5 Colo. Code Regs. § 1002-32.10
These stream classifications and water quality standards for State Waters of the Arkansas River Basin including all tributaries and standing bodies of water in all or parts of Lake, Chaffee, Custer, Fremont, El Paso, Pueblo, Huerfano, Las Animas, Otero, Bent, Prowers, Baca, Kiowa, Cheyenne, Lincoln, Teller, and Elbert Counties implement requirements of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act of 1981, C.R.S. 1973, 25-8-101et seq. (Cum. Supp. 1980). They also represent the implementation of the Commission's Regulations Establishing Basic Standards and an Antidegradation Standard and Establishing a System for Classifying State Waters, for Assigning Standards, and for Granting Temporary Modifications (the "Basic Regulations")
The Basic Regulations establish a system for the classification of State Waters according to the beneficial uses for which they are suitable or are to become suitable, and for assigning specific numerical water quality standards according to such classifications. Because these stream classifications and standards implement the Basic Regulations, the statement of basis and purpose (Section 3.1.16) of those regulations must be referred to for a complete understanding of the basis and purpose of the regulations adopted herein. Therefore, that statement in the Basic Regulations is incorporated by reference. The focus of this statement of basis and purpose is on the scientific and technological rationale for the specific classifications and standards in the Arkansas River Basin.
Public participation was a significant factor in the development of these regulations. A lengthy record was built through public hearings, which began on December 15, 1980. A total of 22 persons requested and were granted party status by the Commission in accordance with C.R.S. 1973, 24-4-101 et seq. (Cum. Supp. 1980). A supplementary public rulemaking hearing was held September 15, 1981, restricted to those issues raised by the changes in the Act contained in Senate Bill 10 (1981). Such issues included but were not limited to: "The economic reasonableness" evaluation required by 25-8-102(5), the effect on water rights as required by 25-8-104; and the new considerations for the adoption of water quality standards required by 25-8-204 C.R.S. 1973, as amended. The record established in these hearings forms the basis for the classifications and standards adopted.
The "goal" qualifier (Section 3.1.13 , Basic Regulations) has been used in specific cases where waters are presently not fully suitable for the classified use, but are intended to become so within a 20 year period. In all such cases, water quality standards have been established to protect the classified uses and temporary modifications have been granted for specified parameters, to take into account existing conditions.
In addition to the significant distinction between Recreation - Class 1 and Recreation -Class 2 as defined in Section 3.1.13 of the Basic Regulations, the difference between the two classifications in terms of water quality standards is the fecal coliform parameter. Recreation -Class 1 generally has a standard of 200 fecal coliform per 100 ml; Recreation - Class 2 generally has a standard of 2000 fecal coliform per 100 ml.
In accordance with S.B. 10 the Commission has decided to classify as "Recreation - Class 2" those stream segments where primary contact recreation does not exist and cannot be reasonably expected to exist in the future, regardless of water quality. The Commission has decided to classify as "Recreation - Class 1" only those stream segments where primary contact recreation actually exists. The reasons for the application of Recreation Class 2 are as follows;
The Commission finds that Colorado is a water short state and that it is experiencing considerable growth which places additional burdens on already scarce water supplies. These considerations mitigate in favor of a conservative approach to protecting future water supplies. Where existing water quality is adequate to protect this use, and in the absence of dischargers to these segments, or testimony in opposition to such classification, the water supply use has been assigned because it is reasonable to expect that it may exist in the future in such cases. For stream segments that flow through, or in the vicinity of, municipalities, this conclusion is further justified, since there is a reasonable probability that the use exists or will exist. Where the water supply classification has been opposed, the Commission has evaluated the evidence on a site specific basis, and in many cases the classification has been removed.
Numeric standards have been assigned for the full range of parameters to a number of segments where little or no data existed specific to the segment. In these cases, there was reason to believe that the classified uses were in place or could be reasonably expected, and that the ambient water quality was as good as or better than the numeric standards assigned.
The standard of a 3°C temperature increase above ambient water temperature as defined is generally valid based on the data regarding that temperature necessary to support an "Aquatic Life - Class 1" fishery The standard takes into account daily and seasonal fluctuations; however, it is also recognized that the 3°C limitation as defined is only appropriate as a guideline and cannot be rigidly applied if the intention is to protect aquatic life. In winter, for example, warm water discharges may be beneficial to aquatic life. It is the intention of the Commission in adopting the standard to prevent radical temperature changes in short periods of time which are detrimental to aquatic life.
It is the decision of the Commission to adopt these standards as basic standards because the presence of the organic parameters is not generally suspected. Also, the values assigned for these standards are not detectable using routine methodology and there is some concern regarding the potential for monitoring requirements if the standards are placed on specific streams. This concern should be alleviated by Section 3.1.14 of the Basic Regulations but there is uncertainty regarding the interpretation of those numbers by other entities. Regardless of these concerns, because these constituents are highly toxic, there is a need for regulating their presence in State waters. Because the Commission has determined that they have uniform applicability here, their inclusion as basic standards for the region accomplishes this purpose.
