* Executive Editor, 1999–2000, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review.
1 16 U.S.C.  2802(1) (1994).
2 See Rebecca Goldburg & Tracy Triplett, Environmental Defense Fund, Murky Waters: Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in the US 21 (1997).
3 See id. at 19, 21.
4 See id. at 7; Ronald J. Rychlak & Ellen M. Peel, Swimming Past the Hook: Navigating Legal Obstacles in the Aquaculture Industry, 23 Envtl. L. 837, 842 (1993) (citing David J. Harvey, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., AQUA-7, Aquaculture: Situation and Outlook Report 22 (1991)).
5 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 7.
6 See id.
7 See id.
8 See id. at 22.
9 See id.
10 See British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office, Salmon Aquaculture Review, Summ. (visited Dec. 16, 1998) <http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/PROJECT/AQUACULT/SAL-MON/report/> [hereinafter Environmental Assessment].
11 See Marine Envtl. Consortium v. Department of Ecology, PCHG No. 96–257, 1998 WL 377649,at *8 (Wash. Pol. Control Bd. June 1, 1998); Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at Summ.
12 See Marine Envtl. Consortium, 1998 WL 377649, at *8.
13 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 19–20.
14 See id. (citing B.A. Costa-Pierce, Environmental Impacts of Nutrients Discharged from Aquaculture: Towards the Evolution of Sustainable Ecological Aquaculture Systems, Plenary Talk at the Conference on Aquaculture and Water Resource Management, Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland (1994)).
15 See id. at 9.
16 See D. Douglas Hopkins et al., An Environmental Critique of Government Regulations and Policies for Open Ocean Aquaculture, 2 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 235, 236 (1997) (stating that “[a]s the industry continues to grow, it will likely expand into the open ocean . . .”).
17 See 40 C.F.R.  122.24 (1998). Point sources are detectable, single conveyances such as pipes or channels that discharge pollutants into a body of water. See 33 U.S.C.  1362(14) (1994); infra notes 184–93 and accompanying text.
18 See 33 U.S.C.  1362(14); 40 C.F.R.  122.24.
19 See 40 C.F.R.  122 app. A. Effluent limitations are EPA-established limits on the concentrations, amounts, and rates of substances that a point source may discharge. See infra notes 237–72 and accompanying text.
20 See 40 C.F.R.  122 app. A (listing industry categories which have effluent limitations that does not include aquaculture).
21 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 108–10.
22 The CWA requires discharge permits for every point source discharging pollutants into bodies of water, and these permits contain limitations on the amount of pollutants released into the water and monitoring requirements, as well as other standard requirements. See infra notes 232–36, 273–79 and accompanying text.
23 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 108.
24 See id.; 33 U.S.C. 1251(a) (1994) (stating that the objective of the CWA is to revitalize and preserve the health of the Nation’s waters), 1311(b)(2)(A) (stating that national effluent limitations will further this goal of healthier waters by reducing the discharge of pollutants).
25 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 108–10.
26 See generally Marine Envtl. Consortium v. Department of Ecology, PCHB No. 96–257, 1998 WL 377649, at *1–6 (Wash. Pol. Control Bd. June 1, 1998).
27 See Marine Envtl. Consortium v. Department of Ecology, PCHB No. 96–257, 1997 WL 394651, at *3 (Wash. Pol. Control Bd. May 27, 1997).
28 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 9.
29 See id.
30 See Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at Summ.
31 See id.; Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 9.
32 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 35 (citing Costa-Pierce).
33 See generally id. at 35–62 (discussing and describing the various forms of pollution in aquaculture).
34 See id. at 35.
35 See Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 7, sec. I.
36 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 9.
37 See id. at 36.
38 See id. at 35.
39 See id.
40 See id. at 36.
41 See id.
42 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 36.
43 See id.
44 See id. at 40; Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 7, sec. I, pt. A.
45 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 1, at 40.
46 See id. at 157.
47 See Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 7, sec. I, pt. A.
48 See id.; Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 40.
49 See Donald P. Weston, Quantitative Examination of Macrobenthic Community Changes Along an Organic Enrichment Gradient, 61 Marine Ecology Progress Series 233, 241 (1990).
50 See Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 7, sec. I, pt. A.
51 See id.
52 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 1, at 158; P.J. Johannessen et al., Macrobenthos: Before, During and After a Fish Farm, 25 Aquaculture and Fisheries Mgmt. 55, 58, 61 (1994) (detailing the effects of a salmon farm on the benthic environment below the pen).
53 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 1, at 158.
54 See id. at 37.
55 See id. at 9 (indicating that pollution from aquaculture in areas with a significant number of fish farms is of concern because the nutrient pollution, similar to that which a city might discharge, impacts water quality).
