Laserfiche WebLink
Astoria is also instructive in determining how courts <br /> should ascertain the required legislative intent . Accordingly, <br /> in ascertaining whether the legislature intends the doctrine ' s <br /> preclusive effect , courts must not look for an express statement <br /> by the legislature that the doctrine should not apply. Id. at <br /> 2170 . Such statutory intent may be derived by implication. Id. <br /> at 1271 . To determine whether the doctrine ' s preclusive effect <br /> was intended, the courts must ask whether a common-law rule of <br /> preclusion would be consistent with the legislature ' s intent in <br /> enacting the statute sought to be precluded. Astoria at 2171, <br /> citing University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 796 <br /> ( 1986 ) . <br /> Applying these principles of construction to the instant <br /> case, it is clear that the application of the doctrine to bar the <br /> WQCD' s enforcement of its CDPS permits is not only inconsistent <br /> but also contrary to the legislative intent in enacting the <br /> CWQCA. <br /> The legislative intent in enacting the CWQCA is expressly <br /> stated in the act ' s legislative declaration as follows: <br /> This article and the agencies authorized <br /> under this article shall be the final au- <br /> thority in the administration of water pol- <br /> lution prevention, abatement, and control . <br /> Notwithstanding any other provision of law, <br /> no department or agency of the state . <br /> having jurisdiction over water pollution <br /> prevention, abatement , and control, shall <br /> issue any authorization for the discharge <br /> of pollutants into state waters unless au- <br /> -21- <br />