Opinion ID: 2075830
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Existing Uses

Text: Third, appellees assert that the Board created a new standard for existing uses that is contrary to law. They maintain that the Board's definition of existing uses circumvents the federal requirement that states classify their waters to consider recreation in and on the water. See 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(a) (1989). Although the record reflects evidence of recreation in and on the subject waters, the Board's narrow definition permitted it, according to appellees, to find that these uses were not existing uses. They insist that because some Class B designated uses are in fact existing uses of the subject waters, the Board is prohibited by federal law from reclassifying the waters. See id. §§ 131.-10(g), 131.12(a)(1). Again, we disagree. The legislature created the Board to protect, regulate, and control the water resources of the state in the public interest. 10 V.S.A. § 901. The Board was granted the power to regulate the classification of the state's waters and to establish water quality standards as provided by the terms of the relevant statutes. Id. § 905. In light of this broad delegation, the Board must be afforded some latitude in interpreting the legislation it is bound to implement. See In re Eastland, Inc., 151 Vt. at 499, 562 A.2d at 1044. The Vermont Water Quality Standards define existing use as any beneficial use of water which provides important economic, social or other public benefits and which has occurred on a frequent, regular or consistent basis and any other use made of the water which is compatible with its classification. § 1-01(B)(11) (emphasis added). Class C waters are managed for recreational or other water uses in which contact with the water is minimal and where ingestion of the water is not probable.  Id. § 3-04(A)(2) (emphasis added). The Class B designated uses include swimming and recreation. Id. § 3-03(A)(2). In our view, these definitional provisions are consistent with both federal law and the statutory descriptions of Class B and C waters set out in 10 V.S.A. § 1252. See footnote 1, supra. After reviewing the evidence, the Board found that none of the Class B designated uses were existing uses of the subject waters. It found no evidence to show that swimming or other contact recreation occurred on a frequent, regular or consistent basis. Board Decision, Findings 2(d), (e) and (h). [13] Our review of the record shows ample support for the Board's finding. In short, the Board could reasonably conclude that the evidence of minimal or infrequent recreation on these waters is compatible with a C classification. The Board also found, based on substantial evidence, that Class B uses were not attainable in the subject waters. The currently designated use of swimming and other forms of recreation where extended direct contact with, or the ingestion of[,] water is likely to occur, is not feasible because natural flow conditions and water levels in the waters in question prevent the attainment of such uses. Id. 8(i). The Board decision was thus also consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(g).