Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. >i <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- 2 - <br /> <br />Specific criticisms of Colorado's salinity approach have <br />been detailed in our joint litigation, Environmental Defense <br />Fund v. Costle, now on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals <br />for the District of Columbia Circuit. These comraents address <br />only the change the Commission is now considering--to drop its <br />public implementation plan. <br /> <br />This proposal is both legally insufficient and extremely <br />unwise as a matter of public policy and Colorado's own best inter- <br />ests. In passing the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water 'Pollution <br />Control Act (P.L. 92-500), the U.S. Congress set forth a trans~tion <br />system for upgrading water quality standards in Sections 303(a) <br />and (b), and, once things were running smoothly, a long-term sys- <br />tem under Section 303(c). In transition Sections 303(a) and (b), <br />the definition of "standards" specifically includes "implementation <br />plans." Because implementation planning was too important to <br />languish in a definition section, Congress, in drafting the per- <br />manent program, moved "implementation planning" out of the compar- <br />able definition Section 303(c) and into its own detailed sections. <br />(Sections 303(e), 208, etc.) <br /> <br />In 1975-76, Colorado and the other 6 basin states adopted <br />salinity standards, including a lengthy "implementation,plan" <br />under Sections 303(a) and (b). In 1978-79, all other Colorado <br />basin states (except Colorado and Wyoming) renewed their C01Mlit- <br />ment by readopting the standards and a revised implementation plan. <br /> <br />Alone, Colorado is refusing to follow the basinwide <br />approach and now proposes to adopt only the numeric criteria while <br />repealing the plan (except for vague "policy" purposes). <br /> <br />Apparently, the theory behind the proposal is that since <br />section 303(c) no longer specifically defines an implementation <br />plan to be part of the standard, the state can ignore implementa- <br />tion planning entirely. ' <br /> <br />Neither Congress in its Act nor EPA in its regulations <br />countenances such art approach. By taking implementation planning <br />out of the standards setting section and placing it elsewhere in <br />the Act, Congress meant to increase the attention paid to planning, <br />not drop the requirement. If the Commission adopts these regula- <br />tions, it will have taken the final step in showing that--as far <br />as Colorado is concerned--salinity control is a lip service <br />exercise, and the state has no serious intention of putting for~ <br />ward concrete, visible, comnlitted steps to show how it will <br />bear its burden of controlling salinity in the coming years. <br /> <br />Neither law nor common sense permits Colorado to shirk <br />its responsibilities by setting hig;'1 sounding pollution standards <br />'without concrete strategies or pla.ns for meeting those stdIldards. <br /> <br />1453 <br />