Opinion ID: 1910079
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The 2003 Resolve

Text: [¶ 33] In May 2003, the Legislature passed a Resolve, which directed the Department to adopt rules requiring that the structure and function . . . that must be maintained in a water storage reservoir is the structure and function that would be expected to exist in a water storage reservoir with a drawdown of similar magnitude. [13] L.D. 1059 (121st Legis.2003). The Resolve defined water storage reservoir as an impoundment associated with a hydropower project. [¶ 34] Pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 342(9) (2006), the Commissioner of the Department may submit to the board new or amended rules for its adoption. It is the Board, however, that has final authority to adopt a new rule pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 341-D(1-B) (2006). [14] Following the passage of the 2003 Resolve, the Commissioner drafted an order granting water quality certification to the Flagstaff Project, using the criteria articulated in the Resolve. [¶ 35] On November 10, 2003, the EPA sent a letter to the Department disapproving of the Commissioner's use of this standard because this new legislation is not in effect for federal law purposes and cannot be relied upon for [the Clean Water Act] certification. The EPA wrote [the Department] now asserts that, rather than comparing a storage reservoir to a natural lake as it has done since 1995, [the Department] is now adopting the policy (at least orally) that storage reservoirs shall be compared to other impoundments with similar drawdowns. [¶ 36] FPL contends that the 2003 Resolve indicates clear legislative intent that the impoundment-to-impoundment standard is, and has always been, the appropriate standard to determine compliance with Class C water quality standards pursuant to 38 M.R.S.A. § 465(4). Although we agree with FPL that the Resolve indicates legislative intent that the impoundment-to-impoundment standard apply now, we see no reason why the Legislature would issue a resolve directing the Commissioner to adopt rules if such a standard already existed. The 2003 Resolve demonstrates the Legislature's intention to promulgate a new rule. However, because of the EPA's disapproval, a new rule was not adopted.