C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER D—WATER PROGRAMS › PART 131—WATER QUALITY STANDARDS › Subpart D—Federally Promulgated Water Quality Standards

40 C.F.R. § 131.31

Arizona

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) [Reserved]

(b) The following waters have, in addition to the uses designated by the State, the designated use of fish consumption as defined in R18-11-101 (which is available from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, 3033 North Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85012):

COLORADO MAIN STEM RIVER BASIN: Hualapai Wash MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN: Agua Fria River (Camelback Road to Avondale WWTP) Galena Gulch Gila River (Felix Road to the Salt River) Queen Creek (Headwaters to the Superior WWTP) Queen Creek (Below Potts Canyon) SAN PEDRO RIVER BASIN: Copper Creek SANTA CRUZ RIVER BASIN: Agua Caliente Wash Nogales Wash Sonoita Creek (Above the town of Patagonia) Tanque Verde Creek Tinaja Wash Davidson Canyon UPPER GILA RIVER BASIN Chase Creek

(c) To implement the requirements of R18-11-108.A.5 with respect to effects of mercury on wildlife, EPA (or the State with the approval of EPA) shall implement a monitoring program to assess attainment of the water quality standard.

(Sec. 303, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1313, 86 Stat. 816 et seq., Pub. L. 92-500; Clean Water Act, Pub. L. 92-500, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)[41 FR 25000, June 22, 1976; 41 FR 48737, Nov. 5, 1976. Redesignated and amended at 42 FR 56740, Oct. 28, 1977. Further redesignated and amended at 48 FR 51408, Nov. 8, 1983; 61 FR 20693, May 7, 1996; 68 FR 62744, Nov. 6, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2024–2024 · leading case: San Carlos v. State/resolution (Ariz. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
San Carlos v. State/resolution (Ariz. 2024). “at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards”); see also 40 C.F.R. § 131.31 (b); Ariz. Admin. Code tit.”
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.