Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, name 01 the "PUDIIC trust," "PUDIIC mterest,-' "annoegraoanon,-' <br />, "assimilative capacity," Ironically, time-honored state water <br />~ts systems may be sacrificed while dischargers seek to avoid in- <br />fised treatment costs. Such a result would wreck a principled syn- <br />~is of quality and quantity law, and be contrary to longstanding <br />~e legal principles and the synchronization of federal environmental <br />, and state water law intended by section IOI(g). <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN PRIOR ApPROPRIATION DECISIONS: <br />THE COLORADO FRAMEWORK <br /> <br />Advocates of the new riparianism may attempt to lead agency <br />I judicial decision makers away from the protective mandate of sec- <br />1 10 I (g) by pointing out the alleged inability of state water alloca- <br />1 schemes to recognize environmental and other public values. <br />ere are, however, compelling reasons to retain and protect the doc- <br />Ie of prior appropriation, and there are no aspects of the public <br />~rest that cannot be protected within its framework. <br />Section 10 I (g) defines the nature /lnd scope of the public interest <br />iew component of the 404 permitting process by directing that it <br />; be used to replace state water allocation systems or injure water <br />I1ts. This interpretation of section IOI(g) allows the doctrine of <br />or appropriation to exist in a manner consistent with the principles <br />'ederalism and the Clean Water Act, with the ultimate result of an <br />cient resource allocation system that recognizes the critical impor- <br />ce of clean water for all types of uses. In Colorado, the public in- <br />~t is protected through an interlocking system of regulatory <br />Igrams that allocate the quantity and protect the quality of the <br />ter resource. In this part, we define the role of the prior appropria- <br />1 doctrine in serving the public interest, distinguish the public inter- <br /> <br />181. The StateofColorado's recently concluded assessment of the effect ofpolot and nonpoint <br />;es on classified waler uses reports that agricultural noupoint sources cause major impact on 584.5 <br />miles and moderate or minor impact on 1503 miles. out of the total 14,100 river miles in Colo- <br />. Construction and urban runoff have a major impact on 900 lake aCfes and a moderate or minor <br />ICt on 8551 lake acres. Resource extraction activities, principally mining, have a major impact on <br />; river miles and a moderate or minor impact on 1012.4 river miles. Municipal point source dis. <br />ges have a major impact on 278 river miles and a moderate or minor impact on 889 river miles. <br />lis have a major impact on 527 river miles and a moderate or minor impact on 1294 river miles. In <br />.ynopsis of water quality problems in Colorado lies Ihe fundamental challenge to the slate's prior <br />[)priation doctrine. WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIV., COlO'- DE.P'T OF HEALTH, WATER QUAL- <br />N COLORADO x-xi (1988). See OFFICE OF WATER, OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS & STAN. <br />)5, U.S. ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, NON-POINT SOURCE GUIDANCE (1987). <br /> <br />I! <br />, <br />, <br />