From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The Colorado Water Control Commission, which oversees the division, heard testimony on the appeal of the certification at an all-day meeting Tuesday. The commission did not reach a decision, choosing to consider some points in executive session and deferring discussion and a ruling to a meeting at a later date. The case apparently is the first time a Section 401 certification has been appealed in Colorado…
Rather than set numeric standards for selenium, sulfates and E. coli levels that will increase as a result of SDS, the state chose instead to allow monitoring and cooperative action outlined in the adaptive management plan, Barth said. “There was no analysis done, and everything was based on a gut feeling,” Barth said in summarizing an eight-hour deposition of John Hranac, the state employee primarily involved with the Section 401 certification…
Barth continued to hammer on his point that there need to be specific limits on discharges because the streams already are impaired. Barth also said the state failed to look at how increased sanitary sewer and stormwater flows that will result from SDS will affect water quality on Fountain Creek and in the Arkansas River. The state ignored the demise of a stormwater enterprise that was used in the EIS adaptive management plan, he said. The division also didn’t take into account the high number of violations of water quality laws Colorado Springs has had over the past 12 years, he added. “There have been repeated violations that resulted in fines from the division and from federal courts,” Barth said, pointing out that some of the sewer line breaks were a direct result of lines crossing channels that washed out during floods. “Now you add more water? It’s putting more flame on the fire.” Barth, along with the coalition’s attorney Susan Eckert, asked the commission to either deny certification or remand the decision to the water quality division to develop numeric standards and analyze growth as a part of the process.
Colorado Springs argued that the scope of the certification is narrowly defined as a step toward a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that would allow digging and dredging in Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River. “The pipeline and treatment plants (in SDS) do not include any discharges,” said Jennifer Hunt, an attorney for Colorado Springs…
During questioning by Colorado Springs Utilities’ attorney David Robbins, SDS Project Director John Fredell said growth will occur with or without SDS, and that the project has other purposes — including providing redundancy of water delivery systems, reliability of service and development of water rights. Annette Quill, the state’s attorney, argued the adaptive management plan is enforceable, and defended the division staff as using their “best professional judgment,” not a gut reaction, to make the decision to certify SDS. The state favored the adaptive management plan rather than a strict limit on contaminants, said Steve Gunderson, director of the Water Quality Control Division. “An adaptive management program made sense, because you could study this thing to death and still not be conclusive,” Gunderson said. “Fountain Creek involves as much scrutiny as any basin in the state, and we’re definitely going to be involved.”
More coverage from The Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold):
State regulators Tuesday delayed a decision until next month on a dispute involving Colorado Springs Utilities’ Southern Delivery System water pipeline. The group Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition and Pueblo County District Attorney Bill Thiebaut have challenged a water-quality certification obtained by Utilities in April.