WSP02687 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

000153 CR\VA Ret,ierv .1 The Secorulls$Jle: STATE PRIMACY TIlere is a real concern tha t our Sta te Legis- lature will return Primacy to EPA for both \vater and \va"tewater. The rea<;(JJ1 for this is two-fold: 1,) The Colorado Department of Health does not have the funds or manpower to implement the upcoming regulations required by the Federal Government At this time, it appears they would need S5OO,OOO to $800,000 more. This at a time when state government has a deficit in the millions; federal government, a deficit of who knows; and cities, small towns, and other water providers struggling to make ends meet Legislators do not know where this money will come from. The Federal Government mandates these regulations; therefore, let them . be the one to implement 2,) The other thought: If other states do the same (and most are having financial problems), Congress will be made to wlderstand the irresponsibility of making laws without the funding necessary to carry them out and, therefore, might be- come a bit more logical with rule-making such as the SDWA. It's positive and refreshing to have elected officials thinking this way. It has a very inter- esting appeal. However, , , As good as it sounds, there are many down sides. First, EPAdoes not have the funds or man- power to carry out these duties. EPA also realized it would not be possible to put a generic drinking water program to- . gether that would fit everv state's need. Ar- ea<; for change were left so'states could adapt programs to better fit the needs of their citi- zens. Some of these enable the states to ex- empt certain tests and lengthen the time between tests where a danger does not exist There are other changes that can benefit wa- ter systems. All of these add up to savings of several million dollars to Colorado, EPA cannot make these exemptions but, instead, must follow Federal guidelines if it takes over Primacy. Part of the increase in Health Department funds would be to hire personnel for this assessments prq,'Tam. The Colorado Department of Health's Drinking Water Division has always been a source of help and has worked hard ,,~th small systems to meet requirements and dead- lines. This is a cost-effective way to do busi- ness. EPA would not be able to lend the assis- tance it now does, but would have to take the enforcement route, instead. With that method, no one \\ins. The savings to Colorado in dollars would be small, as EPA now provides two-thirds of monies needed to operate CDH's Drinking Water Division, ,,~th a pos,<;ible inaea<;e com- ing. To eIiminate the water and wastewater di- visions from the Colorado Health Depart- ment would have no effect on Colorado's budget, but it would have a drastic effect on our water quality programs. At a time ",hi'll so mlld/IUls bel'll accomplished mui there is so milch to lose, it /lUlkes little Sl'IIse to give Pri/lUlcy to EPA A better solution is Senate Bill 2900, It can pro\~de those changes needed ,,~thout a set- back in our drinking water program.