Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />w\.l;:'-AJ.'lrK.lVl comment Clerk <br />. January 4, 1999 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />stream flow criteria" could easily result in direct interference with state water laws. The CWCB <br />experience in protecting instream flows and natural lake levels in Colorado demonstrates the <br />extent to which site-specific circumstances and flexible programmatic capabilities are required to <br />balance interests in the health of our lakes, rivers and streams with our interest in healthy <br />economies and communities. <br /> <br />The CWCB is also concerned by the potential conflict between many other aspects of <br />EPA's ANPRM and Colorado's ability to continue developing its interstate water supply <br />allocations and to protect existing water supplies and property rights. Many of the suggested <br />changes in the anti degradation policy and the use attainability analysis, the potential refinements <br />of the "existing use" and "designated use" concepts, the potential new guidance on "use removal <br />criteria" and mixing zone determinations, the proposed refinement or development of many new <br />criteria (for toxicity, sediment quality, human and wildlife health, microbial and nutrient levels, <br />etc.) and the suggested "independent application" policy raise many questions that we are not <br />presently prepared to evaluate in this abstract context. Although the questions EP A poses in the <br />ANPRM will be helpful in framing your proposed "structured national debate," these questions <br />are very complex. The CWCB will coordinate with the WQCC and the many potentially <br />affected communities, businesses and other Colorado interests to better understand the <br />implications ofEPA's proposals. Our experience suggests, however, that state and local <br />agencies will require adequate time and flexibility to address site-specific circumstances while <br />we evaluate the opportunities for protecting new needs along with existing rights and values. <br />EP A should allow enough time and provide adequate information for states such as Colorado to <br />appropriately deal with the many complex and potentially significant regulatory options. <br /> <br />We appreciate the 'advance notice EP A has provided the state of Colorado and others <br />concerning potential changes in the national water quality protection policies and pledge our <br />continued support for a rational and timely evaluation of these issues. Please call or write to us if <br />you want clarification of the Colorado Water Conservation Board's interests and concerns and <br />please keep us informed regarding any next steps. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />\?~~ <br /> <br />Peter H. Evans <br />Acting Director <br /> <br />L:/boardmen/nov98120attach draftEp Acomrnents ANPRM Nov98 <br />