AgdaPkt 2009-11-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7 Page 1 on the draft permit raised during the public comment period or at the any hearing on the permit. 40 2 C.F.R. ~ 124.17(a). 3 2. Legally sufficient findings. 4 Because issuing an NPDES permit is an adjudicative action, the Regional Water Board is 5 required to make "legally sufficient findings" in support of its conclusions. See In re Petition of 6 Pacific Water Conditioning Assn., Inc., State Water Board Order WQ 77-16, at *7 (citing City ofR. 7 P. Verdes v. City Council of R. Hills, etc., 59 Cal.App. 3d 869, 129 Cal. Rptr. 173 (1976); Merced 8 County Board of Supervisors v. California Highway Com'n, 57 Cal.App. 3d 952, 129 Cal.Rptr. 504, 9 (1976); Myers v. Board of Supervisors ofCty. of Santa Clara, 58 Ca1.App. 3d 413, 129 Cal.Rptr. 902, 10 (1976).) Adequate findings assure that the permit is the result of careful consideration of the record 11 before the agency and facilitates review. Topanga Assn.for a Scenic Community v. County of Los 12 Angeles, 11 Cal. 3d 506, 516-517 (1974). 13 In the context of a NPDES permit, particularly one that imposes conditions beyond the 14 requirements of federal law, such findings must, at a minimum, demonstrate that such conditions are 15 necessary to protect specific beneficial uses. Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. State Water Resources 16 Control Bd., 116 Cal. App. 3d 751, 758-59 (1981) (rejecting conditions in an NPDES permit based 17 on the State Ocean Plan that were unsupported by findings that such standards were "necessary to 18 protect specific beneficial uses. . . The absence of such evidence makes it impossible to determine 19 whether stricter regulations than those found in the Ocean Plans are in fact "necessary.") 20 21 22 23 II. ARGUMENT A. The Regional Water Board's Adoption of the Final MRP Was Procedurally Defective. 1. The Regional Water Board provided insufficient notice of the October 14,2009 hearing on the Final Tentative Order. 24 The MRP is the culmination of nearly five years of work by the Regional Water Board, 25 permittees, and stakeholders. The process has been iterative, and the Regional Water Board has 26 established a pattern of allowing time between iterations to facilitate public participation. The first 27 draft permit was published for notice and comment on December 14, 2007. This was followed by a 28 public workshop held by the Regional Water Board in March 2008. Nearly a year later, on February sf-27480S3 7 PETITION FOR REVIEW