SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 7 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments expending scarce regulatory and programmatic resources while receiving little or no environmental benefit. The Regional Board must support all of its regulatory requirements with evidence in the record. In addition, there must be findings in the Order to bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate determination. (Topanga Assn.for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.) It is not proper to assume that conditions in Stockton are identical to those in Los Angeles or elsewhere. Findings must be supported by evidence in the record pertaining to Stockton. Stockton's permit should not contain provisions regulating conditions that do not exist in Stockton or are unnecessary or unreasonable for Stockton. (Water Code, § 13000.) Response: In 1999,the regional boards received an increase in funding for their respective storm water programs. Because of chronic beach closures caused by MS4 discharges, the Los Angeles (Region 4) and San Diego (Region 9) Regional Boards received a greater share of storm water funding than other regional boards. Regions 4 and 9 used part of this additional funding to hire the personnel and gather the resources that led to the preparation of the San Diego County and Los Angeles County MS4 permits. These permits were approved for issuance in February and December 2001, respectively. After review of these permits, especially the Los Angeles permit, Regional Board staff concluded that they were well-conceived, pragmatic documents containing many provisions that could be applied to MS4 permits for municipalities in the Central Valley Region. Where appropriate,the Tentative Permit borrows from the Los Angeles permit. While the City asserts that, "Stockton's permit should not contain provisions regulating conditions that do not exist in Stockton or are unnecessary or unreasonable for Stockton," in each case, the"borrowed" provisions were evaluated and screened to ensure that any used in the Tentative Order were (1) applicable to the Stockton area's site conditions, (2) technically feasible, and (3) economically feasible. The City claims that the use of components of the Los Angeles permit in the Tentative Order has resulted in"a number of requirements being included that are not applicable to the conditions in the Stockton permit area." As support for this position, the City alludes to several examples,but cites only one: the requirement to track and inspect some specific business categories as part of the Commercial/Industrial Element. The City states that, "[w]hile these commercial uses [auto body shops, auto dealers, auto repair shops,restaurants, and retail gasoline outlets] may discharge pollutants of concern in Los Angeles, there is no data that demonstrates these businesses are significant contributors to the pesticide, low dissolved oxygen, or pathogen impairments in Stockton-area water bodies." There are two problems with the City's contention. First, it is well established that many of the businesses cited are potential sources of pollutants that are currently causing impairment in Stockton area waterways. Biochemical oxygen demand(BOD) is an indicator of a pollutant's potential to contribute to low dissolved oxygen in receiving waters. Cooking grease,petroleum hydrocarbons,