Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Slip Opir.ionat page 7, Environmental' Defense Fund v. Costle, <br />F.S. (D.D.C. 10/3/79 C.A. No. 77-1436) [emphasis <br />added] . ' <br /> <br />In essence, EDF was arguing that no deterioration <br />of salinity levels beyond fixed numbers should be allowed <br />within Colorado. EPA in reviewing Colorado's water quality <br />standards, as shown from the above quoted language, 'approved <br />the State's reasoning that increa$es in salinity did not <br />threaten designated 'uses in the, upper Colorado River. The <br />Court in turn found that such an approach by the State and <br />EPA comported with the mandate of the Federal Water Quality <br />Act to "protect the public health or ,welfare, enhance the <br />quali ty of water and serv-e the ,purpose"$: "j;: the Act." Id. <br />Slip Opinion a~ page 10. <br /> <br />We now turn to the 1978 Forum Revision entitled <br />"Proposed 1978 Revision, Water Quality Standards for Salin- <br />ity Including Numeric Criteria and, Plan of Implementation . <br />For Salinity Control, August, 1978." We ask the Commission <br />to officially notice this document as the product of the <br />Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum and to include <br />this document in the record of these proceedings, together <br />with the Forum's December 18, 1978 supplement to the <br />August 1978 document. <br /> <br />We note that the Forum recommends no change in the <br />standa.rds (p., i,' Fqrum, August 19'78 dQc:umentl. and observes' <br />th~t salinity has significantly decreased sino~! the' ,lIlid'-196 0 ; s <br />following the development of considerable Upper Basin storage <br />(p. iv, Forum, August 1978 document). Of particular interest <br /> <br />-ll- <br />