Opinion ID: 1910079
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The March 1992 Amendment

Text: [¶ 30] In March 1992, the Legislature amended the water classification laws by enacting 38 M.R.S.A. § 464(9) (Supp.1992) to provide that Maine's hydropower impoundments comply with the certification standards if [t]he existing impounded waters are able to support all species of fish indigenous to those waters and the structure and function of the resident biological community in the impounded waters is maintained. P.L.1991, ch. 813, § A-1 (effective June 30, 1992). According to the parties, this standard became known as the what-you-see-is-what-you-get standard because it attempted to maintain the status quo for Maine's hydropower impoundments. [¶ 31] On January 14, 1993, the EPA formally disapproved of 38 M.R.S.A. § 464(9) as amended, explaining that it is inconsistent with federal requirements because it attempts to create a new subcategory without requiring a UAA and providing for public participation. [12] As a result of the EPA's disapproval, the Legislature amended the statute to apply the what-you-see-is-what-you-get standard to only one impoundment, the Ripogenus impoundment, because a UAA had been conducted for that impoundment. See P.L. 1993, ch. 344, § 2 (effective Oct. 13, 1993) (codified at 38 M.R.S.A. § 464(9) (Supp. 1992)). The amendments made clear that Class C water quality standards apply to all other hydropower impoundments. Id. Title 38 M.R.S.A. § 464(9), effective at the time of the Commissioner's certification in this case, contained identical language to the statute as amended in 1993. [¶ 32] FPL contends that the 1992 amendments to section 464 show that the legislative intent has always been to compare hydropower impoundments to impoundments rather than natural lakes. We do not view this history as FPL does. The events in 1992 reflect an attempt by the Legislature to impose lower standards without following the proper procedures. The EPA's express disapproval of the Legislature's actions in 1992 shows that such standards were a departure from the norm. Furthermore, the standard proposed in 1992, which required a comparison between an impoundment and itself, is a different standard from the impoundment-to-impoundment standard at issue now. This history does not undermine the Board's conclusion that the impoundment-to-impoundment standard is a new standard requiring EPA approval.