SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE 1980-1999

Home Browse Search

7) The Effluent Limitation for Coliform is Not Based on a Lawfully Adopted Water Quality Objective. Draft Finding No. 32 states that the proposed coliform limitation is based upon DHS guidelines. These guidelines we-re not adopted by DHS as regulations; nor has the Regional Board adopted a policy to base permit limits for disinfection on these guidelines when water contact recreation is identified as a beneficial use. On the contrary, the Regional Board has adopted a policy (in the Basin Plan) to use a mean monthly fecal coliform limit of 200 MPN/100 ml to protect waters designated for water contact recreation. The use of a different coliform level to protect the water contact use would constitute a change in the current policy. Pursuant to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, any new policy or change in policy must be formally adopted pursuant to prescribed procedures. Further, in accordance with the requirements of the Water Code, the adoption of a new objective for protection of the water contact recreation use would require consideration of the factors listed in Section 13241, including economics. Were the Regional Board to adopt a policy to base permit limits on the DHS guidelines, it would have considerable economic impact throughout the Central Valley Region. Under such a policy, many Central Valley treatment plants would have to add coagulation and filtration and significantly increase their service charges. In the City of Lodi, the addition of these treatment processes would require a rate increase of approximately 70% to cover the capital and O and M costs. The language of draft Finding No. 32 suggests that it is simply implementing a "recommendation"of DHS. In reality, however, the draft proposes to implement the 1992 DHS guidelines because this document has formed the basis for some DHS recommendations where the Regional Board has determined that contact recreation is a beneficial use. Thus, the guidelines are an underground regulation. 8) Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order Will Expose the City to Potential Third Party Litigation. Acknowledging that the City will not be able to meet certain proposed permit limitations, the draft permit is accompanied by a Cease and Desist Order. As indicated above, the proposed effluent limitations for chlorine, cyanide, lead and zinc are not derived from adopted water quality objectives, and therefore the City does not believe it is appropriate to include these limitations in the permit. Even if, for the sake of argument, the proposed effluent limitations were appropriate for inclusion in the permit, the City submits that the Regional Board has the authority to, and should, issue a time schedule in the permit. Under the Basin Plan, the Regional Board may allow up to ten years for compliance with a new water quality objective. Under Water Code Section 13263(c), the Regional Board may issue schedules of compliance even for existing water quality objectives. It might be suggested that, because the limitations are being included in the permit to implement the long-standing narrative toxicity objective, rather than a new objective, the Basin Plan does not allow a compliance schedule for these constituents. Yet the San Francisco Bay Regional Board, pursuant to a similar Basin Plan compliance schedule provision, has issued time schedules in WDRs for effluent limitations based on the narrative toxicity objective. See e.g., City of Petaluma NPDES Permit, No. CA0037810 (July 15, 1998) regarding Time Schedule