56 See id. at 37.
57 See Carl Folke et al., The Costs of Eutrophication from Salmon Farming: Implications for Policy, 40 J. Envtl. Mgmt. 173, 175 (1994).
58 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 37.
59 See id. at 39.
60 See Folke et al., supra note 57, at 175.
61 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 43.
62 See id.
63 See id. at 43, 46.
64 See id. at 43.
65 See id.
66 See id. at 44.
67 See T.V.R. Pillay, Aquaculture and the Environment 68 (1992) [hereinafter Pillay, Environment].
68 See Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 7, sec. I (stating that antibiotics can remain in the sediment for up to several months).
69 See id.
70 See generally O.B. Samuelson et al., Residues of Oxolinic Acid in Wild Fauna Following Medication in Fish Farms, 12 Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 111, 111–12 (1992).
71 See id. at 117. Finding antibiotic residues in fish 400 meters (approximately 1200 feet) away from a netpen site is significant because it dispels the notion that the effects of aquaculture are only seen directly below a netpen site. In the discussion of the impact of solid wastes on the benthic ecosystem in this text, the effect of solid waste pollution was only seen up to 150 meters away from the netpens, a distance significantly less than the 400 meter mark for the effect of antibiotics. See supra note 49 and accompanying text.
72 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 159.
73 See Samuelson, supra note 70, at 116–17. Antibiotics can cause the spread of bacteria to other organisms because fish initially develop resistance to certain antibiotics. This resistance to antibiotics will result in the continued growth of bacteria, and the bacteria will eventually enter the environment through fish feces at which point other organisms may become infected by the bacteria. See id.
74 See supra note 63 and accompanying text.
75 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 46.
76 See id.
77 See id. at 47.
78 See id. at 160.
79 See Pillay, Environment, supra note 67, at 66.
80 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 145, 160 (stating that the cypermethrin contaminated the aquatic environment and caused mass mortality and sickness in a lobster pound).
81 See id. at 49.
82 See id.
83 See id. (discussing how pollution from aquaculture can be biological in nature).
84 See id. at 10.
85 See id. at 54; Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 5.
86 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 10.
87 See Morning Edition (National Public Radio broadcast, Feb. 24, 1998), available in WL 3306495.
88 See Letter from Dr. Arthur Whiteley, Board Member, Marine Environmental Consortium to the Experts and Lay Witnesses Testifying in an Appeal of a NPDES Permit to Atlantic Salmon Fish Farms 3 (June 4, 1998) (on file with author).
89 See Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 5, sec. II, tbl. 14; C.C. Krueger & B. May, Ecological and Genetic Effects of Salmonid Introductions in North America, 48 (Supp. 1) Can. J. of Fisheries and Aquatic Sci., 66, 66 (1991).
90 See Krueger & May, supra note 89, at 67.
91 See Dennis R. Lassuy, Introduced Species as a Factor in Extinction and Endangerment of Native Fish Species, 15 Am. Fisheries Soc’y Symp., 391, 391, 393–94 (1995) (analyzing the factors cited as reasons for endangerment in the Endangered Species Act fish listings, which include habitat alteration, pollution, and introduced species).
92 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 53; Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 5, sec. II, tbl. 14.
93 See D. Gausen & V. Moen, Large-Scale Escapes of Farmed Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) into Norwegian Rivers Threaten Natural Populations, 48 Can. J. of Fisheries and Aquatic Sci., 426, 426 (1991).
94 See id. (citing R.L. Saunders, Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Stocks and Management Implications in the Canadian Atlantic Provinces and New England, USA, 38 Can. J. of Fisheries and Aquatic Sci., 1612, 1612–25 (1981)).
95 See Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 5, sec. II, pt. B.
96 See id. at ch. 5, sec. II, tbl. 14; Gausen & Moen, supra note 93, at 426, 428.
97 See Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 5, sec. II, pt. B.
98 See id. at ch. 5, sec. II, tbl. 14.
99 See Marine Envtl. Consortium v. Department of Ecology, PCHB No. 96–257, 1997 WL 394651, at *5 (Wash. Pol. Control Bd. May 27, 1997).
100 See id.
101 See Letter from Dr. Arthur Whiteley, supra note 88, at 3.
102 See id.
103 See id. at 1; Telephone Interview with Dr. Arthur Whiteley, Board Member of the Marine Environmental Consortium (Jan. 8, 1999).
104 See Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Final Order at 3, Marine Envtl. Consortium v. Department of Ecology, 1998 WL 377649 (Wash. Pol. Control Bd. June 1, 1998) (PCHB No. 96–257) [hereinafter Memorandum of Points]; Letter from Dr. Arthur Whiteley, supra note 88, at 1.