Consistent with the Basic Regulations, the Commission has not assumed that the table values have presumptive validity or applicability. This accounts for the extensive data in the record on ambient water quality. However, the Commission has found that the table values are generally sufficient to protect the use classifications. Therefore, they have been applied in the situations outlined in the preceding paragraph as well as in those cases where there is insufficient data in the record to justify the establishment of different standards. The documentary evidence forming the basis for the table values is included in the record.
Cases in which water quality standards reflect these instream values usually involve the metal parameters. On many stream segments elevated levels of metals are present due to natural or unknown causes, as well as mine seepage from inactive or abandoned mines. These sources are difficult to identify and impractical or impossible to control. The classified aquatic life uses may be impacted and/or may have adjusted to the condition. In either case, the water quality standards are deemed sufficient to protect the uses that are present.
Levels that were determined to be below the detectable limits of the sampling methodology employed were averaged in as zero rather than at the detectable limit. This moves the mean down but since zero is also used when calculating wasteload allocations, this method is not unfair to dischargers.
Metals present in water samples may be tied up in suspended solids when the water is present in the stream. In this form they are not "available" to fish and may not be detrimental to aquatic life. Because the data of record does not distinguish as to availability, some deviation from table values, as well as the use of [x-Bar]+ s, is further justified because it is unlikely that the total value in all samples analyzed is in available form.
A number of different statistical methodologies could have been used where ambient water quality data dictates the standards. All of them have both advantages and disadvantages. It is recognized that the [x-Bar]+ s methodology also has weaknesses, in that the standard may not reflect natural conditions in a stream 100 per cent of the time, even though the use of [x-Bar]+ s already allows for some seasonal variability. However the use of this methodology is nevertheless justified since it provides the most meaningful index of stream quality of all methodologies proposed for setting stream standards. Just as the Commission has not established standards that reflect the best water quality that may ever occur in a stream, so too it has rejected methodologies that would establish standards that reflect the worst water quality that may ever occur. The establishment of standards on any basis is more lenient than [x-Bar]+ s would not provide adequate protection for the classified uses.
Finally, the fairness and consistency of the use of any methodology in setting standards must turn on the manner in which the standards are implemented and enforced. It is essential that there be consistency between standard setting and the manner in which attainment or non-attainment of the standards is established based on future stream monitoring data. In addition the Division must take this methodology into account in writing and enforcing discharge permits.
Section 3.1.15 of the Basic Regulations states that "dischargers will not be required to regularly monitor for any parameters that are not identified by the Division as being of concern". Generally, there is no requirement for monitoring unless a parameter is in the effluent guidelines for the relevant industry, or is deemed to be a problem as to a specific discharge.
Where hardness and alkalinity numbers differed, the Commission elected to use alkalinity as the controlling parameter, in order to be consistent with other river basins and because testimony from the Division staff indicated that in most cases alkalinity has a greater effect on toxic form of metals than does hardness.
For warm water class 2 segments having an ammonia standard greater than 0.06 mg/l the basis for higher than criteria value is that these streams generally contain both lesser numbers and types of species than those inhabiting class 1 streams due to physical habitat characteristics, flow or irreversible water quality characteristics. The Commission felt that the incremental expense to meet a 0.06 mg/l unionized ammonia standard for present or potential discharges along these streams cannot be justified. Flow in these segments is often intermittent or highly impacted by diversions.
Specifically, the Commission has relaxed unionized ammonia standards to .1 mg/l or greater on such streams for the following reasons:
Not all warmwater streams are comparable in terms of flow habitat, and types and numbers of species of aquatic life. Therefore, some variations in an appropriate ammonia standard must be tolerated, with the objective of protecting existing aquatic life. The Commission found this approach preferable to totally removing the aquatic life classification from impacted or marginal aquatic life streams.
Given the threat that radioactivity from uranium may pose to human health, it is advisable to limit uranium concentrations in streams to the maximum extend practicable. The Commission finds that based on the record of these hearings a uranium standard is particularly necessary to protect the water supply classification. In the face of significant controversy and conflicting testimony, the Commission has adopted a standard of 40 pCi/l or natural background where higher, for the following reasons:
The Commission acknowledges that total cyanide is to be used in State Discharge permits until a method is authorized by EPA for measuring free cyanide, even though free cyanide is the parameter of concern. While cyanide has received special treatment in cases discussed in the segment - by - segment section which follows, a free cyanide standard based on Table Values has been established for most segments.
The Commission holds that the classifications which it adopts and the standards it assigns to them are linked. Disapproval by EPA of the standards may require reexamination by the Commission of the appropriateness of its original classification. The reason for the linkage is that the Commission recognizes that there is a wide variability in the types of aquatic life in Colorado streams which require different levels of protection. Therefore, the numbers were chosen in some cases on a site specific basis to protect the species existing in that segment. If such a reclassification is deemed a downgrading, then it will be based upon the grounds that the original classification was in error.
