Laserfiche WebLink
`, 1 ./ <br /> City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 45 <br /> NPDES Permit CAS0083470 <br /> Response to Comments <br /> interpreted practicable as practical to allow considerable leeway in determining what might be a <br /> reasonable effort. But, Congress,recognizing the extent of impairment to the nation's waters, <br /> explicitly required a maximum effort to the extent it is technically achievable. <br /> Stockton or San Joaquin County may not consider that raising fees to adequately fund a storm water <br /> program sufficient to eliminate or significantly reduce water quality impairments to be practical,but <br /> it is certainly practicable. It is practicable for Stockton's storm water program to have staffing and <br /> funding equivalent to the City's wastewater program. Especially, considering that storm water is a <br /> larger and more intractable source of pollutant mass loading. <br /> Any suggestion that the Permittee's present underfunded and understaffed program complies with <br /> an MEP standard stretches credibility. Augmentation of the existing three person storm water <br /> program by 10, 20 or even 40 additional staff would not constitute MEP for a municipality of a <br /> quarter of a million people. As we discuss below, in examining performance standards, the State of <br /> Wisconsin recently adopted state-wide rules governing municipal storm water runoff that contain <br /> performance standards extending far beyond the inadequate controls in the proposed Permit. While, <br /> DeltaKeeper doesn't believe that the Wisconsin rules necessary comply with MEP, they are <br /> considerably more stringent that requirements in the proposed Permit. <br /> We've discussed the Permittees' inadequate staffing and resource commitments with the Board and <br /> staff. We assume those letters and testimony are in the record. If not,please add them. <br /> Response: Comment noted. There is no statutory or regulatory definition for MEP. The CWA <br /> section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) requires that MS4 permits"shall require controls to reduce the discharge of <br /> pollutants to the MEP, including management practices, control techniques and system, design and <br /> engineering methods, and such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines <br /> appropriate for the control of such pollutants..."However, several interpretations of MEP exist, <br /> including: <br /> 1. MEP means that when considering and choosing BMPs to address an identified pollution <br /> problem, the municipality is to consider the following: technical feasibility, effectiveness, <br /> compliance with regulatory standards, cost, and public acceptance. The BMP chosen must <br /> achieve greater or substantially the same pollution control benefit as identified in the <br /> manuals developed by the California Storm Water Quality Task Force(Proposed by <br /> Permittees). <br /> 2. MEP means to the maximum extent feasible, taking into account considerations of <br /> synergistic, additive, and compering factors, including but not limited to, gravity of the <br /> problem, technical feasibility fiscal feasibility,public health risks, societal concerns, and <br /> social benefits. (Order R8-2001-10 Orange County MS4 Permit) <br /> 3. MEP is the technology-based standard established by Congress in CWA Section <br /> 402(p)(3)(B)(iii)that municipal dischargers of storm water(MS4s) must meet. Technology- <br /> based standards, establish the level of pollutant reductions that dischargers must achieve <br /> typically by treatment or by a combination of treatment and BMPs. MEP generally <br />