105 See Memorandum of Points, supra note 104, at 2.
106 See supra note 89 and accompanying text.
107 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 55.
108 See Elliot Entis, Aquabiotech: A Blue Revolution?, World Aquaculture, March 1997, at 12–15; E. Hallerman & A. Kapuscinski, Potential Impacts of Transgenic and Genetically Manipulated Fish on Natural Populations: Addressing the Uncertainties Through Field Testing, in Genetic Conservation of Salmonid Fishes 93, 95 (Joseph G. Cloud & Gary H. Thorgaard eds., 1993).
109 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 11.
110 See id. at 56.
111 See id.
112 See id.
113 See generally id. at 63–84.
114 See id. at 12–13.
115 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 13.
116 See id. at 63–64.
117 See id. at 64.
118 See id. at 29; J. Lopez Alvarado, Aquafeeds and the Environment, in Feeding Tomorrow’s Fish 275, 285 (A. Tacon & B. Basurco eds., 1997).
119 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 64–65.
120 See Gary L. Rumsey, Fish Meal and Alternate Sources of Protein in Fish Feeds, 18 Fisheries 14, 17 (1993) (citing G.H. Ketola, Effect of Phosphorus in Trout Diets on Water Pollution, 6 Salmonid 12, 12–15 (1982)).
121 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 64.
122 See id. at 64–65.
123 See id. at 65; Rumsey, supra note 120, at 17.
124 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 65 (citing G.H. Ketola & B.F. Harland, Influence of Phosphorous in Rainbow Trout Diets on Phosphorous Discharges in Effluent Water, 122 Transactions of the Am. Fisheries Soc’y 1120, 1120–26 (1993)).
125 See Alvarado, supra note 118, at 286–87 (explaining that when feeds are deficient in amino acids fish will use the amino acids as a source of energy, resulting in the release of nitrogen, and the use of fat will reduce the amount of protein that fish break down for energy, again reducing the amount of nitrogen released into the environment); Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 65.
126 See Alvarado, supra note 118, at 286; M. Autin, Commercial Aquafeed Manufacture and Production, in Feeding Tomorrow’s Fish, supra note 118, at 102.
127 See Charles C. Botting, Extrusion Technology in Aquaculture Feed Processing, in Proceedings of the Aquaculture Feed Processing and Nutrition Workshop 129, 130 (Dean M. Akiuama & Ronnie K.H. Tan eds., 1991).
128 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 64.
129 See generally Ronald W. Hardy, Sustainable Aquaculture and Aquatic Feeds, Aquaculture Mag., Mar./Apr. 1997, at 72–77 (detailing innovations in utilizing soybeans and gluten products to produce salmon feeds).
130 See id. at 74 (describing limiting factors on the use of substitute feeds).
131 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 66.
132 See id.
133 See Alvarado, supra note 118, at 283.
134 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 67–68.
135 See id. at 68.
136 See id. at 69.
137 See id.
138 See id.
139 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 69.
140 See id. at 69–70 (citing New England Fisheries Dev. Ass’n, Polyculture of Sea Scallops Suspended from Salmon Net Pens (1996)).
141 See T.V.R. Pillay, Aquaculture Development: Progress and Prospects 73–74 (1994).
142 See id.
143 See id. at 74.
144 See id.
145 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 72.
146 See id.
147 See James W. Avault, Jr., Prevention of Disease, Some Fundamentals Reviewed, Aquaculture Mag., Mar./Apr. 1997, at 81.
148 See Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, Selected Technology in U.S. Aquaculture 10 (1995) (citing Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Guide to Drug, Vaccine, and Pesticide Use in Aquaculture (1994)).
149 See Fred P. Meyer, Health and Disease in Aquaculture: Science, Technology, and the Federal Role, 26 (citing Office of Technology Assessment, Current Status of Federal Involvement in U.S. Aquaculture OTA-BP-ENV-170, and Selected Technology Issues in U.S. Aquaculture OTA-BP-ENV-171, Oct. 1995).
150 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 73.
151 See Robert R. Stickney, Principles of Aquaculture 76–77 (1994)[hereinafter Stickney, Principles]; Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 74.
152 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 74 (citing Interview with J. McGonigle, Maine Aquaculture Association).
153 See Stewart C. Johnson et al., Crustacean and Helminth Parasites of Seawater-Reared Salmonids, Aquaculture Mag., Mar./Apr. 1997, at 48.
