AgdaPkt 2009-11-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7 Page 1 1 Regional Water Board member summarized succinctly: "Well, the state of the economy, or the state 2 of the cities is such that, really, going backward, they cannot have it, they cannot afford it." (Tr. at p. 3 159.) 4 To fmd the basis for the Regional Water Board's implementation of these requirements, one 5 must instead "grope through the record to determine whether some combination of credible 6 evidentiary items which supported some line of factual and legal conclusions supported the ultimate 7 order or decision of the agency," in contravention to the requirement for clear and explicit findings. 8 Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. 3d 506, 516-517 (1974). 9 A search for such findings would also, in this instance, prove fruitless. Instead of evidence- 10 based findings, the Regional Water Board staff simply asserts in a separate document that "LID is 11 rapidly being established as the maximum extent practicable (MEP) standard for new and 12 redevelopment stonnwater treatment." (Staff Report, at p. 2.)13 In fact, even this somewhat 13 equivocal and unsupported statement is belied by the very conditions of the final MRP, which 14 1) requires permittees to conduct studies of whether the LID measures required under section C.3 of 15 the MRP are feasible (Final MRP at C.3.c.i(2)(b)(iv)-(v).), and 2) requires a proposal from 16 Permittees to support LID treatment reduction credits for Special Projects. (Final MRP at 17 C.3.e.ii.(1)&(2)). The fact that the Regional Water Board deems such studies necessary confirms that 18 it is not in possession of sufficient evidence to conclude that these measures are "practicable." Thus, 19 inclusion of these studies in the MRP is a tacit admission that the Regional Water Board cannot make 20 legally sufficient findings to support its conclusion that LID represents MEP. In corollary, to make 21 such findings would be an admission that the required studies were excessive and unnecessary. 22 Indeed, the Regional Water Board's insertion of these requirements into the MRP before it has the 23 supporting data is based on speculation, not evidence. 24 25 26 27 28 13 Even if this rationale were sufficient and supported by evidence, a statement in the Staff Report or other supporting document cannot substitute for findings in the permit. In re City and County of San Francisco et aI., State Board Order WQ 95-4, at pp. *28-29 (Sept. 12, 1995). 8f-2748053 15 PETITION FOR REVIEW