SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

`. City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 35 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments standards. The Board found in Order 98-01 that 1)"[s]tormwater permits must achieve compliance with water quality standards,but the may do so by requiring implementations of BMPs in lieu of numeric water quality-based effluent limitations." and 2) ["p]ermits should be written to clearly identify water quality standards and to clearly require that permittees, through the implementation of BMPs, shall not cause or contribute to exceedances of such water quality standards." (Emphasis added). As we noted above, Section 402(P)(3)(B)(iii) of the CWA requires BMPs which reduce pollutants to the MEP and"such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants." In Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner 191 F. 3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1999), the Court, while holding that the provisions of Section 402(P)replace the requirements of Section 301, affirmed that EPA could require "such other provisions" as compliance with water quality standards and numeric effluent limitations. Both EPA and the State have subsequently required storm water permits to include additional provisions to comply with water quality standards. We note that the Basin Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin includes numeric effluent limitations for storm water discharges. In Order WQ 2001-15, the State Board stated that"[i]t is true that the holding in Browner allows the issuance of municipal storm water permits that limit their provisions to BMPs that control pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), and which do not require compliance with water quality standards. For the reasons discussed below, we decline to adopt that approach." (emphasis added). The Board justified additional provisions because "[t]he evidence in the record before us is consistent with records in previous municipal permits we have considered, and with the data we have in our records, including data supporting our list prepared pursuant to Clean Water act section 303(d). Urban runoff is causing and contributing to impacts on receiving waters throughout the state and impairing their beneficial uses." The Board went on to say that"...where urban runoff is causing or contributing to exceedances of water quality standards, it is appropriate to require improvements to BMPs that address those exceedances." (Order at 7 & 8). Significantly,the Board also observed that "[t]he iterative approach is not necessary for all Discharge Prohibitions. For example, a prohibition against pollution, contamination or nuisance should generally be complied with at all times." (Order at 9). Indeed, Sections 13263, 13377 of Porter-Cologne would mandate more stringent requirements to prohibit pollution, contamination or nuisance. Even the Permittees' existing MS-4 permit (Order No 95-035) contains a requirement that the Permittees achieve water quality standards (Receiving Water Limitation C(1)) and required that the Discharger shall be in full compliance with this permit as expeditiously as practicable,but in no event later than three (3)years after the date of issuance of this permit" (Finding 20). The record is clear,the Permittees are obviously in violation of these requirements. The issue is not whether compliance with water quality standards is required or whether compliance must be achieved within three years. They clearly are. The issue is not even whether the iterative BMP approach is proper. While we believe numeric limits are overdue and would simplify regulatory oversight, the state has clearly embarked upon a path of employing an iterative BMP approach to comply with water quality standards. The issue is whether the proposed Permit will ensure the achievement of water quality standards within three years and whether the permit