Laserfiche WebLink
(a) The [Water Quality Control] commission <br /> shall be solely responsible for the adoption <br /> of water quality standards and <br /> classifications for state waters affected by <br /> such discharges. Except as set forth in <br /> paragraph (b) of this subsection (7) , such <br /> classifications and standards shall be <br /> implemented by the implementing agencies, <br /> after consultation with the [Water Quality <br /> Control] division and the commission, through <br /> their own programs. <br /> (b) (I) The [Water Quality Control] division <br /> shall be solely responsible for the issuance <br /> and enforcement of permits authorizing point <br /> source discharges to surface waters of the <br /> state affected by such discharges. <br /> (II) Neither the commission nor the [Water <br /> Quality Control] division shall require <br /> permits for, or otherwise regulate, other <br /> activities subject to the jurisdiction of the <br /> implementing agencies . . . . (emphasis <br /> added) <br /> Hence, we conclude that the doctrine of res judicata is not <br /> applicable here because only the Water Quality Control Division <br /> had statutory authority to determine whether Mid-Continent <br /> exceeded its permitted point source discharges of the pollutants <br /> in question. <br /> Contrary to Mid-Continent's contention, we do not view <br /> Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, <br /> 60 S.Ct. 907, 84 L. Ed. 1263 (1939) , as supporting the district <br /> court ' s decision. In Sunshine, the Supreme Court held that the <br /> crucial determination is whether in the earlier litigation the <br /> representative of the United States had authority to represent <br /> its interests in a final adjudication of the issue in question. <br /> However, as noted, Mined Land Reclamation Division lacked this <br /> authority with reference to point source discharge of pollutants. <br /> 7 <br />