Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />such as facilities can have on lakes and streams, the implementation mechanisms (e,g" <br />TMDLs) could have adverse consequences throughout many western states," <br /> <br />IfEPA were barred from adopting requirements where there would be "obvious effects" and <br />"adverse consequences" on some members of the regulated community or local areas, then there <br />would never have been a Clean Water Act, a Clean Air Act or any environmental regulations for <br />cleanup of existing pollution, Surely, this is not the position that the Board means to advocate, <br />The record of pollution control in this nation is actually impressive in that the years have shown <br />that the country can have cleaner air and water without massive economic dislocation, In fact, in <br />many cases, the imposition of new pollution control requirements has enabled industries to <br />become more, rather than less competitive, while reducing costs and risks to human health and <br />the environment at the same time, The Board's request for a "status report" later in this <br />paragraph can stand without the Board taking this position, Therefore, TV recommends that the <br />Board delete this sentence in its entirety. <br /> <br />7. "Also EPA has previously proposed the suggestion that "biological criteria" should be <br />developed based upon concerns that the necessary data and science that Colorado found <br />inadequate [sic)." <br /> <br />The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission's comments on biological criteria open with <br />the statement that, "Colorado believes that biological assessments are a very useful water quality <br />management tool".." The Commission does, however, ask that EP A not mandate enforceable <br />biological criteria "without an understanding of the legal relationship of such criteria to [western <br />water] rights." Because it is not at all clear what the Board is seeking to add with this statement, <br />TV recommends that the Board delete this sentence in its entirety. <br /> <br />,8. "Many of the suggested changes in the antidegradation policy and the use attainability <br />analysis, the potential refinements of the 'existing use' and 'designated use' concepts, the <br />potential new guidance on 'use removal criteria' and mixing zone determinations, the <br />proposed refinement or development of many new criteria (fox toxicity, sediment quality, <br />human and wildlife health, microbial and nutrient levels, etc.) and the suggested <br />'independent application' policy raise many questions that we are not presently prepared to <br />evaluate in this abstract context." <br /> <br />Given the CWCS's limited resources devoted to following water quality issues and its lack of <br />significant staff expertise in this arena, the admission in this sentence is not surprising, TV <br />would suggest that it is also unnecessary for the CWCS to try and "supplement" the Water <br />Quality Control Commission's comments on these,matters, Therefore, TV recommends that the <br />Board strike this sentence in its entirety, <br /> <br />9. "Our experience suggests, however, that state and local agencies will require adequate time <br />and flexibility to address site-specific circumstances while we evaluate the opportunities for <br />protecting new needs along with existing rights and values," <br /> <br />a. time, With regard to the Board's apparent concern about timing, there is no indication that <br />EPA is going to proceed quickly to rulemaking from this ANPRM. As the Board may be aware, <br /> <br />3 <br />