Laserfiche WebLink
<br />032974 <br /> <br />Position No, 228 <br /> <br />vary because of local characteristics and circumstances, but have been developed with the involvement <br />and support of affected stakeholders and elected officials, The Council therefore urges EP A to allow <br />states maximum flexibility in administering and implementing the program. To this end, the Council <br />proposes that EP A adopt a functional equivalency provision in the rules that will allow states to <br />demonstrate that a process, method or approach, although not fully recognized in the regulations, is <br />acceptable if it achieves the same desired results, <br /> <br />Listin~ Requirements - Threatened Waters <br /> <br />Section 303(d)(l)(A) of the Clean Water Act does not establish authority to require the listing <br />of threatened waters. The reference to water bodies for which existing controls "are not stringent <br />enough to implement any water quality standard applicable to such water bodies" is most logically read <br />to refer to water bodies not currently attaining water quality standards, This interpretation is <br />particularly appropriate when the practical and resource implications of EPA's alternative interpretation <br />are considered. <br /> <br />While some states have chosen to list "threatened waters", others have not. For the latter, the <br />new rules would, therefore, be especially burdensome, In light of naturally occurring variations in <br />water quality as a result of seasonal and annual variations in hydrologic conditions, substantial data <br />would be needed to ascertain that a "declining trend" that will result in nonattairunent of standards <br />exists. Despite EPA references to "existing and readily available data and information", the expansion <br />of the listing requirement to include threatened waters could lead to numerous debates about what <br />constitutes adequate data to reach a conclusion that a water body is threatened. Such questions suggest <br />that addressing issues regarding the listing of threatened waters would require substantial resources, <br />These decisions are best left to individual states, The Council does not believe it is wise to mandate the <br />listing and development of TMDLs for threatened waters, <br /> <br />Water Bodies Impaired by "Pollution" <br /> <br />Water bodies impaired by "pollution" are to be included on Part 2 of the list. While such <br />water bodies are then exempted from TMDLs for such "pollution", the listing itself clearly implies that <br />2 <br />