154 See id.
155 See id. at 50; Office of Technology Assessment, supra note 148, at 18, box 2–3.
156 See Stephanie Pain, Salmon Farmers Put ‘Cleaner Fish’ on the Payroll, New Scientist, Oct. 21, 1989, at 35.
157 See id.
158 See Johnson, supra note 153, at 50.
159 See Pain, supra note 156, at 35.
160 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 74; Stephen L. Ott, Onions May Replace Insecticides for Some British Fish Farmers, FoodReview, Oct.-Dec. 1991, at 20.
161 See Ott, supra note 160, at 20.
162 See id.
163 See id.
164 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 76. The alternatives to using netpens that enable fish containment include using closed systems on land or using more secured systems with walls in coastal operations. See id.; Marine Envtl. Consortium v. Department of Ecology, PCHB No. 96–257, 1998 WL 377649, at *2 (Wash. Pol. Control Bd. June 1, 1998); infra notes 167–73 and accompanying text.
165 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 76.
166 See id.; Gausen & Moen, supra note 93, at 426 (stating that cages’ movement due to a loss of moorings is an accident resulting in salmon escapes).
167 See Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 11, sec. III.
168 See id.
169 See id.
170 See id.
171 See id.
172 See Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 11, sec. III.
173 See id. As this Comment focuses on coastal aquaculture, it will not explore offshore and land-based saltwater systems that constitute other alternatives to raising salmon, each with its own costs and benefits. See id. at ch. 11, secs. II, IV.
174 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 77.
175 See id.
176 See David J. Harvey, Aquaculture: A Diverse Industry Poised for Growth, Food Review, Oct.-Dec. 1991, at 23.
177 See Marine Envtl. Consortium v. Department of Ecology, PCHB No. 96–257, 1998 WL 377649, at *3 (Wash. Pol. Control Bd. June 1, 1998).
178 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 77, 146 (citing International Council for Exploration of the Sea, Report of the Study Group of Genetic Risks to Atlantic Salmon Stocks (1991)).
179 See Office of Technology Assessment, supra note 148, at 30 (stating that sterility in finfish appears to be 94–100% effective).
180 See supra note 23 and accompanying text. Stricter regulations will propel the use of such technologies to enable compliance with the regulations. See supra note 130 and accompanying text.
181 33 U.S.C.  1251(a) (1994).
182 See Jeff L. Todd, Note, Environmental Law: The Clean Water Act—Understanding When a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Should Obtain an NPDES Permit, 49 Okla. L. Rev. 481, 482–83 (1996).
183 See 33 U.S.C.  1311(a).
184 Id.  1362(12).
185 See National Wildlife Fed’n v. Consumers Power Co., 862 F.2d 580, 582 (6th Cir. 1988) (describing the procedures for controlling pollution under the CWA).
186 See National Wildlife Fed’n v. Gorsuch, 693 F.2d 156, 165 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Consumers Power, 862 F.2d at 583.
187 See 33 U.S.C.  1362(7) (1994). “The term ‘navigable waters’ means the waters of the United States including the territorial seas.” Id. “The term ‘territorial seas’ means the belt of the seas measured from the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, and extending a distance of three miles.” Id.  1362(8). Most coastal aquaculture establishments are within this territorial seas category and thereby fall within state and federal jurisdiction. See Hopkins et al., supra note 16, at 236 (discussing the lack of regulation for aquaculture beyond the territorial seas in the open ocean).
188 See Gorsuch, 693 F.2d at 165 (utilizing the test to determine whether dams are required to obtain NPDES permits); Consumers Power, 862 F.2d at 583.
189 See 33 U.S.C.  1362(14); infra note 192 and accompanying text.
190 See Gorsuch, 693 F.2d at 165–66; 33 U.S.C.  1288(b)(2)(F) (exemplifying the way in which the CWA and its corresponding regulations refer to nonpoint sources; however a definition of the term is not provided in the statute).
191 See 2 Sheldon M. Novick et al., Law of Environmental Protection  12.05[1][b] at 12–51 (1998). “If one’s pollutants end up in ‘navigable waters’ but not by means of a ‘point source,’ one’s activities are not regulated directly under the [CWA].” Id.
192 33 U.S.C.  1362(14) (1994).
193 See William H. Rodgers, Jr., Handbook on Environmental Law,  4.4, at 375 (1977); S. Rep. No.92–414, at 212 (1972), reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3668, 3760. Senator Bob Dole defined a nonpoint source as “one that does not confine its polluting discharge to one fairly specific outlet, such as a sewer pipe, a drainage ditch or a conduit. . . .” Id.
194 See 40 C.F.R.  122.1(b)(2)(ii), 122.24 (1998).
195 See id.  122 app. C, 122.24(b).
196 See id.  122.24(a).
197 See id.  122 app. C(a), (b).
198 See id.  122 app. C(a).
199 See John Fleischman, Muddying the Waters: Perils of Fish Farming, Audubon, Mar.-Apr. 1997, at 68.
200 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 134.