The Commission finds that these use classifications and water quality standards are economically reasonable. The Commission solicited and considered evidence of the economic impacts of these regulations. This evaluation necessarily involved a case-by-case consideration of such impacts, and reference is made to the fiscal impact statement for this analysis. Generally, a judgment was made as to whether the benefits in terms of improving water quality justified the costs of increased treatment. In the absence of evidence on economic impacts for a specific segment, the Commission concluded that the regulations would impose no additional economic burdens and would therefore be reasonable.
This segment has been re-segmented based on water quality data and other information submitted by Trout Unlimited and Amax, Inc., indicating that water quality and habitat characteristics are different in each of these sub-segments and that there is some variability in the aquatic life present. Also, water supply and agriculture classifications have been dropped on segment 1(a).
Despite differences in the segments, such as the presence of some channelization in segment 1(b), the record discloses the presence of sensitive species such as trout in both segments. Therefore the Aquatic Life Class 1 classification has been adopted for both.
The record discloses the presence of no point source discharges in either segment, although an inactive gravel operation exists. Since the Commission has adopted no non-point source control regulations, no person is economically impacted by these classifications and standards. It is also impossible to evaluate the economic feasibility of treatment techniques in the absence of treatment requirements.
This reach of the Arkansas River has been re-segmented into three sub-segments based upon the request of Trout Unlimited and the evidence supporting such a change. The primary basis for this resegmentation is the severe water quality differences in the three segments due to the impacts of the Leadville Drain and California Gulch, in the upper reaches as well as the diluting effects of Lake Fork on the Arkansas River in segment 2c. However all three segments have been classified Aquatic Life Class 1, since they are water quality limited rather than habitat limited. Standards have been calculated for each segment based upon the existing quality in each segment.
The Agriculture classification is appropriate since the Table Values for Agriculture are met, and since the use is in place.
The water supply classification has not been adopted since there is no water supply intake in these segments. Also, high dissolved manganese levels prevent attainment of water quality suitable for such use.
Conflicting evidence was offered on the issue of future improvement of water quality in these segments, from both economic and technology standpoints. Although improvement may result if the quality of water from California Gulch improves, the prospects are too speculative, and it is impossible to predict the degree of improvement that might result. Therefore no "Goals" have been established for these segments.
In assigning a Class 2 Recreation classification in this segment, the Commission finds that rafting and fishing are the primary recreational uses. Although some swimming does occur here, there are no swimming areas. The Commission is also concerned that the imposition of a class 1 classification might have significant economic impacts on the municipalities discharging here, and that aquatic life would be negatively affected by possible additional chlorine use.
The Recreation Class 1 classification has been adopted because of the evidence that this reach is extensively used for swimming. A temporary modification for fecal coliform has been adopted because existing levels exceed the table value. The modification reflects existing levels for this parameter. Achievement of the underlying standard is expected and is economically reasonable because of the current expansion of the Canon City wastewater treatment plant that is underway.
Goals were not established for metals parameters for the reasons stated above with respect to segment 2.
California Gulch was fund to be one of the most degraded streams in Colorado due to past mining activities and therefore the Commission adopted only a limited set of classifications and numeric standards. However, the Mined Land Reclamation Board testified that these waters were given clean-up priority for which monies generated by coal mining fees could be available.
A goal for the agriculture classification has been adopted based on the reasonable potential for improvement due to the Mined Land Program, but more importantly, because ASARCO is to eliminate its discharge to California Gulch. This use would be in place in this segment and downstream if the quality suitable to support it were in place. Treatment to meet the standards is economically reasonable and technologically feasible. Temporary modifications to reflect instream quality have been adopted to account for existing uncontrolled non-point source pollution and to recognize the possibility of improvement with respect to these parameters.
Testimony indicating considerable water quality degradation immediately below ASARCO's water supply intake necessitated the resegmentation of Iowa Gulch.
For Segment 8(b) it is currently unknown as to what levels of cyanide can be achieved by the application of treatment generally recognized as best available technology economically achievable (BATEA), In view of this, a free cyanide standard was not established for this segment. The Commission finds it would be an unreasonable economic burden to ASARCO to meet a cyanide standard in this segment. The Division felt that due to the time required for passage of cyanide through beaver ponds and other features of the segment the cyanide would dissipate to a level where aquatic life would not be disturbed on the lower segment.
The testimony provided three basic reasons for the Commission's decision. They are: The economic burden of additional treatment; the requirement that ASARCO meet Best Practical Technology (BPT) or Best Available Technology (BAT) or Best Engineering Judgment (BEJ) regardless of the Commission's actions at this time; and that the dissipation effect would protect the downstream uses.
The numeric standards were set at proposed permit values which are expected to be attained through application of BPT or BEJ. This was justified by testimony indicating the ambient quality attributable to old mining practices may preclude the establishment of a fishery and that there is no existing fishery in the segment. The stream is intermittent in the upper portion of this segment and at times the discharge provides the entire stream. Class 2 aquatic life was based on potential improvement with treatment of discharge and return of fishery.
Although there are no point source discharges in this segment, it is affected by upstream water quality. Improvement of water quality in this segment will result if there is improvement upstream due to ASARCO. Accordingly, temporary modifications to reflect existing levels of Copper and Zinc have been adopted. However, a goal for aquatic life is inappropriate because sensitive species are already present.
