Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- 4 - <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />accords with this policy. This policy <br />shall also be a key element in evalua- <br />tions conducted under this part. <br /> <br />44 Fed. Reg. ~ 35.1533-1 (emphasis added). <br /> <br />Common sense, as well as the clear letter of the law, <br />should tell us that Colorado needs a specific, clearly stated <br />plan or strategy for seeing that water quality is maintained. <br /> <br />The State shall prepare and <br />annually update. . a strategy for <br />controlling water pollution problems <br />from point and nonpoint sources. The <br />strategy delineates priority water <br />quality problems (in relation to the <br />seriousness of pollution) and activi- <br />ties to control these problems in a <br />five-year time frame. <br /> <br />44 Fed. Reg. ~ 35.1511-2 (a). Colorado does not meet this re- <br />quirement now, and pages of vague ramblings in this proposal <br />about the 402 and 208 programs merely widen the void. <br /> <br />"A substantial failure of State WQM planning and imple- <br />mentation"--such as that being proposed for adoption here--can <br />lead to extremely serious EPA sanctions, including: <br /> <br />withdrawal of approval of Colorado's comprehensive <br />planning process, <br /> <br />withdrawal of approval of Colorado's NPDES permit <br /> <br />program, <br /> <br />withdrawal of all EPA grant funds to Colorado. 44 <br />Fed. Reg. ~~ 35.1509-3, 35.1533-3. <br /> <br />For a state currently under the-threat of EPA sanctions <br />for inadequacies in its comparable air pollution implementation <br />plan, the current proposal is shortsighted in the extreme. (In <br />the air-sanctions lawsuit before the U.S. Court of Appeals yester- <br />day, the Colorado Attorney General's Office took the clear posi- <br />tion that such EPA sanctions are constitutional.) <br /> <br />Colorado's attempts to avoid committing itself to a <br />cleanup program are carried over into the State-EPA Agreements <br />negotiated under the WQM program. Colorado's FY 1979 and FY <br />1980 agreements artfully avoid any "specific" implementation un- <br />less the federal government funds it to do so. <br /> <br />EDF strongly recommends that the Commission reject this <br />proposal in its entirety and instruct staff to develop construc- <br />tive proposals for dealing with the basin's most serious water <br />quality problem. <br /> <br />1451 <br />