201 See id. at 156.
202 See infra notes 296–98 and accompanying text.
203 See infra notes 284–90 and accompanying text.
204 See 40 C.F.R.  122.24(c) (1998).
205 See id.  122.24(c)(1).
206 See id.  122.24(c)(1)(i)-(iv).
207 See id.  122.24(c)(2).
208 See 33 U.S.C.  1328 (1994); 40 C.F.R.  122.25.
209 40 C.F.R.  122.25(b).
210 See id.  122.25(a).
211 33 U.S.C.  1362(6).
212 See Marine Envtl. Consortium v. Department of Ecology, PCHB No. 96–257, 1997 WL 394651, at *4 (Wash. Pol. Control Bd. May 27, 1997).
213 See 33 U.S.C.  1314(a)(4).
214 See Marine Envtl. Consortium, 1997 WL 394651, at *4 (discussing the meaning of the term biological pollution and determining that salmon fall within the meaning of biological pollutant).
215 National Wildlife Fed’n v. Consumers Power Co., 862 F.2d 580, 583 (6th Cir. 1988); see Association of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 802 (9th Cir. 1980) (determining that fish residuals in water discharged from seafood processing plants are pollutants).
216 National Wildlife Fed’n v. Consumers Power Co., 657 F. Supp.fl989, 1007 (W.D. Mich. 1987).
217 Wash. Rev. Code Ann.  15.85.010 (West 1998).
218 See Robert R. Stickney, Aquaculture in the United States: A Historical Survey 228 (1996)(stating that the Department of Agriculture was involved in the aquaculture industry in the late 1970s and that it controlled the specific area of inland species which were of commercial interest) [hereinafter Stickney, Historical Survey]; 33 U.S.C. 1362(6).
219 See Consumers Power, 862 F.2d at 584–87; National Wildlife Fed’n v. Gorsuch, 693 F.2d 156, 174–77 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (holding that the EPA has the discretion to define the term “added”).
220 Gorsuch, 693 F.2d at 175; see Consumers Power, 862 F.2d at 584.
221 See Consumers Power, 862 F.2d at 588–89; Gorsuch, 693 F.2d at 174–75.
222 See Consumers Power, 862 F.2d at 581.
223 See id. at 585, 588–89.
224 See National Wildlife Fed’n v. Consumers Power Co., 657 F. Supp. 989, 1008 (W.D. Mich. 1987).
225 See National Wildlife Fed’n v. Consumers Power Co., 862 F.2d at 585 (6th Cir. 1988).
226 See id.
227 See id.
228 See id.
229 See 40 C.F.R.  408 (1998); see also Association of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 801 (9th Cir. 1980) (ruling on a challenge to the seafood processors’ effluent guidelines).
230 See Consumers Power, 862 F.2d at 585.
231 See id. at 585–86.
232 See 33 U.S.C.  1342 (1994).
233 See id.  1342(a)(1).
234 See generally Kristy A. Niehaus, Clean Water Act Permitting: The NPDES Program at Fifteen, 2 Nat. Resources & Env’t 16 (1987) (explaining the NPDES permitting process and relevant terminology).
235 See 33 U.S.C.  1251(d).
236 See id.  1342(b).
237 See id.  1311(b)(1)(A)-(C), (b)(2)(E), 1312(a).
238 See Niehaus, supra note 234, at 19.
239 See 33 U.S.C.  1314(b)(2) (1994); see also E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 112–14 (1977) (upholding the Administrator’s authority to issue the 1977 effluent limitations).
240 See Niehaus, supra note 234, at 19.
241 See 33 U.S.C.  1362(11) (defining “effluent limitation” as “any restriction established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point sources into navigable waters . . .”).
242 See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 111 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (discussing the various effluent limitations used in discharge permits).
243 See id.; supra Section I(A)(1).
244 See 33 U.S.C.  1311(b)(2)(A)-(E).
245 Id.  1362(13).
246 Id.  1314(a)(4).
247 See Natural Resources Defense Council, 822 F.2d at 110 n.5.
248 See Zygmunt J.B. Plater et al., Environmental Law and Policy: Nature, Law, and Society 523 (2d ed. 1998).
249 See Rybachek v. EPA, 904 F.2d 1276, 1292 (9th Cir. 1990).
250 33 U.S.C.  1311(b)(2)(A) (1994).
251 See Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985).
252 See id.
253 See Association of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 816 (9th Cir. 1980); Plater et al., supra note 248, at 521; Sharon Elliot, Note, Citizen Suits Under the Clean Water Act: Waiting for Godot in the Fifth Circuit, 62 Tul. L. Rev. 175, 178–79 (1987).
