Opinion ID: 411109
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Provisions Specifically Referring to Dams

Text: 74 Several other sections of the statute refer specifically to dams. To the very limited extent that these sections are relevant, they support EPA and hence reinforce our conclusion that EPA's position is reasonable. In particular, EPA relies on Sec. 304(f)(2)(F), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1314(f)(2)(F), which requires it to develop: 75 processes, procedures, and methods to control [nonpoint source] pollution resulting from-- 76 .... 77 (F) changes in the movement, flow, or circulation of any navigable waters or ground waters, including changes caused by the construction of dams, levees, channels, causeways, or flow diversion facilities. 78 In its view, this section demonstrates congressional intent that some water quality changes caused by dams be regulated as nonpoint pollution. 63 But even under the Wildlife Federation's reading, downstream bank erosion due to decreased sediment load or variable water releases, saltwater intrusion due to reduced flow, and pollution of the reservoir itself would be nonpoint source pollution. 64 Thus, Congress' mention of dam-induced changes in Sec. 304 as nonpoint source pollution provides only mild support for EPA's position since some dam-caused water quality changes will be treated as nonpoint pollution in any event. 79 Even less relevant are the references to dams in Sec. 404 (dredge and fill permits required for, among other things, construction of new dams) and Sec. 102(b) (use of dams to regulate streamflow). That Congress created a special section to deal with dredge and fill problems caused by dams as well as many other construction activities tells us little about what it would have done about the dam-caused problems at issue here, had it focused on them. Similarly, because it affirmatively recognized one beneficial water quality effect of dams in Sec. 102(b) does not tell us what it would have wanted to do about other, harmful effects of dams.