state's right to allocate quantities of water
and does not authorize the federal government to
allocate quantities of water. Despite pressure from the
hydropower industry, the bill thus far contains no
provision to amend Section 401 of the Act, which