Laserfiche WebLink
<br />", <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />by the Congress in the hands of States and water resources management agencies. The issue also requires <br />consideration of how the statute divides responsibility between the federal and State governments for <br />controlling sources of water pollution. <br /> <br />The EP A reinstates its longstanding practice that the agency has never issued NPDES permits for mere <br />water transfers, nor has it required an NPDES permit for such transfers. The memo states, however, that <br />the Agency's position has not been previously fully articulated in an administrative document. The EPA <br />concludes based on its interpretation of the statute as a whole and its longstanding practice that the <br />Congress intended for water transfers to be subject to oversight by water management agencies and State <br />non-NPDES authorities, rather than the permitting program under Section 402 of the CW A. In addition, <br />the EPA intends to initiate a rulernaking process to address water transfers. <br /> <br />If you wish to receive an electronic copy of the EP A 's memo, please contact Bahman Hatami at extension 3946. <br /> <br />TU Report "Liquid Assets": In March 2005, Trout Unlimited published "Liquid Assets: Protecting and <br />Restoring the West's Rivers and Wetlands through Environmental Water Transactions". The report, <br />written by Steven Malloch with funding from the Resource Legacy Fund, was written "to help <br />conservation organizations, government agencies and regulators understand the new and growing use of <br />market-based mechanisms to shift water from historic uses to the environment." Regarding Colorado's <br />instream flow program, the report states: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />"In water law, Colorado has a reputation for doing things a bit differently than <br />other states - for instance its water court system requires the use of more lawyers and <br />water engineers than any other state. With instream flows, Colorado maintains its <br />reputation, requiring very careful scrutiny of water rights used to protect the environment. <br />This approach creates additional costs and hurdles for environmental water transactions, <br />but results in rights that are well defined, secure and defensible." (page 52) <br /> <br />"Assuming that environmental rights are defended and enforced once established, <br />rights are more secure because of the Colorado water system. Unlike many western <br />states, Colorado water rights are essentially fully adjudicated. Information about water <br />rights and use is easy to find and rely upon compared to most states. It is comparatively <br />easy to know about new appropriations or changes to existing rights that may affect an <br />instream right." (page 56) <br /> <br />The full report can be found at <br />htto:llcbwto.orgJi sole bwto/librarv Idocuments/Liquid Assets.odf <br /> <br />Colorado Water Utility Council Meeting: A meeting of the Colorado Water Utility Council was held <br />on August 5th, where bylaws were reviewed and discussed and people were asked to volunteer for two <br />officer positions for their Board. <br /> <br />A new Water Quality Control Director, Steve Gunderson, from the state health department gave a talk on <br />his previous experiences and what he expected he thought he could do for the department in the future. <br />There was also a presentation from another employee of the health department regarding the grants the <br />health department awards. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mike Brod from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority also gave a short talk <br />on their loan availability. The CWRPDA is now awarding loans at 0% and 1.75% interest to <br />disadvantaged communities for drinking water related systems. Mike asked Kathie Lucki of the CWCB <br />questions regarding water conservation plans and she eXplained that after July I, 2006 all new plans will <br /> <br />11 <br />