254 See 33 U.S.C.  1311(c).
255 Id.  1317(a)(2).
256 Id.  1311(b)(2)(E).
257 See Karen M. Wardzinski et al., Water Pollution Control under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, in The Clean Water Act Handbook 8, 17 (Parthenia B. Evans ed., 1994). BPT (best practicable control technology currently available) is the threshold level of control for all conventional pollutants. See id. BCT assessment of conventional pollutants is a more stringent standard than BPT, but the two assessments share the requirement of looking at a group of the best performers in an industry. See id. The evaluations of the two technologies differ because BPT has a more limited cost analysis as compared to BCT. See id. at 17–18; infra note 258 and accompanying text.
258 See 33 U.S.C.  1314(b)(4)(B) (1994); see also Wardzinski et al., supra note 257, at 18–19 (describing in detail the two cost analyses in the BCT assessment: the first in this text is the “industry cost-effectiveness test” and the second is the “POTW cost-comparison test”).
259 See supra notes 250, 256 and accompanying text.
260 See Association of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 817–18 (9th Cir. 1980).
261 See supra notes 253, 258 and accompanying text.
262 See supra notes 252, 257 and accompanying text.
263 See id.
264 See Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985); supra notes 244–63 and accompanying text.
265 See Plater et al., supra note 248, at 502 n.2.
266 See id.
267 See 33 U.S.C.  1312(a) (1994).
268 See William H. Rodgers, Jr., Environmental Law,  4.7(A)(1), at 342–43 (2d ed. 1994).
269 See 33 U.S.C.  1312(a) (1994).
270 See id.
271 See Rodgers, supra note 268,  4.7(A)(1), at 343.
272 See id. at 343–44. One example of a descriptive standard is “surface waters must be ‘free from floating debris, scum and other floating materials attributable to municipal, industrial or other discharges. . . .’” Id. at 343 (citing U.S. EPA, Guidelines for Developing or Revising Water Quality Standards Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 23 (1973)).
273 See Niehaus, supra note 234, at 19.
274 See id.
275 See id.
276 See 40 C.F.R.  122.41(j) (1998).
277 See Niehaus, supra note 234, at 19.
278 See Elliot, supra note 253, at 179.
279 See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The EPA asserts that “[a]n effluent limitation must be a precise number in order for it to be an effective regulatory tool; both the discharger and the regulatory agency need to have an identifiable standard upon which to determine whether the facility is in compliance.” Id.
280 See Niehaus, supra note 234, at 19.
281 See id.; infra notes 303–07 (describing the process by which the EPA creates national effluent limitations for an industry).
282 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 108.
283 See id. at 17; infra Section IV.A.
284 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 111; Rychlak & Peel, supra note 4, at 856.
285 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 111; Rychlak & Peel, supra note 4, at 856.
286 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 111.
287 See Rychlak & Peel, supra note 4, at 856 (discussing concerns regarding delegation of NPDES permitting authority to the states).
288 See id.
289 See id.
290 See infra notes 296–302 and accompanying text.
291 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 111 (citing Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Statement of Need and Reasonableness in the Matter of Proposed Rules Governing Requirements for Aquaculture Facilities, Minnesota Rules Part 7050.0216).
292 See infra note 295 and accompanying text.
293 See supra note 289 and accompanying text.
294 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 111.
295 See Minn. R. 7050.0216 subpt. 3A (1999); Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 111.
296 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 111 (citing Washington State Department of Ecology, Model Marine Netpen Waste Discharge Permit and Conditions (1996)).
297 Id.
298 See id. (citing Washington State Department of Ecology, Factsheet for Marine Netpen NPDES Permit (1996)).
299 See id.
300 See id. (citing Washington State Department of Ecology, Upland Finfish Hatching and Rearing General Permit Fact Sheet).
301 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 111.
302 See id.
303 See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (stating that “the primary purpose of the effluent limitations and guidelines was to provide uniformity among the federal and state jurisdictions’ enforcing the NPDES program and prevent the ‘Tragedy of the Commons. . . .’”).
304 See Wardzinski et al., supra note 257, at 21–22.
305 See Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement, Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Fish Hatcheries and Farms Point Source Category 11 (1974). The analysis of the industry includes a consideration of whether differences exist in the following factors: product, wastes generated, treatability of wastewater, production process, facility size and age, geographic location, and raw materials, which would require the development of individual limitations for different sectors of the industry. See id. at 11, 53. The next step of the analysis involves determining the raw waste characteristics for each sector of the industry. See id. at 11.
