Laserfiche WebLink
Second paragraph — Not sure what "non-existent" fencing by the wild life area refers to. <br /> From time to time, damaged sections are reported and repaired. Perhaps this refers to a <br /> damaged fence in the area. If so, it has been repaired. <br /> In the fourth sentence, as we did not tour Dredger Cut, no observation of the signs that <br /> do exist at Receiving Station R-2 could be observed. <br /> Please note: Provision H.3 requiring Dredger Cut posting is not the same sign <br /> requirement as noted in Specifications D.6 and D.14. Provision H.3 was carried forward <br /> from our 1993 permit. In the 1993 permit, Provision G.6 read, "The Discharger shall post <br /> Dredger Cut as a wastewater disposal area." The current permit modified this only that <br /> the sign be in place until the Effluent Limitations in B.3 are met. There is no indication <br /> that the compliance location has changed. All correspondence at that time were <br /> directed to, "...preclude water contact recreation in Dredger Cut." The provision's <br /> agreed intent referred to notifying persons who might enter Dredger Cut from the west <br /> that wastewater disposal takes place in Dredger Cut. There are two signs in place at <br /> receiving station R-2 and the wordage and location were approved by Ms. Leary in 1993 <br /> after that permit was adopted. <br /> During the June 20, 2003, inspection, the inspection team did not travel to the outfall or <br /> receiving stations. When this issue was raised, Mr. Kerlin offered to take the team back <br /> out, but the choice was made to tour those locations on the next visit. <br /> Collection System — In the third paragraph, but not pertaining to the collection system, <br /> there is discussion again about odors. In this paragraph, comments attributed to <br /> Regional Board employees concerning odors are made. An assumption is made that <br /> since Board staff didn't know who to contact, then the "general public" also would <br /> complain if they knew who to contact. We do not believe this is giving the general public <br /> credit that they would be able to learn who to contact if they had cause. Local citizens <br /> are aware the facility belongs to the City of Lodi, and they could file a complaint at <br /> City Hall or, if not, contact the Air Quality District or the County. We also note that the <br /> Air Quality District is well equipped to carry out enforcement actions on the City's <br /> wastewater facilities, as they are currently doing with a nearby city. <br /> Summary— In item number 3, the last sentence uses the wording, "not available" which <br /> contradicts the previous "extremely difficult" wording that we believe was discussed. <br /> Attachment D - A number of pictures are mislabeled: <br /> • The two pictures at the bottom of page 2 of 3 say "Dredger Cut". These are of an <br /> unnamed irrigation ditch that crosses City property. This ditch is separated from <br /> Dredger Cut by a levee and road on the adjacent State property. Signs are not <br /> required on this ditch in our permit. <br /> The top two pictures at the top of page 3 of 3, again call this same unnamed <br /> irrigation ditch, Dredger Cut, which is incorrect. <br /> LCVRWQCB_Attachment.doc 2 10/20/2003 <br />