The standard for Ph is based on ambient conditions which are due to uncontrollable non-point sources. There is no active mining in this segment. Despite evidence of low Ph there is a sufficient aquatic life community and habitat in this segment to support a class 1 aquatic life classification. This is most likely due to acclimatization to in-stream conditions.
Special studies conducted in January and August, 1980 by the WQCD showed diverse populations of aquatic macroinvertebrates at all sampling stations located on Middle Tallahassee and Tallahassee Creek. Several types of aquatic insects inhabiting the stream are typically found in cold streams with moderate to fast current.
Segment 16 (proposed) was re-segmented into segment 16(a). 16(b), and 16(c) based upon evidence presented by Cyprus Mines that the upper segment (16(a) had beaver ponds containing trout, but the stream became intermittent in the middle segment 16(b) with no evidence of a fishery. The lower segment, 16(c), was found by the Commission to be a perennial stream which contained a viable trout fishery.
Water Quality standards for boron in segments 16 through 18 are higher than table values. This parameter is established in order to protect the agriculture use classification. The table value protects sensitive crops, and the record shows that sensitive crops are not grown in this area.
Segment 17 has been resegmented to take account of natural impediments to the attainment of the Aquatic Life Class 1 classification in segment 17(b). However, segments 17(a) and 17(c) presently supports a wide variety of sensitive species.
Water supply was not assigned as a classification for segment 17(b) due to the use not being in place and because of exceedance of the table value for sulfate.
There is no anticipated impact on Cottonwood Creek from the proposed Hansen Project.
There is conflicting evidence in the record regarding an appropriate mercury standard for this segment. Although most values recorded were below detection limits, the Commission has determined that the use of [x-Bar] + s to establish a standard is appropriate, rather than table values. As more data and better analytical techniques become available in the future, this standard may need to re-evaluated.
The Commission has determined that it would be inappropriate, in establishing an iron standard to include in the calculation one value of 22 mg/l because it is three times higher than any other recorded value and probably in error or an aberration of some kind.
An ammonia footnote was agreed to for this segment to eliminate an immediate need for ammonia removal. If needed, it would cost the City of Victor $19.50 per tap.
It was argued in testimony that the proposed water supply classification be dropped. However, since ambient quality of the water supports a water supply classification even though the segment's intermittent flow may make it an unreliable water supply, the classification is appropriate.
Although there is evidence that this segment is a transitional temperature zone, generally, the water temperature is appropriate to support the warm water classification. Both cold and warm water species are present. A warm water classification was adopted to protect downstream quality as the segment flows to warmer water. Evidence of channelization of the streambed and the results of fish surveys indicate that a warm water aquatic life classification is appropriate. A goal for cold water has been rejected because of the predominance of warm water species and due to a lack of evidence that the existence of cold water in this segment is predictable. The Commission also finds that the .06 unionized ammonia standard will not be harmful to the aquatic life in this segment should this level be reached because of the small numbers of cold water species in this segment.
Public Service Company (PSC) testified that the segment is frequently dry; that the (PSC) power station is often the sole source of flow in the segment; that the Division issued a permit in August which the Company can meet; that if the presently proposed standards for copper, aluminum, and zinc were to be promulgated, PSC would have to go to zero discharge at a cost of $23,500,000 in 1983, and that the river would be dried up downstream. The City of Pueblo urged that aluminum standards not be adopted which would cause the stream to be dried up. Also levels of dissolved aluminum in the PSC discharge are not at a toxic level in the segment, but are close to table values for aquatic life. The Commission finds that BPT and BAT will adequately protect the stream as to aluminum, as evidenced by the presence of aquatic life.
The Commission set its standards for Copper (cu) and Zinc (zn) based on testimony that there was aquatic life in the segment and that to protect what aquatic life there is in the segment the assigned standards were deemed appropriate. These standards are the levels of these metals found in the Public Service Company discharge. The assigned standards are further justified by the fact that the discharge provides the entire flow of the segment during many times of the year when the upstream portions of the segment are dry. The Commission concluded from the testimony that any aquatic life in the segment was strictly the result of the discharge from the PSC facility and that were it not for such discharge there would be no water in the segment for aquatic life.
A High Quality Class 2 designation for segments 22 and 23 was based upon testimony that the segments contained the habitat for the two known remaining populations of greenback cutthroat trout which is a federally listed endangered species. Trout Unlimited requested classifications as High Quality Class 1 due to the federal status and the definition for High Quality 1 in the "Basic Standards." However the High Quality Class 2 was adopted to be consistent with Commission actions in other basins.
The Commission determined that it would not be appropriate to assign an aquatic life classification on this segment. The record indicates that the stream is largely barren of aquatic life except for some migration of the Arkansas Darter from selected tributaries. Because of the widespread social and economic impact which would result from the aquatic life classification and because this stretch of water shows past human induced conditions which appear uncorrectable in a 20 year time period, the aquatic life classification has been eliminated.
