Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7 <br />Page 1 <br /> <br />1 (See Appendices E and F of Final Order.)10 However, a closer examination of it reveals that it is <br />2 insufficient. Each comment is summarized in a few sentences, and the responses are often limited to <br /> <br />3 two or three words. (ld.) Few, if any, meaningful changes were made in response to comments <br />4 submitted. In other words, despite providing a voluminous and nice-looking chart, the responses <br />5 were substantively too little and too late to be meaningful as is required by law. <br />6 To better illustrate these deficiencies, a few illustrative examples of substantive and important <br />7 issues that were not adequately addressed in the Regional Water Board's responses to comments are <br />8 discussed below. <br /> <br />9 Comments submitted by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, <br /> <br /> <br />10 for example, requested that the Regional Water Board's requirement for an initial desktop feasibility <br /> <br />11 analysis of the provisions set forth in sections C.l1 and C.12 of the February 2009 draft be used as a <br /> <br /> <br />12 screening mechanism to determine whether and to what extent the pilot diversions should be <br /> <br /> <br />13 required. (Appendix F, at p. 438-39.) This suggestion - which would have saved public resources by <br /> <br /> <br />14 providing an equivalent amount of information with less paperwork - was ignored: all five pilot <br /> <br />15 diversion studies are mandated in the Final Order, regardless of the outcome of the initial feasibility <br /> <br />16 analysis. (ld.) In light of the overwhelming evidence of financial distress suffered by municipal <br /> <br />1 7 permittees in this economic environment, opportunities for added efficiencies are of critical <br />18 importance to the permittees, taxpayers, and the Regional Water Board as a public entity. The <br />19 Regional Water Board's failure to meaningfully respond to this suggestion is an example of its <br />20 procedural failures in considering and responding to public comments. 11 <br /> <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br /> <br />10 The Final Order and all associated documents are available at <br />http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/sanfranciscobav/water issues/orograms/stormwater/mm.shtml. <br /> <br />11 Likewise, the Santa Clara Program submitted comments on Provision C.1S of the MRP <br />noting that it had previously developed and obtained approval of a comprehensive non-stormwater <br />discharge management program. It asked the Regional Water Board staff to explain why that <br />program was no longer adequate or could not simply be grandfathered, thereby saving significant <br />public resources while continuing to protect water quality; it also asked the staff to explain where the <br />existing program had failed to protect water quality. The response fails to provide any data or <br />analysis, merely paying lip service to these important points while attempting to put the ball back in <br />the municipalities' court. ld. at 502-503 <br /> <br />sf-2748053 <br /> <br />12 <br />PETITION FOR REViEW <br />