My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04863
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04863
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:15:56 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:41:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8021
Description
Section D General Correspondence - Western States Water Council
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
1/1/1999
Author
WSWC
Title
Detailed Comments by the Western States Water Council on Proposed TMDL Rule
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 />0029B1 <br /> <br />Position No, 228 <br /> <br />Section 130,6(b) or even under Section 319 of the Act rather than adding new requirements under <br />Section 303(d) with no statutory basis, <br /> <br />Public Petition Process <br /> <br />In Section 130,65, EPA proposes a new public petition process, by which any person can <br />petition EPA "to carry out the actions that states are directed to perform under CW A Section 303(d)." <br />While we recognize that public participation is an essential element of any successful water quality <br />management program, we are not convinced that this proposal is legal or necessary, <br /> <br />The new rule proposes additional mechanisms to ensure full public participation in listing of <br /> <br /> <br />impaired waters and development of TMDLs. However, the language of Section 303(d) provides no <br /> <br /> <br />explicit authority for EPA to "carry out the actions that states are directed to perform," In any case, <br /> <br /> <br />the existing language creates an incentive for petitioners to circumvent state efforts. <br /> <br />If the process is to remain in the rule, it should be revamped to have petitioners demonstrate <br />that they have made a good faith effort to have the relevant slate take the requested action and that the <br />Slate has declined to do so, Further, petitioners should be required to submit any available information <br />as to why a state has declined to take the requested action, EPA's process should explicitly provide an <br />opportunity for states to submit any comments they may have on a public petition before EP A develops <br />a response to the petition, Any action that EP A might take should be predicated on a finding that the <br />state has failed to perform its duties as required under the Act. <br /> <br />These proposed modifications to a public petition process are necessary to recognize slates' <br /> <br /> <br />primary role in implementing Section 303(d) and to support, rather than hinder, the viability of states' <br /> <br /> <br />efforts. EPA should encourage states' efforts by explicitly discouraging efforts to circumvent states' <br /> <br /> <br />Section 303(d) processes. <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.