SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 39 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments effective. In selecting BMPs the municipality must make a serious attempt to comply and practical solutions may not be lightly rejected.In any case,the burden would be on the municipal discharger to show compliance with its permit. After selecting a menu of BMPs, it is the responsibility of the discharger to ensure that all BMPs are implemented." As stated in response to City Comment No. 6, the three year compliance period specified in CWA. Section 402(p)(4)(B) and 40 CFR 122.42(d) applies to initial MS4 permits. Subsequent or renewed MS4 permits require do not have a three year window for coming into compliance with permit conditions, consistent with and as required in 40 CFR 122.4(a). Finding 27 has been revised accordingly. Under the Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner Opinion (9th Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 1159, a State is not obligated to require strict compliance with state water quality standards through the establishment and imposition of numeric effluent limitations in MS4 permits (191 F.3d 1159, 1166- 67). Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the CWA states that"[p]ermits for discharges from municipal storm sewers . . . shall require . . . such other provisions as the Administrator . . . determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants." Thus, the permitting authority has the discretion to determine what pollution controls are appropriate in a particular case. However, the State Board in Order WQ 2001-15 has reiterated its endorsement of language that requires that storm water management plans in MS4 permits be"designed to achieve compliance with watbr quality standards. Compliance is to be achieved over time, through an iterative approach requiring improved BMPs." Order WQ 2001-15, p. 7. As explained in State Board Order WQ 2001-15, the iterative procedure for complying with the requirement that MS4 discharges"must not cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality objectives in the receiving water"requires that"municipalities must report instances where they cause or contribute to exceedances, and then must review and improve BMPs so as to protect the receiving waters." Order WQ 2001-15,pp. 5-6. Virtually identical language to that upheld in Order WQ 2001-15 is contained in the Discharge Prohibitions and Receiving Water Limitations prohibitions, and Provision D in the Tentative Order. Thus, the Tentative Order is not"devoid of any analysis of how permit conditions are sufficient to ensure attainment of water quality standards in three years . . . ," as DeltaKeeper asserts. Instead, the provisions in the Tentative Order are consistent both with the recent Ninth Circuit decision and with State Board interpretations thereof. Finally, the fact that the Tentative Permit requires future development and submittal of water quality based programs is consistent with the iterative process for achieving compliance with water quality standards. 4. Comment: (DK Comment 2(c)) The Tentative Permit Fails To Comply With State Regulations Protecting Beneficial Uses And Mandating Remediation Of Toxic Hot Spots. Porter-Cologne implements the NPDES permitting authority of the CWA as well as providing for issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements(WDRs) understate law. Section 13263(a) states that its"requirements shall implement any relevant water quality control plans that have been adopted, and shall take into consideration the beneficial uses to be protected, the water quality objectives reasonably required for that purpose, other waste discharges, the need to prevent nuisance, and the provisions of Section 13241. Section 13377, states that"the state and regional boards shall, as