State revising surface water rules

“We have a suite of issues we are concerned about”

Protecting the quality of Colorado surface waters seems like a no brainer. Who doesn’t want clean water, pristine creeks, rivers and lakes? But that’s where the simplicity ends. Applying and revising the rules and regulations that govern water protection are complex endeavors, and stakeholders often have competing or divergent agendas.

Such is the case as a number of organizations prepare for a public rulemaking hearing scheduled for June 7 by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD). Locally, the Mt. Emmons Moly Company and High Country Citizens’ Alliance are both players in the upcoming hearing.
The majority of the revisions to Regulation No. 31 are being proposed by the Water Quality Control Division, with the Colorado Mining Association and the Colorado Wastewater Utility Council submitting additional proposals. The proposed revisions include changes to criteria for, among others, dissolved oxygen, E. coli, and molybdenum. Temporary modifications of standards and anti-degradation to protect high-quality waters are also on the docket, as is adoption of new provisions authorizing variances to water quality standards in limited circumstances.
First: the new molybdenum standards. Molybdenum concentrations in groundwater are already regulated. But the WQCD is proposing that  it should be regulated in surface water as well, for both human health and agricultural reasons. Of obvious interest to Gunnison Valley residents are the revisions to the molybdenum standards—and the participation of U.S. Energy Corp and Mt. Emmons Moly Company in the rulemaking hearing. High Country Citizens’ Alliance (HCCA) is participating as a member of the Western Colorado Water Network, which also includes the San Juan Citizens’ Alliance, Colorado Trout Unlimited, and the Colorado Environmental Coalition.
Sarah Johnson, standards unit manager for the Colorado Water Quality Control Division, explained the reasoning for adopting moly surface water standards: “We have proposed a water-quality standard for molybdenum; a couple of years ago we added one to ground water and now we are proposing standards for surface water.” According to Johnson, they are proposing a 210 microgram-per-liter standard “to protect human health.”
Johnson said, “[Molybdenum] has toxic effects at high levels, and using the information in the literature, that’s the number we believe will be protective to human health.” According to Johnson, excessive levels of molybdenum can cause gout-like symptoms in the joints, including pain, swelling, inflammation and deformities.
The CWQC is also suggesting a 300 microgram-per-liter standard for agriculture, because cattle are susceptible to an illness called molybdenosis, defined as “a disease of ruminants, especially cattle, caused by dietary intake of excessive molybdenum with resultant copper deficiency, characterized by persistent diarrhea and, especially around the eyes, a fading of coat pigment.”
According to Johnson, U.S. Energy and Mt. Emmons Moly Company oppose both of these standards, and so does the Climax Molybdenum Company, which is also listed as an “interested party” at the June 7 hearing. “They are advocating that there isn’t a need for the standards,” Johnson said.
“The Water Quality Control Commission wants to be proactive so we’re not always reactive, and identify where it might become a problem,” she added.
HCCA Executive Director Dan Morse said, “U.S. Energy and Thompson Creek are opposing the proposed change to the molybdenum standard. That’s a troubling position because Coal Creek and other local drainages are not currently contaminated with molybdenum—and the tightening of those standards would have no consequences for our valley right now.”
But one could theorize that if the Mt. Emmons mine were to start actively extracting and disturbing deposits of molybdenum, then that moly would make its way into the water supply.
“The mining companies are implying that they might want to impact our agricultural or municipal water and they don’t want to be regulated and have to meet the new standards,” stated Morse.
The molybdenum surface water standard is but one of many proposed revisions to the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water. The Western Colorado Water Network is for some of the revisions and against others, including the changes to “temporary modifications.”
 “Everyone wants clean water, but when you go further into what that takes it gets very complex,” said HCCA water director Steve Glazer, who is handling HCCA’s participation. “We have a suite of issues we are concerned about. In this case we decided to hire a lawyer because of the seriousness of the proposals.”
Glazer listed several concerns, including: changes to the temporary modifications policy; major changes to the anti-degradation review process; the Colorado Mining Association’s proposed changes to standards for metals like iron and aluminum; the WQCD’s proposed changes to dissolved oxygen in lakes—and the list goes on.
“Any decision of the commission needs to be approved by EPA,” according to Glazer.
Regarding temporary modifications, Johnson said the WQCD is proposing to make some changes to how they use them. “They [temporary modifications] are a short-term mechanism to hold everything ‘still’ while people study the water-quality standard.” Simply put, dischargers won’t be asked to make capital improvements to meet certain standards until the WQCD makes a final determination. She said the division wants to make sure it “gets the standard right” before forcing changes or capital improvements.
She responded to the concerns expressed about the temporary modification revisions by the Western Colorado Water Network. “The WCWN’s concern is that temporary modifications delay water-quality improvement, and they may not be appropriate in all cases… I’m sure that their concern is that there will be a delay.”
Once the hearing is conducted and the state-level revision process is completed, a basin-by-basin rulemaking process will follow. According to Johnson, “It’s a two-step process. This is where we adopt the molybdenum table value, and in two years we’ll be considering whether to apply it to water bodies in the Gunnison Basin.”
The June 7 meeting in Denver is open to the public. For detailed documentation of the proposed revisions, rebuttals, and all the rest, visit: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/WQClassandStandards/Reg31/Reg31.html.