Opinion ID: 1910079
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Antidegradation Law

Text: [¶ 37] Also effective in 2003 was Maine's antidegradation law, 38 M.R.S. § 464(4)(F) (2006), [15] which provides that [e]xisting instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect those existing uses must be maintained and protected. The statute defines an existing in-stream water use to include [t]he use of the water body for . . . water supply, or commercial activity that depends directly on the preservation of an existing level of water quality. 38 M.R.S. § 464(4)(F)(1)(d). The antidegradation law requires an applicant seeking protection as an existing in-stream use to demonstrate[ ] that the proposed activity would not have a significant impact on the existing use in order to obtain water quality certification pursuant to the Clean Water Act. 38 M.R.S. § 464(4)(F)(1-A)(a). [¶ 38] We do not interpret Maine's antidegradation law as exempting the Project from the requirements of the Clean Water Act simply because the Project is an existing in-stream use. Instead, 38 M.R.S. § 464(4)(F)(1-A) provides an additional requirement that must be met in order for FPL to obtain water quality certification pursuant to the Clean Water Act. [¶ 39] This history demonstrates legislative attempts to change the baseline standard against which hydropower impoundments are to be judged, however, it does not support FPL's contentions that the impoundment-to-impoundment standard has always been the applicable standard. We conclude that based on the legislative history, the Board's judgment that the impoundment-to-impoundment standard represents a dramatic change from past practice and, thus requires EPA approval, is reasonable. We, therefore, defer to the Board's expertise and affirm its conclusion.