This segment was classified as a water supply because it is hydraulically connected to the Widefield aquifer, a major source of domestic water for several communities. The metals standards represent table numbers for a domestic water supply use.
Segment 3 has been resegmented into 2 sub segments in order to recognize the presence of the Arkansas Darter in 3 tributaries to Fountain Creek as specified in segment 3(b). The standards adopted for segment 3(b) are intended to protect the Arkansas Darter.
The Commission adopted the aquatic life class 2 warm water classification because aquatic life are present in this segment despite some degraded conditions. Also, the evidence indicates perennial flows in this stream segment.
Because of the unique situation that exists in this stream from both environmental and economic stand-points, the Commission has adopted special dissolved oxygen and cyanide standards for that portion of this segment generally located downstream of the urbanized area of the City of Pueblo.
The record indicated that natural decreases in DO levels occur in this reach of the segment during the late summer and fall low flow periods. Excursions below the 5 mg/l dissolved oxygen standard are predictable in the future for this limited reach of segment 1. There is no evidence that the aquatic life that currently exists in this segment have been adversely affected by DO sags that have occurred in the past. Therefore, this dissolved oxygen standard will adequately protect the aquatic life that exists here. The Commission is aware that in this already economically impacted area, pending industrial siting decisions may turn on water quality considerations. The Commission finds that severe socio-economic impacts may occur if the more stringent standards were adopted for this entire segment. Also, this standard will accommodate the downstream users of the Arkansas River waters and will maximize such uses.
The record contains conflicting testimony on the level of free cyanide in this segment. This conflict centers around the proper laboratory techniques to measure free cyanide. The only free cyanide data available is from CF&I which indicates that ambient levels for free cyanide sometimes exceed table values. Despite these excursions, aquatic life still exists in this segment. The record supports the conclusion that CF&I may be severely impacted by the imposition of the free cyanide standard in the entire reach of this segment. For these reasons, a special standard has been adopted for total cyanide in that portion of segment 1 generally located downstream of the urbanized area of the City of Pueblo.
These segments of the Purgatoire River were resegmented based on evidence presented by CF&I which used a geological basis to explain the difference between upstream and downstream quality. The lower boundary of the cold water portion of the Purgatoire was moved down to Interstate 25 due to evidence of cold water species below Trinidad Reservoir.
CF&I presented testimony on the appropriateness of setting mercury and silver standards higher than table values because of data showing elevated in-stream levels. Conflicting testimony on the analytical technique employed for certain data resulted in the decision to leave silver at the table value. Mercury was set at [x-Bar]+ s levels rather than the table value, however, because the instream data showed elevated background levels.
The Recreation classification was changed from Class 1 to Class 2 on the segment of the Purgatoire near the Allen and Maxwell Mines because of a domestic wastewater discharge and an absence of the swimming use.
This segment was proposed as a high quality class 2 stream because it provides habitat for a threatened species i.e., the Colorado Cutthroat Trout. However, because this segment is located entirely within the boundaries of private property the Commission assigned specific use classifications, including cold water aquatic life class 1. The standards applicable to protect the aquatic life class 1 classification or sufficient to protect the Cutthroat Trout in this segment and no degradation of water quality for aquatic life habitat will result from the assignment of this classification.
FISCAL STATEMENT
Stream Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Arkansas River Basin including all tributaries and standing bodies of water in all or parts of Lake, Chaffee, Custer, Fremont, El Paso, Pueblo, Huerfano, Las Animas, Otero, Bent, Prowers, Baca, Kiowa, Cheyenne, Lincoln, Teller, and Elbert Counties.
The Water Quality Control Commission is charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, and improve the quality of state waters pursuant to C.R.S. 1973, 25-8-101 et seq.
The Commission is further empowered and directed to classify waters of the State and to promulgate water quality standards for any measurable characteristic of the water in order to protect both the uses in place and those that can be reasonably expected in the future. (25-8-203 and 25-8-204) The above-titled document assigns use classifications and standards for the state waters in the listed areas in accordance with the "basic regulations" adopted May 22, 1979.
The measurable fiscal impacts which may be caused by these regulations are as follows;
- Cost of construction due to requirements for increased levels of treatment by municipal waste treatment facilities;
- Cost of construction due to requirements for increased levels of treatment by industrial/commercial waste treatment facilities;
- Cost of Operation and Maintenance associated with increased levels of treatment required of municipalities;
- Cost of Operation and Maintenance associated with increased levels of treatment required of industrial and commercial dischargers;
- Cost of instream monitoring and laboratory analysis for new parameters added by the standards.
Dischargers will not be required by the adoption of these regulations to do stream monitoring. The state, federal and local agencies now doing instream monitoring will have some increased cost; however, any additional frequency should be done to improve state surveillance and would be needed regardless of standard changes.
The stream classifications and standards adopted by the Commission will protect the water uses primarily through control of point source pollution. Nonpoint source pollution will be controlled primarily through management practices which are in existence or which will be implemented in the future. Future management practices need careful consideration and may be the result of 208 area-wide wastewater management plans developed by regional planning agencies and being updated annually. These plans involve local governments with general assistance from state government. Some of the possible nonpoint source pollution may be controlled through "Control Regulations" yet to be promulgated by the Commission. These types of controls could involve runoff from construction, mining activities, and urban areas. It is not certain what controls are needed at this time and there is no way that possible costs can be identified at this time.
