also provides national environmental 

 policy guidelines in how Federal ac- 

 tions should affect ecosystems. Be- 

 cause many Federal water resource 

 and energy projects typically modify 

 the flows of fresh water to estuaries, 

 NEPA, together with other statutes 

 and regulations which govern plan- 

 ning for such projects, could, in 

 theory, be used to maintain those 

 flows. In addition, recognition in 

 the Fishery Resources Management 

 Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. S1801, of 

 the importance of fishery habitats 

 for maintenance of fish stocks is 

 implicit Congressional acknowledge- 

 ment of the necessity to protect es- 

 tuaries . 



In salient respects, however, 

 these acts provide governmental a- 

 gencies at the state or Federal 

 level with only very limited author- 

 ity to maintain, protect or restore 

 the chemical, physical and biolo- 

 gical conditions of surface and 

 ground freshwater flows as they af- 

 fect estuaries. In terms of the 

 Clean Water Act, so much of the de- 

 graded hydrologic and quality con- 

 ditions of freshwater flows to es- 

 tuaries is categorized as non-point 

 source pollution. Second, although 

 ground water flows affect estuaries, 

 Federal and state programs in gen- 

 eral are not effective at regulat- 

 ing withdrawals of ground water 

 which may affect estuaries. Further- 

 more, programs to protect ground 

 water quality through regulation of 



water, including implicitly ground 

 water flows to estuaries, in Sec- 

 tions 102(a) and 208(b) (2) (K) , 

 33 U.S. S1252(a) and over ground 

 water has not been clearly re- 

 solved administratively or judic- 

 ially. See, Tripp and Jaffe, "Pre 

 venting Ground Water Pollution: 

 Towards A Coordinated Strategy to 

 Protect Critical Recharge Zones," 3 

 Harv. Env. L. Rev. 1, 13-20 (1979). 



discharges to ground water are just 

 now being implemented, and, in gen- 

 eral, they do not consider the ef- 

 fect of polluted ground water on es- 

 tuarine resources. Third, Federal 

 environmental legislation cannot un- 

 do the massive ecological impacts 

 of Federal water projects. 



Finally, the jurisdictional 

 scope of broad legislation designed 

 to protect coastal resources, such 

 as the Fish Conservation and Manage- 

 ment Act of the Coastal Zone Manage- 

 ment Improvement Act of 1980, is 

 generally too limited to provide a 

 basis for management of freshwater 

 inflows to estuaries. Under the 

 Fish Conservation and Management Act, 

 16 U.S.C. S1801, although the fish- 

 ery management councils have the 

 authority to make recommendations for 

 inshore estuarine or fresh water ha- 

 bitats which function as nursery or 

 spawning grounds or food sources for 



Federal and related state pro- 

 grams affecting groundwater quality 

 arises under the Resource Conserva- 

 tion and Recovery Act, U.S.C. S6901- 

 6907; the Safe Drinking Water Act, 

 42 U.S.C. S300f to j-9. For a dis- 

 cussion of the potential impact of 

 nitrate contamination in groundwater 

 as it affects estuarine shellfish- 

 eries, see Durand, James B. , Nu- 

 trient and Hydrological Effects of 

 the Pine Barrens on Neighboring Es- 

 tuaries, p. 195, in Forman, R.T.T. , 

 ed. Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and 

 Landscape , 1979, Academic Press, 

 N.Y. 



3 

 Federal laws, regulations and 



directives applicable to the plan- 

 ning of Federal water resource pro- 

 jects include the 1965 Water Re- 

 sources Planning Act, 42 U.S.C. 

 S1962 and Sections 315, 401, 402, 

 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 

 U.S.C. S1323, 1341, 1342, and 1344. 



66 



