SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

1.01 City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 5 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments respectively. These rates are higher than either that of San Joaquin County as a whole, the state or the nation, as shown in the following comparison: Comparison of Unemployment Rates 2000 2001 Jan 02 Stockton 10.4 10.3 13.4 San Joaquin County 8.8 8.7 11.4 California 4.9 5.3 6.8 United States 4.0 4.8 6.3 In 2000, Stockton's unemployment rate was 260 percent of the nationwide average, and in 2001, Stockton's rate was 215 percent of the nationwide average. In January 2002, Stockton's unemployment rate was 213 percent of the nationwide average. The result of these economic conditions means that Stockton does not have the ability to fund expanded programs as readily as does Los Angeles. This "ability to pay"must also be taken into account when considering the cost impacts of the tentative permit. Response: This is a second-term MS4 permit for the permittees. The first term permit included similar provisions as required under the federal laws and regulations. MS4 permits generally do not have numeric limits; instead, the permittees are required to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MEP. The Tentative Order specifies that increasingly more effective BMPs must be developed and implemented if water quality standards are being violated. Unlike most other point source NPDES permit requirements, a large amount of capital investment is not anticipated for structural treatment control systems to comply with the storm water MS4 permits. While cost is a factor, the Regional Board is not required to perform a cost-benefit analysis in adopting the MS4 permits. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) (Order WQ 2000-11,pp. 19-20)has rejected any contention that a Regional Board is required to conduct a cost- benefit analysis as part of developing an MS4 permit stating"it is clear that cost should be considered in determining MEP; this does not mean that the Regional Water Board must demonstrate that the water quality benefits outweigh the economic costs." CWC Section 13241 includes a list of factors, including costs, that are to be considered by a Regional Board in establishing water quality objectives in the basin planning process. It is not necessary to consider the factors set forth in CWC Section 13241 when the Regional Board issues waste discharge requirements that implement the Basin Plan. The Tentative Order implements the water quality objectives in the Basin Plan. Thus,while Regional Boards are required to consider economic factors in the development of basin plans,they are not specifically required to undertake a formal costibenefit analysis during the issuance of MS4 permits. Federal regulations do not compel reliance on any particular form of economic analysis in the implementation of requirements based on the MEP performance standard. The citation from 64 Fed.