BOARD02592

• Board Meeting Date: 1/27/1999
• Description: Directors' Reports
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

WQS-ANPRM Comment Clerk
January 4, 1999
Page 2

Weare also concerned about EP A's suggested new water quality criteria and their
potential implications for non-point sources of pollution (e.g., irrigation return flows). In
Colorado and many other western states, approximately 80% of the available water supply is
used for irrigation of crops and other agricultural purposes. Without strong evidence that
agricultural activities are causing significant barriers to the successful implementation of the
CW A and an evaluation of the potential economic impact to rural communities, EP A should
strengthen the voluntary, incentive-based nature of existing non-point source control programs
such as those promoted under Section 319.

The CWCB is involved in many watershed-based organizations, both within Colorado
and at the interstate level. The utility of such organizations has been demonstrated in the
protection of environmental values (e.g., the Colorado River Salinity Control Forum and the
Platte River Recovery Agreement) the protection of water supplies (e.g., interstate compacts and
groups like the seven states and ten tribes of the Colorado River Basin that have formed to
address issues surrounding the Colorado River Compact) and the protection of our communities
against flood risks (e.g., the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan multi-objective management project
steering committee). These organizations tend to include diverse interests and sometimes
address more diverse objectives, but they also require greater "relationship maintenance" as a
result. Therefore, they seem to be most effective when the principally affected interests within a
watershed organize themselves as a function of "grassroots" determination to solve their own
problems. EPA's interest in establishing new or broader organizations is causing concern that
EP A seeks to influence the priorities or the balance of powers within or among existing
organizations. Since the participants in those existing organizations have taken considerable
initiative and made significant investment in their relationships and implementation plans, EP A
should avoid the promotion of competing or overlapping organizations.

EPA's ANPRM does not acknowledge the Prior Appropriation Doctrine or the existing
system of water rights that.have been established in many western states as the fundamental basis
for allocation and protection of our limited water supplies. In some instances, such as the
suggested development of various "physical criteria" (including sediment quality, flow and
wildlife criteria), the ANPRM doesn't even appear to acknowledge the role of state laws and
property rights in the allocation of western water resources. It would be helpful if EP A would
explicitly acknowledge this role and the potential relationship such criteria may have to existing
and future water supplies. If flow criteria, for example, are developed without regard for the
obvious dependence of many existing comml.lllities on water storage and diversion facilities and
the obvious effects such facilities can have on lakes and streams, the implementation
mechanisms (e.g., TMDLs) could have adverse consequences throughout many western states.
Also, if biological assessment methods are to be developed, their application in relation to
existing water supplies and property rights must be explicitly resolved. We would like to believe
that EPA doesn't intend to "start over" in these regards, but we also don't want EPA to proceed
naively into such clearly contentious areas.

EP A suggests that flow alterations contribute to habitat loss and water quality
degradation and that water diversion is a significant contributor to adverse hydrologic
modification of streams. However, many such modifications have already occurred, as Colorado
and other states have developed over the years. EPA's proposal to develop "regional minimum

<

.

.

.