| OCR Text |
Show 310 iowa tion of conflicts between vested water right holders. Thus, the settle- ment and disposition of any controversies arising among the users of water from the same source is settled by the courts on a case-by-case basis. 2.3 Other Agencies Having Water Resource Responsibilities A. WATER QUALITY CONTROL Although the Natural Kesources Council has primary responsi- bility for the management of the State's water resources, it has never had a significant role in the water pollution control program.35 The Water Pollution Control Act of 1965,86 enacted to comply with Fed- eral legislation, contains a number of provisions which were carried over from earlier statutes. It created the new Water Pollution Con- trol Commission, which consists of representatives of special interest groups concerned in pollution matters. An empirical study of the Iowa program has recently been pre- pared by Professors N. William Hines and Mark E. Shantz.37 One criticism of the Iowa program is that although the new commission is an independent agency within the State department of health, it has no separate staff, and it functions primarily as a policymaking body. It must, therefore, rely upon the health department to conduct investigations and to carry out (voluntarily) its directives. The pollution control program was found to suffer from "dispersion of accountability and division of authority" because at least six other State agencies also have important roles in the program. Moreover, significant tasks are also delegated to local health boards. Because of interagency conflicts, the program has perhaps been less success- ful than it might have been. Reorganization plans are being consid- ered at the present time, and these are discussed at length in the Hines-Shantz study. The effectiveness of the State's program has also been seriously affected by disagreement with the Federal Government over the water quality standards which were originally proposed by the com- mission. This conflict was probably the first major test of the effec- tiveness of the Federal program and received a good deal of national publicity.38 Essentially, the disagreement was a matter of conflicting philosophies on an antidegradation policy for interstate streams.39 Eventually, after the Department of the Interior imposed water quality standards for the State, agreement was reached in 1971 on the State's standards. The episode accounts in part at least for the failure of the State's program to get off to an effective start. 85 The council may not Issue permits which may impair the enforcement of pollution laws and must regulate discharges Into underground aquifers which might affect water quality. 88 Ch. 455B. sr N. W. Hines and M. B. Shantz, Improving Water Quality Regulation in Iowa, 67 Iowa L. Rev. 231 (1971). A preliminary study, funded in part by the National Water Commission, should also be noted: Contemporary Studies Project: Impact of Local Gov- ernment Units on Water Quality Control, 56 Iowa L. Rev. 804 (1971). Other articles by Professor Hines include Nor Any Drop to Drink: Public Regulation of Water Quality. 52 Iowa L. Rev. 186, 432, 799 (1966) ; Controlling Industrial Water Pollution: Color the Problem Green, 9 Boston Coll. Ind. and Comm. L. Rev. 553 (1968). 88 See, e.g., New York Times, Nov. 5,1969, 24C. 88 Other matters were, of course, involved. See Hines and Shantz, note 37, supra, at 272. |
