(a) In accordance with section 106(e)(1), States must establish appropriate monitoring methods and procedures (including biological monitoring) necessary to compile and analyze data on the quality of waters of the United States and, to the extent practicable, ground-waters. This requirement need not be met by Indian Tribes. However, any monitoring and/or analysis activities undertaken by a Tribe must be performed in accordance with EPA's quality assurance/quality control guidance.
(b) The State's water monitoring program shall include collection and analysis of physical, chemical and biological data and quality assurance and control programs to assure scientifically valid data. The uses of these data include determining abatement and control priorities; developing and reviewing water quality standards, total maximum daily loads, wasteload allocations and load allocations; assessing compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits by dischargers; reporting information to the public through the section 305(b) report and reviewing site-specific monitoring efforts.
[50 FR 1779, Jan. 11, 1985, as amended at 54 FR 14359, Apr. 11, 1989]
Notes of Decisions
City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 797 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
“” ( 40 C.F.R. § 130.4 (a) (2003).) “The State’s water monitoring program shall include collection and analysis of physical, chemical and biological data and quality assurance and control programs to assure scientifically valid data” in developing, among other things, TMDL’s.”
Sierra Club v. Hankinson, 939 F. Supp. 865 (N.D. Ga. 1996).
“Fur *871 thermore, Georgia’s undisputed failure to monitor or evaluate over ninety percent of its waters, in light of EPA regulations requiring monitoring, 40 C.F.R. § 130.4 , is relevant to the Court’s consideration of whether EPA’s approval of Georgia’s WQLS list was arbitrary…”
Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Wheeler, 381 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
“" 40 C.F.R. § 130.4 (b). And EPA has long approved of states using numeric thresholds "as quantitative 'translations' of their narrative criteria.”
Sierra Club v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 162 F. Supp. 2d 406 (D. Maryland 2001).
“§ 1256 (e) (stating that grants for pollution controls prohibited to states not establishing water quality monitoring procedures); 40 C.F.R. § 130.4 (a) (requiring that "[i]n accordance with [section 1256(e) ], States must establish appropriate methods and procedures .”
Potomac Riverkeeper v. Pruitt (D.D.C. 2019).
“” 40 C.F.R. § 130.4 (b). And EPA has long approved of states using numeric thresholds “as quantitative ‘translations’ of their narrative 29 criteria.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.