Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OJ2975 <br /> <br />Position No, 228 <br /> <br />water diversions and other hydromodifications represent a polluting activity. Thus, even though <br /> <br /> <br />TMDLs are met for pollutants, a water body would remain listed if determined to be impaired by <br /> <br /> <br />"pollution," State laws and regulations provide the appropriate basis, for addressing water quality <br /> <br /> <br />impacts from water development. As competition for various water uses becomes more intense, <br /> <br /> <br />including those related to instream uses, states are increasing their capacity and efforts to protect water <br /> <br /> <br />quality associated with these instream uses, EPA, on the other hand, is ill-equipped to deal with the <br /> <br /> <br />legal and institutional interrelationships between water quantity and water quality. Nevertheless, <br /> <br /> <br />according to the proposed rules, flow impairment activities would be considered to be pollution and <br /> <br /> <br />affected impaired waters would be listed, Thus, the question of how to adjust the loading in order to <br /> <br /> <br />meet water quality standards would clearly be before the agency. <br /> <br />Such a measure would only sharpen the debate, undoubtedly lead to additional litigation, and <br />thus be counterproductive to the overall goals of the Clean Water Act. With respect to the <br />controversial issues associated with quantity and quality interrelationships in the West, public policy <br />should respect the accommodation contemplated by the Clean Water Act, Section 101(g), <br /> <br />Furthermore, the Council believes that having more than one list of impaired waters will be <br /> <br /> <br />inherently confusing and inimical to the involvement of affected stakeholders, For the program to be <br /> <br /> <br />successful, public acceptance and engagement is vital. Having multiple lists..with many of the same <br /> <br /> <br />water bodies on each list would be contrary to this goaL Further, the one list should not be segregated <br /> <br /> <br />into parts. <br /> <br />EPA's regulatory proposal should not mandate the listing of waters impaired solely by <br /> <br /> <br />"pollution," States can address this matter based on state specific policies. This is not to suggest nor <br /> <br /> <br />to prevent states from reporting the conditions of these water bodies in their 305(b) assessments nor to <br /> <br /> <br />prevent a state from deciding for valid reasons to list these water bodies on its 303(d) list. <br /> <br />Atmospheric Deposition <br /> <br />EP A should make clear that waters impaired primarily by air deposition do not currently <br />require TMDL development, due to the technical difficulties presented, The absence of appropriate <br /> <br />3 <br />