SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

directed to a few discrete portions of the petition.' The State Board received responses to the petition from the Regional Board and from Delta Keeper,'which was granted party status in this proceeding and was a party before the Regional Board.' On January 22, 2003, the State Board adopted WQO 2002-0018, approving a stipulation between the Petitioner and the Regional Board for a stay of portions of the Regional Board's orders pending review. H. CONTENTIONS AND FINDINGS Contention: The Petitioner claims that the Regional Board acted arbitrarily and improperly in rejecting the Petitioner's recommendation for, and offer to fund, an independent technical expert or committee to review the issue of dilution and mixing-zone allowance. Finding: The Petitioner's suggestion that it fund outside technical experts to assist the Regional Board in certain technical matters presents an intriguing opportunity that may merit consideration in some circumstances. In the instant proceeding,however, the Petitioner has made no showing that its offer was timely presented to the Regional Board, that the funding was in place to timely accomplish the task, or that the Regional Board(as opposed to the party offering to fund the consultants)would have the authority to direct and supervise the scope of ' To the extent this Order does not address all of the issues raised by Petitioner,the Board finds that the issues that are not addressed are insubstantial and not appropriate for State Board review. (See People v. Barry(1987) 194 Ca1.App.3d 158 [239 Cal.Rptr. 349].) ' In its response,Delta Keeper acknowledges not having filed a petition in this matter,yet nonetheless requests we address numerous alleged errors of the Regional Board. These matters were not timely raised,and the request is denied. ' On October 24,2002,we received Petitioner's"Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Petition for Review" and a request that it be considered. The Regional Board objects to the submittal. While we retain discretion to authorize additional pleadings, State Board regulations generally contemplate that petitioners submit all their arguments and points and authorities with the petition. (See Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 23, §§2050,2050.5.) Petitioner declined invitations to file supplemental pleadings both on June 24,2002,and in the July 23,2002 notice that the petition was complete. The July 23 notice required any such pleading to be submitted within 10 days after the record was filed and limited to discussing those parts of the record the Petitioner had not yet received. The notice also requested that the parties not submit replies to responses to the petition. (See id.) The Petitioner replied it could not comply within the time allowed,but would consult the Regional Board and propose an alternative date. The State Board received no such proposal. Instead,the subject pleading was filed more than three months later—well after review was underway. Directly contrary to the July 23 notice,the pleading states it"is based on. . . [a]complete review of the record. . .[and] addresses . . .the[Regional Board's] . . .Response to the petition." Nor does it identify any documents from the administrative record that Petitioner had not yet received. The request to consider the submittal is denied. Its attachment and incorporation into Stockton's February 28,2003,comments is stricken from the record. 2.