Laserfiche WebLink
Trisha Oeth, <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />November 17, 2017 <br />the U.S. Environmental Protection agency adopts a molybdenum standard under the Safe <br />Drinking Water Act, and water quality in Blue River Segment 14 does not meet that <br />standard. <br />Scope of Consultation is for Material Injury in a Limited Context <br />We have directed our efforts toward meeting the expectation you identified in your <br />October 12, 2017 letter and the guidance of our MOU, that is, pursuant to the Colorado <br />Water Quality Control Act, the WQCC "shall consult with the state engineer and the water <br />conservation board or their designees before making any decision or adopting any rule or <br />policy which has the potential to cause material injury to water rights." Section 25-8- <br />104(2)(d), C.R..S. In particular, we have focused our analysis on whether the proposal by <br />Climax will "cause materia[ injury to water rights," due to a diminution in the amount of <br />water physically available, while deferring to the Water Quality Control Commission to <br />assess whether Climax's proposal would cause a diminution in the amount of that water <br />that can be diverted due to the proposal. <br />Climax's Proposal is Limited to Water Quality <br />For our consideration of material injury to water rights; we have reviewed the nature of <br />Climax's proposal. From our review of the proposal and analysis of the materials, we <br />understand that the proposal before WQCC requests an increase in the table value <br />standards in Regulation 31' for total recoverable molybdenum for agriculture and domestic <br />water supply uses. The same change in the molybdenum standard is also proposed for two <br />stream segments in Regulation 332. Upper Colorado River Segment 83 and Blue River <br />Segment 144. The subject of the proposal is, therefore, a water quality matter. <br />Analysis of Material Injury to Water Rights <br />We have considered the proposed water quality standard changes and the stated potential <br />impacts to the use of water in Colorado and specifically the two segments of the Upper <br />Colorado River Basin. While we understand that changes to water quality may affect <br />whether water will be diverted by a particular user and applied to municipal or other uses, <br />we do not regard this as "material injury to water rights," as articulated in the language of <br />the statutory consultation provision. Specifically, we do not see that the proposal will <br />result in a diminution of the available water supply that Frisco would otherwise enjoy at <br />the time and place and in the amount of their demand. <br />Summary <br />Therefore, while we note that there is significant evidence before WQCC from experts <br />regarding the potential impacts that changes in water quality may have on water suppliers, <br />'REGULATION NO. 31 - THE BASIC STANDARDS AND METHODOLOGIES FOR SURFACE WATER <br />` REGULATION NO. 33 - CLASSIFICATIONS AND NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR UPPER COLORADO RIVER <br />BASIN AND NORTH PLATTE RIVER (PLANNING REGION 12) <br />3 Segment 8: Mainstem of the Williams Fork River, including all tributaries and wetlands from the <br />source to the confluence with the Colorado River, except for those tributaries listed in Segment 9. <br />4 Segment 14: Mainstem of Tenmile Creek, including all tributaries and wetlands from a point <br />immediately above the confluence with West Tenmile Creek to Dillon Reservoir, except for the <br />specific listing in Segment 16. <br />1313 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203 QWR: 303.866.3581 CWM 303-866.3441 https://cdnr.iis/#/start <br />