Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />River water in upper basin states and <br />by the technical difficulties that would <br />attend attempts to set upstream standards, <br />similarly is explained in the record, AR <br />60-61, and has a reasonable basis. <br />~, Slip Opinion at p. 7 (emphasis added). <br />In essence, EDF argued that no deterioration of <br />salinity levels beyond fixed.numbers shou~d be allowed within <br />Colorado. EPA in reviewing Colorado's water quality standards, <br />as shown from the above quoted language, and despite disagreement <br />and dissension with EPA on the issue, approved the State's <br />reasoning that increases in salinity did not threaten designated <br />~ in the upper Colorado River~ The Court in turn found that <br />such an approach by the State and EPA comported with the mandate <br />of the Federal Water Quality Act to "protect the'public health <br />on welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes <br />of the Act." Id. Slip Opinion at page 10. <br />Section 313 of the Clean Water Act permits a State, <br />if its ~ law allows, to set standards which are more stringent <br />than necessary to comply with the Federal Act, but once set <br />by the State these more stringent standards are enforceable <br />through the Federal Act and cannot be challenged in a federal <br />proceeding. United States Steel v. Train, 556 F.2d822, 837 '(.l977). <br />In Colorado the setting and implementation of water quality <br />standards is constrained by the States water rights laws and <br />administration. <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br />Through promulgation of point and non-point source <br />controls, and the establishment of water quality standards and <br />beneficial use classifications, the Colorado Water Quality <br />Control Commission establishes the regulatory framework for <br />protection of water quality for beneficial use. The key to <br /> <br />-16- <br /> <br />1375 <br />