Persons who benefit from standards which will protect existing and future anticipated uses can be identified as all persons benefiting from recreation, municipal water supply, and agriculture. These benefits are directly economic for agriculture, industry, and municipalities whose health benefit costs are reduced by having clean water, and are both economic and nonquantifiable for some uses such as fishing, recreation, and the aesthetic value of clean waters. Furthermore, benefits will result from human health protection and lack of debilitating disease. Figures have been developed for a recreation/fishing day which can be applied to that aspect of a water use; however, figures which have been developed for total recreation/fishing day uses have been developed statewide and could not be applied region-by-region or stream-by-stream.
The uses of water in this region are adequately protected by these standards. Most municipal treatment facilities and industrial facilities are currently adequate, or are already being upgraded, in order to meet previous requirements. Any additional facilities or expansions in this region will generally be caused by increased capacity required because of population growths or industrial enlargement. Industries are required by federal statute to meet effluent limitations described as "Best Available Technology Economically Achievable" (BAT) 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 Arkansas Basin classifications.
In addition, a distinction must be made between actual expenditures or dislocations that will be immediately or unavoidably necessary upon promulgation of these classifications and standards, and those costs which are speculative in nature. In keeping with concepts of "ExpectedValue", 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 became 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". Supplementary hearings were held by the Commission on the Arkansas Basin to consider the new provisions of the Act. 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 antidegradation policy that water quality be preserved and protected in all cases, and improved wherever feasible.
The analysis and data which follows is derived primarily from testimony and exhibits offered by interested parties during the course of the rulemaking hearings. This was supplemented by staff estimates of potential impacts upon other major entities who were not formally represented. The impacts are separately presented for the public and private sections. Except for instances where explicit testimony was given by interested parties at the rulemaking hearing, 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. Finally, to fully illustrate the degree to which costs were minimized where possible, two tables for each sector are presented.
The first table itemizes the impacts of the classifications as proposed while the second table depicts the impacts of the classifications as finalized.
The primary fiscal impact to the public sector in this basin involves the domestic wastewater treatment costs associated with the stream classifications and water quality standards. Other costs, such as tax and employment base impacts due to foregone 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.
The two tables in this section illustrate the degree to which the Commission has considered, evaluated and accommodated the needs and concerns of municipalities. As proposed, the classifications and standards regulations had a potential impact of over 94 million dollars in capital outlays and 4.3 million dollars in annual operation and maintenance. As finalized, the municipal impacts will most likely be less than two million dollars in capital outlay and less than 350,000 dollars in annual operation and maintenance costs. In many cases evidence was given the proposed classifications and standards were to protect a marginal value of stream quality at exorbitant costs. In the case of the Pikes Peak area municipalities, aquatic life classifications were dropped from Fountain Creek segments in view of serious and irreversible degradation that the river had experienced. The benefits of aquatic life classifications were difficult to substantiate and the costs were quite high. A mixing zone for ammonia and special standards for dissolved oxygen for Pueblo should save over 14 million dollars without placing water quality in jeopardy. This is also true for LaJunta, where a mixing zone will alleviate the need for increased levels of treatment. Ammonia standards are "footnoted" for communities such as Cripple Creek and Victor to allow flexible planning for financially strapped municipalities while not impairing water quality. A slight movement of segment boundaries should save Trinidad a million dollars in capital requirements. It is felt that Salida's planned expansion will provide for compliance with the standards and, since an incremental cost was not provided, their costs drop out.
In summary, public participation and careful deliberation has resulted in regulations that will protect the quality of the waters of the Arkansas River Basin through classifications and standards that are economically reasonable in terms of the costs to the municipals lying within the region.
