AgdaPkt 2009-11-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7 Page 1 1 In addition, with respect to new and redevelopment requirements, several Permittees provided 2 evidence that vault-based systems for on-site treatment of storm water are effective in removing 3 pollutants and that there are situations in which these types of controls represent the maximum 4 practicable level of treatment. (See, e.g., Comments of Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution 5 Prevention Program ("SCVURPPP"), at pp. 4-5; Comments of the Alameda Countywide Clean 6 Water Program, and Comments of the City of Dublin, at p. 7.) The Regional Water Board staff 7 responded by asserting - without providing an evidentiary basis or citation to EP A regulations or 8 permitting guidance (since none exists) - that LID measures, rather than the vault-based systems, 9 represent the "maximum extent practicable" because they address a broader range of pollutants and 10 provide other benefits. (Response to Comments on February 2009 Draft.) This response is 11 inadequate because it assumes, rather than finds with adequate support, that LID measures are 12 "practicable." Indeed, as discussed in more detail below, the Regional Water Board has effectively 13 admitted that it has no factual basis for such a conclusion by requiring the Permittees to study the 14 very feasibility of LID measures imposed in the MRP. 15 A number of commenters also requested more time for implementation of new requirements 16 in the February 2009 draft MRP based on the impacts that the new provisions for development and 17 redevelopment projects in that version of the permit would have on existing Hydromanagement 18 ("HM") programs that are already being implemented by Permittees. In the response to comments, 19 the Regional Water Board indicated that it had accommodated this request by moving all immediate 20 deadlines back. (Appendix E to Final Tentative Order, at pp. 2-3.) However, because the Final 21 Tentative Order fails to acknowledge that the new MRP will have an immediate effect on changing 22 the requirements in some existing HM programs, no such revision was made to the deadlines for their 23 implementation. (Final Tentative Order C.3.g.ii(5); C.3.a.ii.) While the response therefore facially 24 responds to the comment in question, its identification of changes made in response is inaccurate and 25 misleading, and it is therefore inadequate and legally insufficient. 26 Each of these examples raises a significant point of importance to Permittees, and, more 27 important, only exemplifies the widespread and pervasive set of deficiencies in the Regional Water 28 Board's response to comments and compliance with mandatory public participation requirements. sf-2748053 13 PETITION FOR REVIEW