Laserfiche WebLink
<br />streamflow conditions were appropriate and necessary <br />to assure compliance with state law, as envisioned <br />under CWA. The court said, 'the Section 401.., <br />certificate may include conditions to enforce all state <br />water quality-related statutes and rules.... Inasmuch <br />as issues regarding water quality are not separable <br />from issues regarding water quantity and baseflows, <br />we...hold that [Washington law on baseflows] qualifies <br />as an 'appropriate requirement of state law' for <br />purposes of [CWA] Section 401.' <br /> <br />The court next considered the contention that the <br />FPA preempted Ecology's action. The applicants <br />relied on the U.S, Supreme Court's decision In the <br />Rock Creek case (WSW #836), where the Court held <br />that FERC has exclusive power to establish bypass <br />streamflows under the FPA. The Washington Supreme <br />Court distinguished the Rock Creek holding, noting <br />that it dealt with the scope of powers saved for states <br />under FPA Section 27, whereas in issuing a CWA <br />Section 401 certification Ecology derived authority to <br />act directly from provisions of applicable federal law, <br />The court noted that Section 401 of the CWA, <br />'completely alters the legal context and renders <br />untenable Tacoma's preemption argument.' The court <br />continued, 'when the FPA and the [CWA] are <br />considered together, the comprehensive scheme that <br />emerges Is one In which Congress left room for the <br />state to supplement the FPA through the [CWA] <br />Section 401 certification process.' 'Simply put,' the <br />court said, 'federal preemption...does not <br />apply... where a state is acting to fulfill its federally <br />mandated role....' <br /> <br />The court also rejected the applicant's contention <br />that Ecology's streamflow was Inappropriate because <br />it was established to enhance, rather than simply <br />preserve, the Dosewallips fishery. The court said, 'Our <br />examination of the record leaves us with the... <br />conviction that...Ecology's intent was clearly to <br />preserve... the fishery.' <br /> <br />The ruling may be appealed to the United States <br />Supreme Court. <br /> <br />WATER QUAUTY <br /> <br />Clean Water Act - Reauthorization <br /> <br />State and local officials testified March 31 and April <br />1 at CWA reauthorization hearings held by the <br /> <br />Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment <br />of the House Public Works and Transportation <br />Committee. The hearings are the first In a series <br />(WSW #985). Witnesses identified protecting the state <br />and local role in water quality management, flexibility <br />for state and local entities in carrying out CWA <br />requirements, watershed protection and the related <br />topic of controlling non-point source pollution (NPSP), <br />funding, and wetlands management issues as <br />particularly Important. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Several witnesses described the need for flexibility <br />in meeting the Intent, rather than focusing on the <br />specific requirements, of federal programs as essential <br />to relieve administrative and financial pressure on <br />overburdened state and local regulators. Regarding <br />watershed management, several witnesses said such <br />an approach should be taken to pursue the most <br />efficient and least expensive avenue to improvement <br />of overall water quality. Holistic and coordinated <br />approaches to instigating and empowering grassroots, <br />watershed efforts on many levels are needed, <br />according to witnesses. Several witnesses also <br />emphasized the need for Increased funding to carry <br />out existing federal requirements, as well as any new <br />mandates that may be established. The plight of rural <br />communities, with limited resources, and their Inability <br />to cope with large funding requirements of existing <br />federal law, was stressed. Testimony on wetlands <br />called for a more definite goal and direction in national <br />wetlands policy and consolidation of regulation in a <br />single regulatory entity. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MEETINGS <br /> <br />The Association of State Wetland Managers <br />(ASWM) and a broad range of cooperating parties will <br />cosponsor two symposia in May and June: 'Wetlands <br />and Watershed (Water Resources) Management' will <br />be held at the Nugget Conference Center, Sparks, <br />Nevada, on May 10-12; and 'International Wetlands <br />Symposium - Improving Wetland Public Outreach, <br />Training and Education,...' will be held at the <br />Concourse Hotel, Madison, Wisconsin, June 15-19. <br />Also, ASWM has available a broad range of technical <br />publications dealing with wetland management, and <br />plans to have more wetland publications printed in the <br />next few months. For more information and meeting <br />registration materials contact John Kusler, ASWM <br />Executive Director, Box 2463 Berne, New York, 12023- <br />9746; (518) 827-1804. <br /> <br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Governors of . <br />member states - Alaska, Arizona, Califomia, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, <br />Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and associate member state Oklahoma <br />