SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 22 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments provisions of the CWA or the CWC to require that Permittees implement BMPS to achieve compliance with water quality objectives. 12. Comment: "Economic Impacts" Under Section 402(p)(3) of the CWA,permits for MS4s must require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. 33 U.S.C. ' 1342(p)(3). EPA has not developed effluent guidelines for this MEP standard, and both EPA and the State Board have determined to use BMPs to implement the MEP standard in MS4 permits. In the absence of effluent guidelines, Section 402(a) requires a case-by-case determination of what is practicable,taking into account technical feasibility, cost and affordability.Accordingly,the State Board has acknowledged that the MEP standard requires the rejection of BMPs when they are not technically feasible or the "cost would be prohibitive." See State Board Order WQ 2000- 11 Similarly, Section 13263(a) of the Water Code requires the Regional Board to consider all of the factors enumerated in Section 13241 when issuing a MS4 permit. The factors include: 1. "water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors which affect water quality in the area"; 2. "economic considerations"; and 3. "the need for developing housing within the region." See Cal. Water Code ' ' 13241(c)-(e). There is no indication that any of the required factors have been adequately considered. Furthermore, a Memorandum dated February 11, 1999, from the State Board, Office of Chief Counsel interprets MEP to include technical feasibility, cost, and benefit. The Tentative Order does not address the economic impacts that the Tentative Order would have on the Permittees. There is no consideration of the costs of the Tentative Order to the Permittees. In the County's estimation the costs to comply with the Tentative Order are substantial and may be prohibitive. Due to the nature of the Tentative Order it has not been feasible for the County to accurately quantify these costs. Best estimates are that the program costs will increase by over 100% from the current permit. Without an adequate analysis of the economic impacts of the Tentative Order,the Regional Board cannot fulfill its obligation to take"economic considerations" into account when making its case- by-case determination of appropriate permit requirements meeting the MEP standard and in issuing waste discharge requirements pursuant to state law. The Tentative Order, therefore, fails to comply with the CWA and Sections 13263(a) and 13241(d)of the Water Code. Response: See response to City's Comment 2.