Laserfiche WebLink
REGIONAL BOARD RESPOA9E(SWRCB/OCC FILEA-1524(A)) 1-00' -14- <br /> PETITION FOR REVIEW OF WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS <br /> ORDER NO. R5-2002-0181 <br /> CITY OF STOCKTON AND SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY PHASE I MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM <br /> SEWER SYSTEM <br /> SWMP, the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) and the water quality based programs. The <br /> WDRs specify that the SWMP will be reviewed and approved by the Regional Board and is expressly <br /> made an enforceable component of the WDRs. By specifying that the Executive Officer may approve <br /> minor modifications to the SWMP, the Regional Board has authorized the Executive Officer to approve <br /> changes that meet certain criteria. Moreover,in approving these WDRs, the Regional Board has directed <br /> that a thirty-day public comment period precede approval by the Executive Officer of any proposed <br /> modification. In any instance where the Executive Officer exercises the authority the Regional Board <br /> has delegated, an aggrieved party may challenge the Executive Officer's action. This process does not <br /> constitute an improper delegation of the Regional Board's authority. <br /> Second,DeltaKeeper objects to the Regional Board's delegation of authority to the Executive Officer to <br /> approve changes to the MRP. The MRP is approved by the Regional Board,but provides that the <br /> Executive Officer(or the Regional Board)may approve modifications thereto or may reissue the MRP. <br /> We agree that these modifications are limited. However,federal regulations do allow some <br /> modifications as described by DeltaKeeper. California Water Code section 13223 permits regional <br /> boards to delegate any of its powers and duties to the executive officer with the exception of certain <br /> enumerated powers and duties. The issuance of a monitoring and reporting program is not among these <br /> enumerated powers and duties and may permissibly be delegated. <br /> Finally, the WDRs authorize the Executive Officer to accept,reject or refer to the Regional Board for <br /> hearing, the proposed water quality based plans that Permittees are required to submit. As with the <br /> SWMP, the WDRs require that a thirty day public comment period precede any action by the Executive <br /> Officer. Moreover,in outlining the required elements of the water quality based plans, the WDRs <br /> establish specific criteria to which the plans must conform.Through this approach,the Regional Board <br /> has authorized the Executive Officer to determine whether the submittals meet the criteria that the <br /> Regional Board has established. Again, in any instance where the Executive Officer exercises the <br /> authority the Regional Board has delegated, an aggrieved party may challenge the Executive Officer's <br /> action.This process does not constitute an improper delegation of the Regional Board's authority. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> The Regional Board requests that the State Board deny the petition because the action of the Regional <br /> Board was appropriate and proper. Except as described in the response to the Petition A-1524 regarding <br /> the precedential language of Order WQ 99-05,the Regional Board applied applicable law and <br /> regulations and addressed past directives from the State Board in adopting Order No.R5-2002-0181. <br /> cc: Interested Parties List . <br /> Mr. Eugene Bromley,U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Region IX, San Francisco <br /> Mr. Jim Crenshaw, California Sport Fishing Alliance,Woodland <br /> Mr.Terrance Dermody,County Counsel's Office, San Joaquin County <br /> Ms.Theresa Fuentes,Best,Best and Krieger,Riverside <br /> Mr. Bruce Fujimoto,DWQ, State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento <br /> Ms. Catherine George,OCC, State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento <br />