Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the discussion of the status of the Northwest COG plan needs <br />to be deleted or updated to reflect the Commission's deletions <br />of certain portions of that plan, the action by the Denver <br />District Court in enjoining implementation of the plan, and <br />the decision of Judge Kane ,in the Northern Colorado Water <br />Conservancy District v. Board of County CO!llIliissioners, holding <br />that 208 agencies are creatures of State law and do not derive <br />powers from EPA or the Clean Water Act. In the December 1978 <br />Supplement, the Forum did not take a position on the use of <br />208 plans to control the place or purpose of use of any State <br />apportioned water, leaving this to'the individual States and <br />their water'rights and water quality laws (p. 6, Forum, <br />December 1978 Supplement). The'Grand County Commissioners <br />have withdrawn their purported salinity control requirements. <br /> <br />In closing, westate,tlra:t' it is not the fault (If <br />Colorado water users that the Sa'1:inity control projects und!,=r <br />Title II of the Salinity Control Act are proceeding slower <br />than anticipated, and individual entities should not hav~ <br />their projects conditioned or, curtailed because of this <br />state of affairs. The importance of storage projects on the <br />Colorado River system is underscored by the fact that during <br />1977, an extremely bad drought year, users of Colorado River <br />water were able to obtain close to normal water yields b",-:, <br />cause' of storage pr.ojects. 'Remewed..efforts' hy the, interested <br />agencies,. including the States, EPA"and the. Depart.ment cf <br />Interior, should be made to' en'sure the, imp:l:'em~tation of. <br />, . <br />the salinity projects.' In addition, we, endorse cooperative <br />efforts at providing ineentives' ,for, 'the', d,mplementation of <br />farm management practices towards reducing salinity. <br /> <br />-16- <br />