Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />dams, diversion structures, ditches, or other hydrologic <br /> <br />modifications which serve a water rights purpose, if the <br /> <br />result would be to effect the quantity of water one is en- <br /> <br />titled to divert, store, carry or release under a water right <br /> <br />or impair the ability to obtain delivery of the water at the <br /> <br />time and place of need for the decreed use. This is not to <br /> <br />say that water quality laws cannot be used ~o prohibit or <br />condition the generation and introduction of waste by the <br /> <br />one causing pollution into waters being diverted, carried <br /> <br />b~ or stored in such structures. <br /> <br />E. The States Have Primacy for Establishing <br />Water Quality Standards; In Colorado these <br />Standards Serve to Protect Beneficial Uses <br />and Cannot be Used to Condition or Deny <br />Water Appropriations. <br /> <br />The primacy of the State in establishing water <br /> <br />quality standards has been resolved rec~ntly in Environmental <br /> <br />Defense Fund v. Costle, _ F.Supp. _, 13 E.R.C. 1867 <br /> <br />(D.C.D.C., No. 77-1436,10/3/79), upholding water quality <br /> <br />standards for salinity set for the Colorado River by <br /> <br />Colorado and other six Basin States. The Court, at the'States' <br /> <br />request, rejected EDF's argument that a State must adopt <br /> <br />numerical water quality criteria for salinity within State <br /> <br />geographical boundaries. Significantly, the Court tied water <br /> <br />quality regulation to the purpose of protection water for the <br /> <br />designated beneficial uses to be made of the water: <br /> <br />The States'decision not to establish <br />criteria upstream, which was influenced by <br />the conclusion that salinity does not <br />threaten designated ~ of the ColOrado <br /> <br />-15- <br />