TABLE ONE FISCAL IMPACT ON MUNICIPALITIES OF PROPOSED CLASSIFICATIONS
MUNICIPALITIES | NEEDED FACILITY | ESTIMATED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE | YEAR OF ESTIMATE | ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS |
Colorado Springs** | Ammonia Conv. Denitrification | $ 70 Million | (1982) | $ 2.387 Million |
Widefield | Ammonia Conv. | $ 1.2 Million | (1980) | $ 112,000 |
Security | Ammonia Conv. | $ 1.53 Million | (1980) | $ 190,000 |
Monument | Ammonia Conv. | $ 465,000 | (1980) | $ 65,000 |
Pueblo | Ammonia Conv. | $ 14.1 Million Total Present Worth @ 14% Discount | ||
Cripple Creek | Ammonia Conv. | $ 97,000 | (1980) | $ 21,300 |
Victor | Ammonia Conv. | $164,000 | (1980) | $ 18,400 |
La Junta | Ammonia Conv | $ 2.3 M (Bio-Plant) | (1980) | $ 60,000 |
$ 700 K (B-P Chlor) | (1980) | $ 500,00 | ||
Trinidad* | Ammonia Conv. | $ 1.0 Million | (1980) | $ 150,000 - $ 200,000 |
Palmer Lake* | Ammonia Conv. | $ 250,000 - $500,000 | (1980) | $ 40,000 - $80,000 |
Woodmore* | Ammonia Conv. | $ 750,000 | (1980) | $ 150,000 |
Colo. City* | Ammonia Conv. | $ 0-500,000 | (1980) | $ 0-100,000 |
Woodland Park* | Ammonia Conv. | $ 750K-1M | (1980) | $ 100K-200K |
Salida | Ammonia Conv. | $ 1 Million | (1980) | $ 150-250K |
Rye | Slight operational changes of unknown costs should bring the plant into compliance. | |||
Canon City | Incremental costs can be assumed for ammonia conversion but actual figures are not available nor can be reliably estimated in that Canon City will be participating in the Eastern Fremont County Wastewater Management Project due to be on line in early 1983. AWT not anticipated but still under study. | |||
Florence | Participation in Fremont County Project. See Canon City. |
* Estimated potential expenditure - actual requirements and fiscal impact is undermined.
** In addition to this Colorado Springs estimate of expenditures, representatives of the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments estimated that the counties of Teller and El Paso will have to expend approximately $29 million dollars to meet the standards of inorganic waste.
Table Two FISCAL IMPACT ON MUNICIPALITIES OF FINAL CLASSIFICATIONS
MUNICIPALITIES | NEEDED FACILITY | ESTIMATED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE | YEAR OF ESTIMATE | ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS |
Monument | Ammonia Conv. | $ 465,000 | (1980) | $ 65,000 |
Palmer Lake* | Ammonia Conv. | $ 250,000- 500,000 | (1980) | $ 40,000- 80,000 |
Woodland Park* | Ammonia Conv. | $ 750K-1M | (1980) | $ 100K-200K |
Rye | Slight operational changes of unknown costs should bring the plant into compliance. | |||
Canon City | Incremental costs can be assumed for ammonia conversion but actual figures are not available nor can be reliably estimated in that Canon City will be participating in the Eastern Fremont County Wastewater Management Project due to be on line in early 1983. AWT not anticipated but still under study. | |||
Florence | Participation in Fremont County Project. See Canon City. |
* Estimated potential expenditure - actual requirements and fiscal impact is undetermined.
It can be assumed that nearly every commercial entity with the Arkansas Basin would or could be affected in some way by the classifications regardless of whether they are dischargers or simply customers of water suppliers. Many firms apparently regarded utility increases as an additional cost of doing business in this locale and chose not to present evidence at the rulemaking hearings for this basin. It might be concluded that some felt there would be no impact or that it was unidentifiable at this time. However, some of the larger private interests that have discharge permits or would be seeking them in the future presented testimony indicating costs associated with metals removal and other treatment costs. Table Three summarizes the impact of the proposed classifications as testified to by interested parties.
Not all of the costs presented in Table Three are additional increments due to the proposed classifications and standards. Some reflect baseline treatment already required by permit, treatment capability already in place, costs incurred by other regulations, or potential costs for operations not currently active. A comparison between the two tables reveals a striking difference between "what could be" and "what will most likely be". The proposed classifications and standards had a potential impact of nearly 35 million dollars in capital expenditures and over one million dollars in annual expenses. The fiscal impacts of the classifications as finalized dramatically demonstrate the degree to which proper analysis and consideration of economic issues were taken into account in the deliberative process.
In the case of Public Service Company, the proposed aluminum and copper standards to protect aquatic life were stringent enough that they would have forced PSC into a zero discharge at a cost of over 20 million dollars. As the flow of the affected segment is largely PSC effluent, the very effort to protect aquatic life would do it great harm as the stream could be dry much of the time. Since this was a proposed upgrading, the final classifications and relaxed standards are consistent with the anti-degradation policy while eliminating a substantial cost.
The cost figures for ASARCO fall out because they reflect baseline treatment already required by permit and are thus not attributable to the finalized regulations. Cyprus Mines, the only potential uranium discharger in the basin, is not currently in operation so these costs become additional costs of doing business rather than actually realized burdens. It was not established whether or not Cyprus Mines would have to go beyond chemical treatment so the other costs for more exotic processes drop out. In addition, the phase of operation requiring water treatment would last only three years, so the annual operation and maintenance costs will not be incurred throughout the life of the project. Finally, changes in segment 16B may decrease costs associated with uranium and sulfide removal.
Hewlett-Packard offered estimates of potential costs if they expanded but these drop out because the proposed aquatic life designation for the segment of interest was not retained in the finalized classifications.