306 See id. at 12. This information is then interpreted to determine which technology constitutes BAT, etc., to aid in developing the appropriate effluent limitations. See id.
307 See Wardzinski et al., supra note 257, at 21–22; Environmental Protection Agency, supra note 305, at 11.
308 See generally Environmental Protection Agency, supra note 305 (discussing the effluent reductions attainable through varying technologies).
309 See Stickney, Principles, supra note 151, at 244.
310 See id.
311 See Stickney, Historical Survey, supra note 218, at 226–27.
312 See id. at 228–29 (detailing Congress’s efforts to increase funding for the research and development of aquaculture).
313 See Stickney, Principles, supra note 151, at 244.
314 See Environmental Protection Agency, supra note 305, at 1 (discussing the subcategories covered by the document: native fish in flow-through culturing systems, native fish in pond culturing systems, and non-native fish culturing systems).
315 See Norma Dove-Edwin, A Study of Four Different Effluent Treatment Systems in the Control of Fish Farm Effluent 7 (1989) (unpublished M.S. thesis, Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling (Scotland)) (on file with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Library). Suspended solids, as well as settleable solids discussed below, are composed of waste food and fish excrement. See id. The suspended solids parameter measures the amount of suspended material that could be removed by filtration. See Environmental Protection Agency, supra note 305, at 104.
316 See Environmental Protection Agency, supra note 305, at 68–69. Settleable solids consist of the amount of solids that settle within one hour under tranquil conditions. See id.
317 See id. at 5–7.
318 See id. at 61–99 (summarizing the data on the characteristics of the waste discharged from the fish farms). The report of the draft limitations states that the other nutrients are not limited because the extent to which various treatment processes reduce the amount of nutrients in the discharged water must still be examined, and advanced treatment technologies had not yet been demonstrated to be effective at that time. See id. at 102. A more recent document states that it is necessary to monitor suspended solids, BOD, total nitrogen and phosphorous, as well as ammonia. See Workshop on Fish Farm Effluents and their Control in EC Countries 27 (Harald Rosenthal et al. eds., 1993) [hereinafter Workshop].
319 See Environmental Protection Agency, supra note 305, at 98–99. Also in the discussion of the selected pollution parameters for the fish farms, the author for the draft limitations suggests that “biological pollutants are considered to be of pollutional significance in non-native fish culturing operations.” See id. at 101.
320 See id. at 114–15.
321 See Workshop, supra note 318, at 13, 45, 51 (detailing the findings of a comparative study of the European nations’ legislation regulating control of effluent discharges from fish farms).
322 See id. at 51.
323 See id. at 50.
324 See id.
325 See id. at 49.
326 See Workshop, supra note 318, at 13.
327 See id. at 46.
328 See id.
329 See Stickney, Principles, supra note 151, at 244; see also supra Section I (discussing the adverse environmental effects of fish farms).
330 See supra Sections I, IV.
331 See supra notes 194–203 and accompanying text.
332 See supra notes 285–90 and accompanying text.
333 See supra notes 285–90 and accompanying text.
334 See 40 C.F.R.  122 app. C(a)-(b) (1998).
335 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 111.
336 See id.
337 See id.
338 See id.
339 See id. at 108; Rosamond L. Naylor et al., Nature’s Subsidies to Shrimp and Salmon Farming, 282 Science 883, 884 (1998) (calling for “strong . . . and enforceable environmental reg-ulations”); Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 7, sec. III, pt. A (recommending that a new approach for aquaculture regulation in British Columbia focus on performance-based standards).
340 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 108, 110.
341 See supra note 304 and accompanying text.
342 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 9.
343 See 33 U.S.C.  1362(12) (1994).
344 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 134.
345 See supra notes 194–200 and accompanying text.
346 See supra notes 34, 54, 61, 83 and accompanying text.
347 See 33 U.S.C.  1362(6); supra Sections III(A)(2)-(3).
348 See supra notes 186–88 and accompanying text.
349 See supra notes 232–36 and accompanying text.
350 See supra note 24 and accompanying text.
351 See 33 U.S.C.A.  1311(b)(2)(A) (1994) (stating that national effluent limitations will help achieve progress in attaining the national goal of reducing pollutant discharges).
352 See supra Section VI(B)(1)(a).
353 See supra notes 34, 215–16, 227–28 and accompanying text.
354 See supra notes 227–29 and accompanying text.
355 See 40 C.F.R.  408 (1998); see also Association of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 801 (9th Cir. 1980).
356 See 40 C.F.R.  408; see also Association of Pac. Fisheries, 615 F.2d at 801.
357 See supra Section I(A).
358 See supra Section I(A).
359 See 40 C.F.R.  408; see also Association of Pac. Fisheries, 615 F.2d at 802.
360 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 108; Naylor et al., supra note 339, at 884; Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 7, sec. III, pt. A.
