Section 95.1. [Reserved]  

Authority of Department

This section contains no test to balance economic development against environmental harm, and the EHB appropriately concluded that the second prong of the section was designed to consider the environmental impact apart from the aspect of economic development. Department of Environmental Resources v. Big B Mining Company, Inc., 554 A.2d 1002 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).

It was proper for the EHB to consider ‘‘need’’ in terms of market price and not in terms of public need. Department of Environmental Resources v. Big B Mining Company, Inc., 554 A.2d 1002 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).

Evidence

Where a body of water is designated ‘‘high quality’’ under 25 Pa. Code § 93.9, that fact together with the provisions of subsection (b) demand that the permit holder developers and the DER be the parties responsible for justifying the permit after evidence has been presented showing the likelihood of environmental harm. Marcon, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Resources, 462 A.2d 969 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).

The nondegradation provision does not apply in the absence of evidence that a particular body of water is of better quality than the applicable water quality criteria. Concerned Citizens for Orderly Progress v. Department of Environmental Resources, 387 A.2d 989 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).

This section cited in 25 Pa. Code § 89.57 (relating to treatment facility design); and 25 Pa. Code § 105.15 (relating to environmental assessment).