BOARD02257

• Board Meeting Date: 3/13/1963
• Description: Table of Contents, Agenda and Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

..J",,",""""

MR. STAPLETON:

MR. PETERSON:

MR. MOSES:

MR. GEISSINGER:

treatment, etc. It is possible to conceive of
a situation where water might be appropriated
and used exclusively for the treatment of muni-
cipal or industrial wastes. However, this would
be the exception rather than the rule. More .1
frequently, waters appropriated for municipal or
manufacturing purposes are used and reused several
times f~ different related purposes within the
scope of the general domestic or manufacturing
purpose for which they were appropriated.'

We think that the language we have proposed
is broad enough and flexible enough so that it
will not impose an undue hardship on water users
who are not wasting their water, who are apply-
ing it to a beneficial use, and would still make it
known that the policy of the state is such that
dilution for dilution's sake is not normally a
beneficial use."

"Mr. Peterson."

"Mr. Chairman, is there anything (I haven't
had time to read this recommendation or policy
or study it thoroughly) in here that would pro-
vide that if water in use, for instance, in
manufacturing, mining or such, carried a certain
amount of pollution that that water could be
cleaned up before it is returned to the stream
again?"

"That's what we attempted to say here - that
you cannot return it to the stream if by economi-
cal treatment by other means the water can be
rendered fit you must do so. Again, I don't see
how you can lay down a concrete rule because
what constitutes a detriment to the stream depends
on the condition of the stream where you diverted
the w~ter. You may divert it from a stream. that
is al;eady polluted and you may be able to return
waste to that stream which would not be toler-
ated when returned to a stream that was otherwise
pure. So each instance, I think. must stand on
its own feet."

I

"I think we tried to make that clear in two