WSP10231 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. (,I".') N "'1 I' .,;.;. . . "maximum effluent limits on point sources" and the NPDES permit system instituted "as a means of achieving and enforcing the effluent limitations." The Supreme Court noted that "the discharge of pollutants~ essential to the definition of point source,is defined in S 502(12) which provides as follows (emphasis added): The term "discharge of a pollutant" and the term "discharge of pollutants" each means (A) any addition of any pOllutant to navigable water. from a point source . . . . ' In Appalachian Power Co. v. Train, 545 F.2d 1351, 1377 (4 Cir. 1.976), ruling upon t,he definition of "discharge of a pollutant" contained in section 502(12) of the federal Clean Water Act, the Court stated that "Those constituents occurring naturally in the waterways or occurring as a result of other industrial discharges, do not constitute an addition of pollutants by a plant through which they pass." As the Federal Congress did in 1972, the 1973 Colorado Legislature turned from a water quality standard- based regulation scheme to one based on regulation of point source discharge. The 1966 Colorado Wa~er Pollution Control Act did not contain a definition of "point source." This definition was added in 1973 and was precisely the same as that contained in the 1972 FWPCA amendments. ~ 1973 Colo. Sess. Laws, Ch. 210, p. 710, C.R.S. 1963, 66-28-103 (1) (j); Section 502(14) of the 1972 FWPCA. The Colorado Legislature did not define the term "discharge of pollutants" as that term is used within the definition of "point source", but, in view of the fact that the Federal and Colorado definition of point source are exactly the same, there can be little doubt that the Colorado Legislature intended to have the language "discharge of pollutants"mean the same as the Federal Act, i.e., an addition of pollutants generated -6- I . J