Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />p. 53, Forum, August 1978 document), since a solution is <br />best accomplished at this time in a basin-wide context (p. <br />104, Forum, August 1978 document), since salinity effects <br />are not felt in Colorado (EDF v. Castle), and since it is <br />only fair that Colorado, as it is entitled to do, be able <br />to develop its compact apportioned water, as the Lower <br />Basin States have already done;, we believe the Commission <br />should readopt its water quality standards for the three <br />Lower Basin points ~ Hoover, Parker ,and Imperial - and <br />should include the following language in its regulation <br />at 3.9.5 as follows: <br />3.9.5 IMPLEMENTATION <br />The proposed plan of implementation is <br />being considered separately for possible <br />policy approval by the W~er Quality Control <br />Commission. The water' '-quality standard for <br />salinity will be implemented'~rough co~ <br />operative efforts of the State and Federal <br />governments through the Salinity' Control Forum <br />of the Seven Basin States.andthe,Federal Agencies <br />with planning and operative responsibilities under <br />the 1974 Colorado River SaJ:initY'COntrol Act. To <br />the extent technically and 'economically feasible <br />and legally possible this primary mean~ of imple- <br />mentation will be supplemented by programs under <br />sections 208 ,and 402 of the Clean Water Act and <br />Colorado law,'C.R.5.- '1-9.73" 2-S~,8.,"]:Ol, ~. seq. <br />in association with efforts 'in this regard made <br />by the other participating: States,~n tne Salinity <br />Forum. The water quality standards set 'hereby <br />shall not supersede or interfere with the operation <br />of Colorado's water law and/or with vested water <br />rights acquired or used pursuant, to that law, <br /> <br />-13- <br /> <br />1458 <br />