<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 />
|