Correspondence on Bonneville Unit of Central Utah Project

Page 42

<r Mr David G Hanna - (5) 30 July 1973 with Federal law which makes a state responsible for water quality within its boundaries? It cannot be successfully argued that such matters do not belong in a basin plan. Under the current Federal water quality law, a number of respon­sibilities are placed squarely on the state, and a basin plan, which comes un­der one- of these responsibilities, must be comprehensive to bo adequate. It must also provide measures to permit the state to carry out its responsibili­ties in those cases where the present setup is inadequate. Whether or not the organization of state government in New liexico places a full-scale delegation of responsibility in this field on the EIA, this is irrelevant, for the State responsibility is definite and the EIA in this case is the executive agent of the State. The EIA must prepare the basin plans, and if the agency has not re­ceived full-scale delegation then it is the function of the other state agen­cies involved to maize up the difference through cooperation in order to cover the whole breadth of the State responsibility. It is recognized that the current July 1972 version of the Lower Rio Gran­de Basin Plan was jjrepared prior to passage of .the Federal Water Pollution Con­trol Act Amendments of 1972, which is now in effect, but the plan needs consider­able revision to brin,g it into accord with the law. It should be redrafted in accordance with Part 131, Code of Federal Regulations, on Water Quality l-;anage-ment Plans. A major amendment must lay the basis for an acceptable State per­mit program under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, provided the State does not wish to resign itself to Federal administration of the NPDES tration is bound to bring many problems to the State which will.surely strain any such resignation. Such problems will be solved with less friction if the State goes ahead to solve its own difficulties, accepting the autonomy permitted by the law. By the way, an interesting question at present is as to the submittal of permit applications by the point sources listed in Figure 9, Page 16. The great majority of these sources should either submit NPDES applications or should show that they are exempt (in the case of minor agricultural outlets). It is noted that only two sources submitted applications under the old Refuse Act Permit Sys­tem. Being written prior to the passage of the 1972 Amendments, this basin plan is not in the spirit of the new legislation, which states goals that demand im­provements in water quality. I recommend that the plan be rewritten in the spirit of the present law and taking; the above comments into account. Thank you again.forthis opportunity to submit comments. Sincerely yours v Henry H Zeller Water Resource Studies