BOARD00585 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

At~PRIVl G()mments December 8, 1998 Page 4 . which existing use removal may be appropriate have come to our attention. The first relates to a manmade reservoir formerly used as a municipal water supply, The municipality has now acquired a new water supply and plans to use the old reservoir as part of a landscape irrigation wastewater reuse project. A continued requirement to meet water quality standards to protect a drinking water use that will no longer exist may make this beneficial water conservation effort economically infeasible. A second example could arise due to the interaction of EPA's existing uSe policy with the potential for more refined use designations. In many instances, the predominant "existing" aquatic life use for a number of Colorado streams since 1975 has been influenced by human stocking of non-native fish species. There is now some substantial interest in reestablishing a more "native" aquatic assemblage in at least some streams, for example to prevent currently declining species from becoming endangered. In these circumstances, if more refined use designations were in place, EPA's current regulation would preclude removing a use designation that protects a non-native fish assemblage, even if that were necessary to achieve full protection of a native fish assemblage. It is unfortunate that EPA has apparently sought to avoid a policy debate on this . issue by leaving it out of the ANPRM; although it was specifically flagged in comments on the 1 996 Interim Draft ANPRM. These issues warrant open public discussion and consideration by EPA. 3. III.B.4.b. Removal of Designated Uses: EPA states as part of this discussion its current thinking that there is "a serious question about whether the existence of a dam and the infeasibility of operating that dam in a way that will result in attaining the designated use, measured against . . today's values, is sufficient reason to remove a designated use: Colorado does not believe that there is any demonstrated need to eliminate or change the "dams and diversions. use removal criterion in the current regulation. EPA's analysis appears to be based on dams licensed by FERC under the Federal Power Act. This discussion fails to consider the majority of dams in the west, which have been constructed to serve ef a wide range of beneficial uses, including in particular irrigation and municipal water supply. Any attempt to modify the current EPA regulatory provision regarding dams and diversions is likely to generate widespread concern that this is another effort by EPA to interfere with western water management decisions. That debate does not seem worthwhile unless EPA is convinced that there is substantial problem that has arisen with application of the . current language. We are not aware of any such problem.