AgdaPkt 2009-11-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7 Page 1 1 2 2. The Regional Water Board has failed to perform the analysis of countervailing economic factors required under State law. 3 Having failed to establish that LID is necessitated by the federal MEP standard, the Regional 4 Water Board has also failed to make any fmdings that would support a conclusion that LID measures 5 are necessary or appropriate under state law. Indeed, the evidence on the record would not support 6 such findings. 7 Imposition of LID measures based solely as a measure that is more stringent than required 8 under federal law triggers the need for additional analysis. City of Burbank v. State Water Resources 9 Control Bd., 35 Cal. 4th 613,626-27,629 (2005). As a start, the Regional Water Board would have 10 to undertake a careful analysis of technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of its proposed 11 requirements. Water Code ~~ 13241(d), 13263(a). It did not do so. In fact, at least one member of 12 the Regional Water Board expressed the strong betiefthat the LID provisions as written were too 13 inflexible to be feasible, especially in the urban infill context that many of the permittees will have to 14 address. (Tr. at pp. 36-37.) 15 Numerous witnesses also provided testimony about the economic unreasonableness of the 16 MRP's requirements given the tenuous financial conditions facing municipal permittees. Addressing 17 the permit's extensive monitoring requirements, one witness in particular testified in detail about the 18 dire short..term and long-term economic realities facing elected officials and the taxpayers who must 19 fund the studies and other mandatory provisions in the new MRP, rebutting the Regional Water 20 Board's belief that deferring the most expensive provisions to the end of the permitting period would 21 alleviate such concerns: 22 This is great, we have a five year permit, we can look forward to the future, the bar has been raised; but I caution all of you, as an elected 23 official, and you all know in your own communities, the budgetary considerations are not just ending at the end of this year, they are going 24 to be next year, the year after. Concord alone will have $9.7 million more we will have to cut. We just lost close to 78 employees, 20 25 percent of our workforce. We will be cutting again more staff. So these monitoring requirements [are] still of concern, a very large 26 concern, because the amount of money it is going to take to [conduct] these studies, even though they are spread over a period of time, you 27 are still talking anywhere from $6 to $43 million in capital costs throughout the permit over that five years to address some of the issues 28 identified in those studies, possibly, and you are talking about $12, 15, sf-2748053 16 PETITION FOR REVIEW