361 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 108.
362 See id.
363 See supra notes 284–90 and accompanying text.
364 See supra notes 296–97 and accompanying text.
365 See supra Section I.
366 See Minn. R. 7050.0216 subpt. 3A (1999). Minnesota already requires that all aquaculture facilities collect, treat, and dispose of all uneaten fish food and fish wastes. See id.; Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 111.
367 See supra note 360 and accompanying text.
368 See Folke et al., supra note 57, at 173.
369 See id.
370 See Rychlak & Peel, supra note 4, at 856.
371 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 111.
372 See Folke et al., supra note 57, at 174 (exploring the internalization of the external cost of eutrophication in the salmon industry).
373 See id. at 179.
374 See id. (estimating that internalizing the external costs of eutrophication would so increase the production cost of raising salmon to make the industry essentially unprofitable).
375 See supra Section IV.
376 See supra Section IV.
377 See supra Section IV.
378 See supra Section IV.
379 See Folke et al., supra note 57, at 179–80.
380 See id.
381 See Hardy, supra note 129, at 74; Johnson, supra note 153, at 50; Harvey, supra note 176, at 23.
382 See Hardy, supra note 129, at 74; Johnson, supra note 153, at 50; Harvey, supra note 176, at 23.
383 See Wardzinski et al., supra note 257, at 21–22.
384 See supra note 305 and accompanying text.
385 See Wardzinski et al., supra note 257, at 22.
386 See Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 11, sec. III.
387 See supra Section II(A)-(B).
388 See supra Section II(A)-(B).
389 See supra Section II(C).
390 See supra Section II(D).
391 See Plater et al., supra note 248, at 502 n.2.
392 See supra notes 315–18 and accompanying text.
393 See supra note 246 and accompanying text.
394 See Plater et al., supra note 248, at 523; infra notes 400–02 and accompanying text.
395 See Alvarado, supra note 118, at 285.
396 See id.
397 See 40 C.F.R.  408 (1998); Association of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 802 (9th Cir. 1980); Environmental Protection Agency, supra note 305, at 5–7.
398 See Workshop, supra note 318, at 51.
399 See supra notes 395, 397–98 and accompanying text.
400 See supra note 248 and accompanying text.
401 See supra note 249 and accompanying text.
402 See 33 U.S.C.  1311(b)(2)(A) (1994).
403 See Association of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 816 (9th Cir. 1980); Elliot, supra note 253, at 178–79; Plater et al., supra note 248, at 521.
404 See supra notes 128–30, 141–44 and accompanying text.
405 See Environmental Protection Agency, supra note 305, at 5–7.
406 See Workshop, supra note 318, at 13.
407 See supra notes 245, 250 and accompanying text.
408 See 33 U.S.C.  1328 (1994); 40 C.F.R.  122.25 (1998).
409 See Memorandum of Points, supra note 104, at 2–3; Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 5, sec. II, tbl. 14; Krueger & May, supra note 89, at 66.
410 See Marine Envtl. Consortium v. Department of Ecology, PCHB No. 96–257, 1997 WL 394651, at *4 (Wash. Pol. Control Bd. May 27, 1997) (questioning the existence of the causal relationship between escaped Atlantic salmon as pollutants and whether they cause pollution in the form of harm to native fish in Washington waters).
411 See Environmental Assessment, supra note 10, at ch. 5, sec. II, tbl. 14; Krueger & May, supra note 89, at 66.
412 See supra Section III(A)(2)-(3).
413 See National Wildlife Fed’n v. Consumers Power Co., 862 F.2d 580, 583 (6th Cir. 1988); National Wildlife Fed’n v. Consumers Power Co., 657 F. Supp. 989, 1007 (W.D. Mich. 1987).
414 See National Wildlife Fed’n v. Gorsuch, 693 F.2d 156, 174–75 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Consumers Power, 862 F.2d at 584, 588–90.
415 See Gorsuch, 693 F.2d at 165 (utilizing the test to determine whether dams are required to obtain NPDES permits); Consumers Power, 862 F.2d at 583.
416 See supra notes 247, 250 and accompanying text.
417 See supra note 264 and accompanying text.
418 See Goldburg & Triplett, supra note 2, at 76; Marine Envtl. Consortium v. Department of Ecology, PCHB No. 96–257, 1998 WL 377649, at *3 (Wash. Pol. Control Bd. June 1, 1998).
419 See Gausen & Moen, supra note 93, at 426.
420 See Marine Envtl. Consortium, 1998 WL 377649, at *3.
421 See supra notes 418–20 and accompanying text.