Laserfiche WebLink
<br />STATEMENTS AND FORUM RESPONSES <br /> <br />W <br />N <br />CD <br />m <br /> <br />EPA STATEMENT, FORUM PUBLIC MEETING, GRAND JUNCTION, OCT 1, 1981 <br /> <br />EPA commends the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum for its <br />review of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Standards. This effort, by the <br />Forum, reflects the balancing of diverse interests and the accommodation <br />essential to achieving resolution of the complex interstate and international <br />Colorado River Salinity Control problems. These accords are necessary <br />conditions for making the basinwide approach succeed. <br /> <br />There is one lssue we urge the Forum to resolve. During the previous <br />(1978) revision process, concern was raised by some states and EPA over the <br />manner and timeliness in which each state adopted the standards and plan of <br />imp l.ementat ion. <br /> <br />On February 27, 1981, EPA wrote to the Forum indicating that EPA's <br />concept of the basinwide approach was based on the understanding that the <br />three lower mainstem numeric criteria were adequate only if appropriately and <br />formally connected to the basinwide plan of implementation. In that letter, <br />EPA suggested that, "...the basinwide plan of implementation, its relationship <br />to the numeric criteria, the basin states' salinity control activities, and <br />the manner in which the plan of implementation is adopted, be discussed by the <br />basin states and EPA during the current triennial review process." <br /> <br />While there has been some discussion of the concerns, we are not aware <br />that the options have been fully explored or the issues resolved. To prevent <br />a reoccurance of the apparent misunderstandings that arose over adoption of <br />the previous revision, we urge further discussion and early resolution of the <br />concerns raised in EPA's letter of February 27, 1981. <br /> <br />EPA recognizes that the basin states may have differing procedural and <br />legal requirements for addressing these concerns. However, we believe that it <br />is very important for the Forum to understand and concur with the manner and <br />schedule of individual state adoption of the standards and plan of <br />implementation. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. <br /> <br />Thank you <br /> <br />RESPONSE <br /> <br />The mannelt 06 and .6c.hedule 601L ac.tion by the incUviduai. .6:ta;tu on <br />the 1981 lLevie.w 06 the !.\IiU:elt quaU.:ty MandaJtcU, naIL .6aUnUy and the plan <br />06 -imple.men;ta,.Uon welte d.u.,c.u,Med cd length by the FOlLum in MaJtc.h 1981. <br />The FOlLum wLU addltu.6 thu e mafteJL6 cd 6utWte meeting.6 a/.) needed in OILdelt <br />to wOILk. tOrAXVtcU, a pILOC.U.6 wlUc.h 16 timely and c.0n616teM wUh appUc.able <br />.6ta.te f.a.w6 and lLegu1a.;Uo n6 . <br /> <br />7 <br />