2010-02-15_HYDROLOGY - M2007044 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

industrial enlargement. Industries are required by federal statute to meet effluent limitations described as "Best Available Technology Economically Achievable" (BATEA) by 1983 or 1984. For most major industries in this region, the water quality standards should not require treatment beyond these limitations. The fiscal impact of any regulatory decision must take into account only the incremental costs explicitly associated with the regulations as finally promulgated. Costs and expenditures associated with the status quo, regulations of other regulatory agencies, or regulations already in effect should not be included in an assessment of the fiscal impact of the Gunnison River Basin Classifications. In addition, a distinction must be made between actual expenditures or dislocations that will be immediately or unavoidable necessary upon promulgation of these classifications and standards, and those costs which are speculative in nature. In keeping with concepts of`Expected Value', it is proper for the Commission to place more emphasis on definite impacts. With the passage in 1981 of Senate Bill 10, amending the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, it becomes incumbent upon the Water Quality Control Commission to consider the economic impact of their decisions with more emphasis placed upon the concept of the "Economic Reasonableness". Charged with such a mandate, the Commission was quite sensitive to the objective of minimizing the socio-economic "price" of clean water while adhering to the anti- degradation policy that water quality be preserved and protected in all cases, and improved wherever feasible. The Gunnison River Basin was heard under the provisions of the Act. The analysis and data which follow are derived primarily from testimony and exhibits offered by interested parties during the course of the rulemaking hearings. This was supplemented by staff assessments of potential impacts upon other major entities who were not formally represented. The impacts are separately presented for the public and private sectors. No attempt has been made to identify future development costs as this type of data is not readily available and estimation techniques are dependent upon many highly subjective assumptions. II. FISCAL IMPACT: PUBLIC SECTOR The primary fiscal impact to the public sector in this basin involves the potential domestic wastewater treatment costs associated with the stream classifications and water quality standards. Other costs, such as tax and employment base impacts due to forgone industrial development opportunities or mitigated growth potentials, can be theoretically postulated but are difficult to quantify. Generally, it is recognized that higher tap fees, service charges or property taxes associated with increased treatment costs can potentially affect industrial siting decisions. However,this is not as significant as increased levels of treatment that may be required of industries if they are dischargers. While the Commission acknowledges the existence of such potentials,the lack of firm evidence and actual tax base impact estimates make deliberative assessment impractical. In this basin the Commission acknowledged four municipalities that may be impacted: Crested Butter Water and Sanitation District, The Town of Crested Butte, Delta, and The Gunnison Water and Sanitation District. In each case the standard for unionized ammonia was the factor of concern. The Commission recognizes the probability of increased treatment costs to accrue to the town of Crested Butte to meet the ammonia standard but fund these costs to bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits to be derived. The essential rationale is the support for these standards by the Town of Crested Butte in order to maintain the lucrative tourism industry through preservation of premium fisheries. Crested Butte went on record to state that they felt the economic benefits would outweigh the costs to achieve them. In addition,the Commission 20