WSPC00681 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . by a source, to be controlled by the permit system when pollution first enters the waterways. The operation of diversion facilities, impoundments, and the release and nonrelease of water, for the exercise of water rights, does not constitute a point source of pollution within the meaning of the Federal Clean Water Act or the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. The Colorado Legislature enacted the Colorado Wate~ Quality Control Act against an extensive ba;kground of trans- basin and transmountain diversions, conveyance systems and im- poundments. The sources that must be controlled are those which generate and cause the introduction of the pollutant, not those which intake or bypass a pollutant. A diversion facility or conveyance of itself merely takes and transports, and in the case of a dam, impounds, what has already been placed in the waterways. The withdrawal of water from the natural stream bed does not by reason of any concentrating effect upon other pollutant discharges constitute the "addition of a pollutant" to navigable waters within the meaning of Federal or State water quality Acts. The trans- port of that water also is not the addition of a pollutant within the meaning of either Act. The pollutant has not been generated by the diverter and is only being transported be- cause of the taking of water pursuant to exercise of a vested water right under the laws and constitution of the State of Colorado. In State of Missouri v. Union Electric company, 559 S~W.2d 216 (Mo. Ct. of App. 1977) the Court held that the Missouri Clean Water Law was not intended to regulate oxygen depletion caused by a dam. The Missouri law contains much the same language as the Colorado Water Quality Control Act: , + the State of Missouri, relying on the broad definition of . -7-