BOARD01398

• Board Meeting Date: 7/24/2000
• Description: CWCB Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

. .

FRICO's Proposals

The FRICO proposes two alternative revisions to the Basic Standards and Methodologies, .
In alternative I, FRICO proposes that table value standards should not be used in assessing the
adequacy of water quality protection for any specific classified use. In alternative 2, FRICO
proposes standards for Fecal Coliform (2.2 cfu/l OOml), Nitrate (5.0 mg/l) and Phosphorus (0.6
mg/l) in all stream segments that are classified for agricultural use. FRICO asserts that its
proposed nitrate and phosphorous standards are appropriate to protect sensitive crops, and the
fecal coliform standard is appropriate for agricultural reuse for food crop production.
Additionally, FRICO suggests that if no pathogen criterion is required to protect all agricultural
uses, a rationale needs to be provided.

Thornton's Proposal

Thornton asserts that its water rights are impaired from the failure to adequately regulate
water quality in effluent dominated stream segments, Thornton proposes to create a new use
classification to address effluent-dominated streams that are used as drinking water supplies.
Thornton recommends such classification for streams, where the total wastewater load above a
municipal water intake exceeds 25% of historical low flows. Thornton asserts that only four
stream segments appear to be affected by the new classification. In support of its proposal,
Thornton proposes concentration levels for Nitrate of 5.0 mg/I and Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
of2.0 mg/1.

Analvsis

As mentioned before, the majority of water users have opposed both Thornton's and .
FRICO's proposals primarily due to potential adverse effect that the new regulations may impose
on water substitute supply plans, augmentation plans, and exchanges because of the cost of
treating water to meet the proposed standards.

The provisions of Sections 37-80-120(3) and 37-92-305(5), C.R.S. provide that in
substitute water supply plans and augmentation plans including exchanges, the substituted water
should be of a quality and quantity that meets the requirements of water historically used by the
senior appropriator. Traditionally, the State Engineer allows exchanges as long as the substituted
water meets WQCC's standards (under a valid discharge permit). On rare occasion that
substituted water does not meet stream standards, but it is acceptable to the downstream senior
appropriator, the State Engineer would approve the exchanges, but immediately informs the
WQCC/D.

As we understand it, if adopted, the new classifications would not immediately impact
exchanges. Procedurally, the WQCC would have to adopt the recommendations, then in separate
proceedings, apply the classification to individual stream segments, then craft point-source
pollution discharge permits that incorporate treatments to meet this classification. The impact on
water rights would occur if the treatment options were so expensive as to be prohibitive with
respect to the use of water rights.

This concern about the proposal being cost-prohibitive may have best expressed in a
prehearing statement filed by the Wastewater Utility Council, that questions the necessity of the

.