Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7 <br />Page 1 <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br /> <br />18 million of studies, of getting data. . . . I think, in reality, I want to go <br />on record that you may hear from us in another year or two, saying, <br />"You know what? There is not enough money to do all the studies that <br />you ask for in the time frame that you put out in this permit." <br /> <br />(Tr. at 111-113.) <br /> <br />Against this same fiscal backdrop, the Regional Water Board staff itself also estimated that <br /> <br /> <br />the new trash capture requirements will carry a capital cost price tag of $28 million, and admitted that <br /> <br />they had identified only $5 million dollars in public resources available to fund implementation. <br /> <br />(Staff Report, at p. 6.) <br /> <br />While the record is replete with such acknowledgements by the Regional Water Board that <br />the new requirements (LID, trash capture, monitoring, and others) are costly and burdensome, it does <br />not contain any actual analysis by staff of costs against the environmental benefit to be gained by <br />their imposition.14 For this reason, and on this record, the requirements are unsustainable under State <br /> <br />law. <br /> <br />Moreover, the Regional Water Board has not made any specific findings supporting the <br />conclusion that these new requirements are necessary to maintain any specific beneficial use tied to <br />local receiving waters. Instead, for LID, for example, the Regional Water Board simply points in a <br />staff report to storm water permits adopted in other regions that have implemented "extensive <br /> <br />requirements for LID measures." (Staff Report, at p. 6.) It also failed to consider how the more <br />extensive new and redevelopment controls and hydromodification requirements implemented in the <br />pennittees' jurisdictions as a result of their prior permit compliance may already be adequate to <br />achieve protection of beneficial uses (as their prior permits' findings determined they would). This <br />"fire, aim, ready" approach is simply not sufficient to justify permit conditions in excess of those <br />required under federal law. Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 116 Cal. <br /> <br />App. 3d 751, 758-59 (1981). <br /> <br />14 Municipalities submitted many such analyses; but these were dismissed or ignored. <br /> <br />sf-2748053 <br /> <br />17 <br />PETITION FOR REVIEW <br />