Laserfiche WebLink
Triennial Review Process. The Basin Plan itself speaks to what the Regional Board <br /> should do if it determines after State Board approval that its provisions were not <br /> adequately protective: <br /> If a problem is found to occur [during the Triennial <br /> Review] because, for example, a water quality objective is <br /> too weak to protect beneficial uses, the Basin Plan should <br /> be amended to make the objective more stringent. <br /> Basin Plan III-1.00. However: <br /> a revision thereof adopted by a regional board, shall <br /> not become effective unless and until it is approved by the <br /> state board. The state board may approve such plan, or <br /> return it to the regional board for further consideration and <br /> resubmission to the state board. Upon resubmission the-•. <br /> state board may either approve or, after a public hearing in <br /> the affected region revise and approve such <br /> plan. <br /> Water Code § 1324 . Therefore, if a Regional Board believes that its Basin Plan will no <br /> longer, or in a given case does not, "ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses <br /> and the prevention of nuisance" (Water Code § 13241), its remedy is to amend the Basin <br /> Plan, place the amended plan before the public for comment, and submit to the State' <br /> Board (and then EPA) for approval. Until those approvals are given, however, the <br /> amendment "shall not become effective." <br /> 4. Other Published Objectives Support Basin Plan Objective <br /> a. DHS Recommendation is Inconsistent with its <br /> Own Guidance <br /> DHS has published a guidance document containing the pathogen levels that it <br /> has determined pose a threat to public health by exposure during body contact with fresh <br /> NPDESPermitComments Exhibit 2 Page 13 12/17/99 <br />