Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />ANPRM Comments <br />December 8, 1998 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />recommend that EPA consider the additional step of turning this into a more <br />streamlined educational resource. <br /> <br />Comments on Uses <br /> <br />1. II1.B.2. Refined Designated Uses: <br /> <br />We do not believe that it would be helpful for EPA to adopt new regulatory <br />provisions regarding refined designated uses. In Colorado, we currently apply a <br />system that has four specifically defined aquatic life use designation options, For <br />EPA to adopt new refined use regulatory provisions might require states such as <br />ours:; with systems that are currently working, to expend considerable effort to make <br />changes consistent with the approach chosen by EPA. EPA should clarify that <br />where a state chooses to move to a more refined use designation system, the <br />adoption of a more specific use designation within a previous, broader use category <br />would not constitute a downgrading. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />We do believe that it would be useful for EPA to develop non-binding, informational <br />guidance on use designation approaches, including refined use options. For <br />example, EPA might undertake an analysis of the range of use designation <br />approaches currently employed by states, and the perceived strengths and <br />weaknesses of each. Better awareness and understanding of the pros and cons <br />of various options would be helpful to states as they consider how to improve their <br />water quality standards programs over time. However, mandating a high level of <br />specificity in use designations would not be constructive. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />III.B.3. Existing Uses: <br /> <br />a. EPA's current expansive definition of "existing use", to include uses that may <br />no longer be attainable (although attained sometime since 1975) and to include <br />"existing quality" strains the language and unnecessarily diverts attention from the <br />underlying policy issues. For example, EPA's current semantic gymnastics <br />essentially eliminate the distinction between "existing uses" and "designated uses", <br />by deciding that instances where there is adequate quality and no obvious limiting <br />factors warrant a decision that something is an "existing use" even though it has <br />never existed in fact. Rather than torture the normal meaning of words to this <br />extent, EPA should more directly analyze what the minimum levels of use protection <br />are that should be mandated by the federal government. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />b. Colorado believes that there are narrow circumstances in which removal of <br />an "existing use" designation should be allowed. Two examples of situations in <br />