Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Commission proposes to approve as a policy the NPDES permit pro- <br />gram requirements and the section 208 are~Nide planning program require- <br />ments contained in the Clean Water Act. While both programs are necessary <br />aspects. of an effective plan for salinity control, neither of these - <br />programs requires further Commission approval as matters of policy. These <br />two aspects of an effective salinity control plan are already established <br />as ongoing regulatory requirements. <br />EPA would consider Colorado's decision not to adopt the additional <br />Forum proposals as a repudiation of the basinwide approach to salinity <br />control. Consequently, in its present form, EPA would not approve the <br />Commission's proposal as a revised water quality standard for salinity. <br />D. Technical Changes Recommended by the Department of Health <br />On MarCh ii, 1980, EPA received from the Department of Health the <br />"Recommended TeeMi ca 1 Changes to the Proposed Water Quality Standard for <br />Salinity in the Colorado River," Two of these proposed changes alleviate <br />some of the concerns expressed above regarding the Commission's proposal. <br />Specifically, the creation of a new section 3.9.6, dealing with periodic <br />review of the standards, would satisfy the concern that language formerly <br />appearing in the criteria provision (3.9.3) be placed in the proper con- <br />text. EPA.would not consider this language to be a narrative detraction <br />from the numeric criteria if this recommendation is followed by the <br />Commission. <br />The Department's proposed revision of language in 3.9.3 pertaining to <br />allowance for temporary increases partially addresses EPA's concern that <br />this provision is not properly qualified. By utilizing the Forum's ex- <br />planation as to why temporary increases may occur and when they would be <br /> <br />-6- <br />