(1) In order to foster the health, welfare, and safety of the inhabitants of the state of Colorado and to facilitate the enjoyment and use of the scenic and natural resources of the state, it is declared to be the policy of this state to prevent injury to beneficial uses made of state waters, to maximize the beneficial uses of water, and to develop waters to which Colorado and its citizens are entitled and, within this context, to achieve the maximum practical degree of water quality in the waters of the state consistent with the welfare of the state. It is further declared that pollution of state waters may constitute a menace to public health and welfare, may create public nuisances, may be harmful to wildlife and aquatic life, and may impair beneficial uses of state waters and that the problem of water pollution in this state is closely related to the problem of water pollution in adjoining states.
(2) It is further declared to be the public policy of this state to conserve state waters and to protect, maintain, and improve, where necessary and reasonable, the quality thereof for public water supplies, for protection and propagation of wildlife and aquatic life, for domestic, agricultural, industrial, and recreational uses, and for other beneficial uses, taking into consideration the requirements of such uses; to provide that no pollutant be released into any state waters without first receiving the treatment or other corrective action necessary to reasonably protect the legitimate and beneficial uses of such waters; to provide for the prevention, abatement, and control of new or existing water pollution; and to cooperate with other states and the federal government in carrying out these objectives.
(3) It is further declared that protection of the quality of state waters and the prevention, abatement, and control of water pollution are matters of statewide concern and affected with a public interest, and the provisions of this article are enacted in the exercise of the police powers of this state for the purpose of protecting the health, peace, safety, and general welfare of the people of this state.
(4) This article and the agencies authorized under this article shall be the final authority in the administration of water pollution prevention, abatement, and control. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no department or agency of the state, and no municipal corporation, county, or other political subdivision, having jurisdiction over water pollution prevention, abatement, and control, shall issue any authorization for the discharge of pollutants into state waters unless authorized to do so in accordance with this article.
(5) It is further declared that the general assembly intends that this article shall be construed to require the development of a water quality program in which the water quality benefits of the pollution control measures utilized have a reasonable relationship to the economic, environmental, energy, and public health costs and impacts of such measures, and that before any final action is taken, with the exception of any enforcement action, consideration be given to the economic reasonableness of the action. Such consideration shall include evaluation of the benefits derived from achieving the goals of this article and of the economic, environmental, public health, and energy impacts to the public and affected persons.
Source: L. 81: Entire article R&RE, p. 1310, § 1, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Amax, Inc. v. Colorado Water Quality Control Comm'n, 790 P.2d 879 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 8× “The Colorado Water Quality Control Act, § 25-8-102, C.R.S. (1989 Repl.Vol. 11 A) (the Act), declares that it is the public policy of this state: “to conserve state waters and to protect, maintain, and improve, where necessary and reasonable, the quality thereof for public water…”
Mt. Emmons Mining Co. v. Town of Crested Butte, 690 P.2d 231 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, the court ruled as follows: the ordinance was irreconcilable with those provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act which vest state agencies with the final authority in the administration of water pollution prevention, abatement, and control, §…”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Arapahoe v. United States, 891 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1995).
· cites it 2× “*972 In addition, the General Assembly adopted the Colorado Water Quality Control Act in 1981, section 25-8-102(1), 11A C.R.S. (1989), which states: [I]t is declared to be the policy of this state to prevent injury to beneficial uses made of state waters, to maximize the…”
Sage v. Colo Dept of Pub Health, 2020 COA 127 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“5-203; and to manage its duties relative to preventing, abating, and controlling water pollution, §§ 25-8-102(3), 25-8- 202(1)(d), 25-8-503, C.”
Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. v. Looby, 877 P.2d 1385 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “, is designed to ‘achieve the maximum practical degree of water quality in the waters of the state consistent with the welfare of the state,’ recognizing that ‘pollution of state waters may constitute a menace to public health and welfare,’ C.R.S. § 25-8-102(1). The Act *1391…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-8-102(1) — 3 cases
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Arapahoe v. United States, 891 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1995).
“*972 In addition, the General Assembly adopted the Colorado Water Quality Control Act in 1981, section 25-8-102(1), 11A C.R.S. (1989), which states: [I]t is declared to be the policy of this state to prevent injury to beneficial uses made of state waters, to maximize the…”
Amax, Inc. v. Colorado Water Quality Control Comm'n, 790 P.2d 879 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
“The Colorado Water Quality Control Act, § 25-8-102, C.R.S. (1989 Repl.Vol. 11 A) (the Act), declares that it is the public policy of this state: “to conserve state waters and to protect, maintain, and improve, where necessary and reasonable, the quality thereof for public water…”
Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. v. Looby, 877 P.2d 1385 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
“, is designed to ‘achieve the maximum practical degree of water quality in the waters of the state consistent with the welfare of the state,’ recognizing that ‘pollution of state waters may constitute a menace to public health and welfare,’ C.R.S. § 25-8-102(1). The Act *1391…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-8-102(2) — 1 case
Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. v. Looby, 877 P.2d 1385 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
“, is designed to ‘achieve the maximum practical degree of water quality in the waters of the state consistent with the welfare of the state,’ recognizing that ‘pollution of state waters may constitute a menace to public health and welfare,’ C.R.S. § 25-8-102(1). The Act *1391…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-8-102(3) — 1 case
Sage v. Colo Dept of Pub Health, 2020 COA 127 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“5-203; and to manage its duties relative to preventing, abating, and controlling water pollution, §§ 25-8-102(3), 25-8- 202(1)(d), 25-8-503, C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-8-102(4) — 3 cases
Mt. Emmons Mining Co. v. Town of Crested Butte, 690 P.2d 231 (Colo. 1984).
“Specifically, the court ruled as follows: the ordinance was irreconcilable with those provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act which vest state agencies with the final authority in the administration of water pollution prevention, abatement, and control, §…”
Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. v. Looby, 877 P.2d 1385 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
“, is designed to ‘achieve the maximum practical degree of water quality in the waters of the state consistent with the welfare of the state,’ recognizing that ‘pollution of state waters may constitute a menace to public health and welfare,’ C.R.S. § 25-8-102(1). The Act *1391…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.