When evaluating the costs to CF&I Steel as reported in the tables, several mitigating factors must be considered. Although the capital costs reported between Tables Three and Four remain the same and reflect the maximum estimates provided by CF&I, the economic impact to CF&I Steel is most likely overstated. First, the evidence that was presented in the hearings had included costs associated with their air pollution discharge treatment which uses water as part of the process. To assign all of this cost to both air and water quality regulations constitutes a form of economic "Double Counting". At least some of this cost is more properly considered an air quality impact and not specifically due to water quality standards. Perhaps as much as fifty percent or more of the costs could be eliminated through more in-depth analysis. Secondly, CF&I did not segregate the zinc and cyanide treatments costs and since cyanide standards were relaxed, the actual costs would be less than indicated. In lieu of more detailed evidence, these cost reductions can be assumed but are not quantifiable. Third, it is also felt that some of these costs may reflect BAT requirements that would be necessary in any event. Fourth, the O&M costs do differ between the two tables as CF&I reported $331,440 for operations already in place. These are not incrementally associated with the finalized classifications and standards and thus drop out. Finally, the concept of ability-to-pay mitigates whatever costs remain when compared to the annual net profit in excess of ten million dollars attributed to CF&I. At the very most, the one-time capital expenditures would barely exceed ten percent of one year's profit. In consideration of the benefits to be preserved and the over-statement of costs, it is felt that the Commission acted in an economically reasonable and responsible way by maintaining the zinc standard for the affected segment.
TABLE THREE FISCAL IMPACT ON PRIVATE SECTOR OF PROPOSED CLASSIFICATIONS
COMPANY NAME | PARAMETER | ESTIMATED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE | YEAR OF ESTIMATE | ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS |
Cyprus Mines1 (Hansen Project) | Heavy Metals Uranium | $ 1.9 Million (chemical treat.) | (1980) | $ 300,000 |
$ 900,000 Total | ||||
$2.2 Million (Reverse Osmosis) 1 | (1980) | $ 230,000 | ||
$ 435,0001 (Ion Exchange) | (1980) | $ 36,000 | ||
ASARCO | Heavy Metals | $ 2.25 Million | (1980) | no estimate |
CF&I Steel | Heavy Metals Cyanide | $ 1.38 Million | (1980) | $ 701,440 |
Hewlett-Packard2 | Metals, Chem. | $ 250K-$2 Million | (1980) | no estimate |
Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mine | Metals | Some treatment costs can be assumed for mine drainage. Not currently in operation-still under study. | ||
Public Service | Metals | $ 23 Million Net Present Worth |
1 It is not determined if Cyprus Mines will be required to go beyond chemical treatment to comply with the standards and whatever permit may be written controlling their discharge. Not currently in operation. The only potential uranium discharger in the Arkansas Basin.
2 Hewlett-Packard is referring to a future plant expansion in the Colorado Springs area and these are the estimates of the costs that would be incurred to meet heavy metals standards due to the manufacturing nature of the new plant.
TABLE FOUR FISCAL IMPACT ON PRIVATE SECTOR OF FINALIZED CLASSIFICATIONS
COMPANY NAME | PARAMETER | ESTIMATED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE | YEAR OF ESTIMATE | ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS |
Cyprus Mines1 (Hansen Project) | Heavy Metals Uranium | $ 1.9 Million (chemical treat) | (1980) | $ 300,000 |
$ 900,000 Total | ||||
CF&I Steel | Heavy Metals Cyanide | $ 1.38 Million | (1980) | $ 320,000 |
Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mine | Metals | Some treatment costs can be assumed for mine drainage. Not currently in operation-still under study. |
1 It is not determined if Cyprus Mines will be required to go beyond chemical treatment to comply with the standards and whatever permit may be written controlling their discharge. Nor currently in Operation. The only potential uranium discharger in the Arkansas Basin.
FISCAL STATEMENT
Regarding the Adoption of Non-Substantive Corrections To The Classifications And Numeric Standards For The Arkansas, San Juan and Dolores, Rio Grande and South Platte Basins.
The Water Quality Control Commission found that clerical and editorial corrections to the Commission's current regulations numbered respectively 3.2.0, 3.4.0, 3.6.0, and 3.8.0 have no fiscal impact.
Dated this 8th day of November, 1982 at Denver, Colorado.
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF NON-SUBSTANTIVE CORRECTIONS TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS AND NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR THE ARKANSAS, SAN JUAN AND DOLORES, RIO GRANDE AND SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASINS.
In accordance with the requirements of 24-4-103(4), C.R.S. 1973, the Commission makes these findings and adopts this Statement of Basis and Purpose.
The Commission at a public rulemaking hearing November 8, 1982, adopted clerical and editorial corrections to the Commission's current regulations numbered respectively 3.2.0, 3.4.0, 3.6.0 and 3.8.0. These regulations are contained in Article 3, Water Quality Standards, of the Policies, Regulations, and Guidelines of the Water Quality Control Commission. (5 CCR 1002-8)
In adopting these corrections the Commission considered the economic reasonableness of its action, except as specified the corrections in no way change the classifications and numeric standards originally adopted by the Commission. Other than written comment from the City of Westminster no testimony was offered at the public hearing.
The consolidated changes adopted by the Commission are included in this Basis and Purpose for information. The Secretary of State was provided corrected pages for each of the regulations as replacements for the regulations previously published.
Dated this 8th day of November, 1982 at Denver, Colorado.
5 CCR 1002-32.10