BOARD00585

• Board Meeting Date: 11/23/1998
• Description: Federal "Clean Water Action Plan" and EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making - Status Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Troo.t uf\i'I'Y\"l-ed .prD~
CruJ\:::t-s ~nd. &,
f\L)ro'\lJ:lt~, Su.. ~,

DRAFT

November 20, 1998

U.S, Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.w.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Altn: WQS-ANPRM Comment Clerk
Water Docket, MC 4101

Re: Water Quality Standards - Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making

Dear EP A:

We would like to offer the following comments on behalf of the Colorado Water
Conservation Board (CWCB), The CWCB is the agency within Colorado's Executive
Branch having responsibility for the protection, conservation, and development of
Colorado's water resources. The CWCB is also responsible for appropriation and
maintenance of in stream flow water rights in the Colorado, We have a cooperative
relationship with the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (wQCC) and its staff,
and generally rely on their technical expertise and programmatic authority for the
protection of water quality in Colorado. Accordingly, we want to take this opportunity to
supplement the comments provided to you by the WQCC and to underscore certain
aspects that are more directly related to the responsibilities of the CWCR

We found your Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) to be very
informative concerning the implementation of the Clean Water A WAre uirements
and olicies. However, It oes not provide the basis to conclude that so many aspects of
the im lementation effort re uire such extensive overhaul. Colorado and ot er states ave
developed extensive regulatory and technica assistance programs consistent with EP A
guidelines for the implementation of the CW A, and have invested heavily in the
implementation of those programs. Extensive changes to the underlying federal
guidelines, as indicated in the ANPRM, will require substantial involvement by state and
local agencies (as well as non-governmental interests) and should only be proposed in such (:;\
areas and to h extent as can be c1earl . ustified by an obvious need, That JUStl cation o"?!. .1.
has not been demonstrated and the CWCB questions w et er such need exists. We do ''l::.lU'\Ie.
not accept EP A' s suggestion that increase interest In watershed management and the
development of improved technology, by themselves, justifY a "comprehensive evaluation
for the purpose of strengthening the regulation. " We agree, however, that "the current
regulation is not broken" and that a "structured national debate is needed" before
proceeding with such an overhaul of the existing policies, criteria and programs.

CD
~ek.