Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />WQS-ANPRM Comment Clerk <br />November 21, 1998 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />among existing organizations. Since the participants in those existing organizations have <br />taken considerable initiative and made significant investment in their relationships and <br />implementation plans, EP A should avoid the promotion of competing or overlapping <br />organizations. <br /> <br />EP A's ANPRM does not appear to recognize the Prior Appropriation Doctrine or <br />the existing system of water rights that have been established in many western states as <br />the fundamental basis for allocation and protection of our limited water supplies. In some <br />instances, such as'the suggested development of various "physical criteria" (including <br />sediment quality, flow and wildlife criteria), the ANPRM doesn't even appear to <br />acknowledge the role of state laws and property rights in the allocation of western water <br />resources. It would be helpful ifEPA would explicitly acknowledge this role and the <br />potential relationship such criteria may have to existing and future water supplies. If flow <br />criteria, for example, are developed without regard for the obvious dependence of many <br />existing communities on water storage and diversion facilities and the obvious effects <br />such facilities can have on lakes and streams, the implementation mechanisms (e.g., <br />TMDLs) could have adverse consequences throughout many western states. Also, EP A <br />has previously proposed the suggestion that "biological criteria" should be developed <br />based upon concerns that the necessary data and science that Colorado found inadequate. <br />A status report, including the views of state and federal wildlife agencies, on the <br />development of that data and the related scientific methods would be very helpful. We <br />would like to believe that EP A doesn't intend to "start over" in these regards, but we also <br />don't want EP A to proceed naively into such clearly contentious areas. <br /> <br />EP A suggests that flow alterations contribute to habitat loss and water quality <br />degradation and that water diversion is a significant contributor to adverse hydrologic <br />modification of streams. However, many such modifications have already occurred, as <br />Colorado and other states have developed over the years. EPA's proposal to develop <br />"regional minimum stream flow criteria" could easily result in direct interference with <br />state water laws. The CWCB experience in protecting instream flows and natural lake <br />