Laserfiche WebLink
Requirements rather than in a Cease and Desist Order. This will allow the City the necessary <br /> time to plan and complete improvements which will satisfy water quality objectives without <br /> being subject to immediate fines under Senate Bill 709. This would not only meet the letter of <br /> the law but would be eminently fairer than to immediately penalize the City for something they <br /> have had no opportunity to attempt to comply with. <br /> In the alternative, if older Basin Plan objectives are now being applied to Dredger Cut, we <br /> request the Board authorize a schedule for application of the objective at this location. The <br /> Board has authority to adopt or amend an objective on a case-by-case basis when it issues a <br /> permit. Here, such an amendment to the objective is appropriate. <br /> With respect to effluent limits based on the narrative toxicity objective (NTO), while we again <br /> object to the use of the nonbinding EPA criteria and failure to comply with state law or the Basin <br /> Plan in applying these criteria, we also believe a schedule can be authorized in the permit. At <br /> minimum, the Board may include a schedule for a new application or interpretation of the NTO, <br /> and the NTO has been applied or interpreted in this manner with respect to the City. <br /> Finally, Board staff has indicated they cannot provide a compliance schedule for meeting <br /> objectives that were in place prior to September 25, 1995. (Basin Plan, fourth point p. III-2.00) <br /> It is the City's position that applying various water quality objectives to Dredger Cut in the <br /> tentative permit where they were clearly excluded on a site-specific basis-in our pre-1995 current <br /> permit is a "new", post-1995 requirement. Thus, it is proper to include a'compliance schedule in <br /> ithe permit <br /> Comment 2. Groundwater Limitations and Monitoring <br /> The City continues to object to several groundwater-related requirements (see prior comments, <br /> Exhibit 3). The groundwater limitations appear to prohibit any change in groundwater quality <br /> outside a specific compliance point (requirement G.1). These requirements, as well as <br /> Reclamation specification D.1, would effectively establish new water-quality objectives for <br /> groundwater which have not been adopted in accordance with state law. These groundwater <br /> limitations are thus improper. <br /> The second paragraph in the tentative Discharge Requirements Attachment C, item "m) <br /> ,Groundwater" is neither consistent with the Basin Plan nor groundwater anti-degradation <br /> language recently agreed upon in negotiations between the Regional Board and the City of <br /> Woodland. <br /> We propose the following language in place of the existing second sentence: <br /> If a study indicates that discharges or reclamation have significantly increased <br /> concentrations in groundwater, the Discharger must demonstrate that the changes are <br /> consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State; do not unreasonably affect <br /> present and anticipated beneficial uses; and, do not result in water quality less than that <br /> prescribed in water quality control plans or policies. If these cannot be demonstrated, <br /> tentcommentsw•95 Exhibit 1 Page 2 12/17/99 <br />