BOARD00585 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WQS-ANPRM Comment Clerk November 20, 1998 Page 3 would like to beiieve that EPA doesn't intend to "start over" in these regards, but we also don't want EP A to proceed naively into such clearly contentious areas, EP A suggests that flow alterations contribute to habitat loss and water quality degradation and that water diversion is a significant contributor to adverse hydrologic modification of streams. However, many such modifications have already occurred, as Colorado and other states have developed over the years. EPA's proposal to develop "regional minimum stream flow criteria" could easily result in direct interference with state water laws, The CWCB experience in protecting instream flows and natural lake levels in Colorado demonstrates the extent to which site-specific circumstances and flexible programmatic capabilities are required to balance interests in the health of our lakes, rivers and streams with our interest in healthy economies and communities, The CWCB is also concerned by the potential conflict between many other aspects ofEP A's ANPRM and Colorado's ability to continuedeveloping its interstate water supply allocations and to protect existing water su lies and property rights. Many of the suggeste c anges In the antI egradation policy and the use attamability ana ysis, the potential refinements of the "existing use" and "designated use" concepts, the potential new guidance on "use removal criteria" and mixing zone determinations, the proposed refinement or development of many new criteria (for toxicity, sediment quality, human and wildlife health, microbial and nutrient levels, etc.) and the suggested "independent application" policy raise man uestions that we are not resent! re ared to evaluate in this abstract context. Although the questions EP A poses in the ANPRM will be e p m framing your proposed "structured national debate," these questions are very complex. The CWCB will coordinate with the WQCC and the many potentially affected ' communities, businesses and other Colorado interests to better understand the implications ,ofEPA's proposals. ur expenence suggests, however, that state and local agencies will ~ require adequate time and flexibility to address site-specific circumstances while we Delete.. evaluate the 0 ortunities for protecting new needs alon with existing rights and values. EPA should allow enough time and provide adequate information for states suc as Colorado to appropriately deal with the many complex and potentially significant regulatory options, We appreciate the advance notice EPA has provided the state of Colorado and others concerning potential changes in the national water quality protection policies and pledge our continued support for a rational and timely evaluation of these issues, Please call or write to us if you want clarification of the Colorado Water Conservation Board's interests and concerns and please keep us informed regarding any next steps. STILL BUILDING, DRAFT NOT COMPLETE YET! L:\wctrans\watcr quality\comments to EPA's ANPRM (!) CkHe..