SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 18 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments Board,the Porter-Cologne Act and enacting Federal legislation all speak to reasonableness and cost effectiveness of program items, as well as water quality issues." Response: Comment noted. 7. Comment: "Permit Time Line," County Comment Letter The County states: "The permit renewal process has been a long and arduous process. The following time line of the process will give an indication of the level of frustration that has developed. The permit process was lengthened, as each Water Resources Control Board decision was made or `better conditions appeared in the permits of other jurisdictions.' Thirty-six months have passed since the original application for renewal of this permit. . . ." Response: Comment noted. 8. Comment: Last paragraph in County Comment Letter "San Joaquin County is concerned with the content of the Tentative Order and the cost implications of the program items. When a program item(such as a study or a fixed number of tests) is nearly the same as in the Los Angeles permit, the City of Stockton and San Joaquin County must spread the cost of this item over a population that is only 3 percent of the Los Angeles permit area. The lack of flexibility in the Tentative Order removes the ability to address the actual problems encountered and limits the ability of the County to provide any program that is outside of the mandates of the Tentative Order." Response: Comment noted. This comment raises concerns that also are raised by the County in other comments to which responses have been provided. Note: the next five comments are from Attachment A of the County's comments submittal. 9. Comment: "The Maximum Extent Practicable Standard Governs Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permits" Citing Section 402(p)(3) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 13377 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act(Porter Cologne Act or Water Code), staff asserts that the Regional Board has "broad legal authority'to impose all of the obligations set forth in the Tentative Order. In particular, staff maintains that the Regional Board can require the Permittees not only to reduce pollutants being discharged from their municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), but also to do "whatever else is needed"to control pollutant discharges. For the reasons discussed below, the County strongly disagrees with staff's contentions about the scope of the Regional Board's authority.