First Panel
Alfred Cabral, Esq. Representing the City of Colfax was concerned about third party litigation. The City of Colfax has been fighting in court with a litigant that uses high priced lawyers from San Francisco. The legal fees recently incurred were equal to the city’s entire annual budget. I have added links to two opinion pieces below for those that want a bit more information.
Colfax Record
Mark Miller, Director of Sanitation for Nevada County spoke of the community of Cascade Shores. Residents have to pay over two hundred dollars a month to fund upgrades to their sanitation plant to meet new state guidelines for copper that are 800 times more stringent that the standards for drinking water.
There is a guideline that the cost for sanitation systems should not exceed two percent of the average income of the users the cost in Cascade Shores is seven percent.
Jim Durfee ,Facility Services Director for Placer County spoke of North Auburn residents that are currently paying eighty seven dollars a month and the plant needs yet another upgrade.
Timothy Shaw, General Manager for the Olive Hurst Public Utilities District
Paul Sciuto, Assistant General Manager South Tahoe Public Utility District Represented the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA).
Warren Pesses, Public Works Director City of Placerville
Some of the concerns raised were:
- · Third party lawsuits. It is costly to defend even if the community wins.
- · Lack of regulatory discretion
- · The releasing of information about actions taken being released in local media which promotes lawsuits.
- · Methods of measurement being unfair to communities closer to the water source.
- · Standard for release water actually being higher than the sources water.
- · Standard for release water being higher than standards for drinking water.
- · Anti degradation and anti backsliding tools driving more stringent permit limitations
Panel 2
David Smith, Manager, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Environmental Protection Agency.
Written remarks were submitted in writing Smith made only a summary. Smith felt that over all the states has done a very good job. The EPA recognizes The federal government has provided about 280 million dollars of ARRA funds last year. The EPA does understand the concerns raised on whether requirements are necessary or fair to small communities. There is some regulatory discretion in the Clean Water Act. There are still 700 impaired water bodies in California. Smith felt that the new watershed approach using the Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) process would help the states to work on the real sources of pollution which include municipalities but also sources such as old mine agriculture etc instead of placing most of the burden on municipalities alone.
Tom Howard, Executive Director California State Water Resources Control Board.
Pamela Creedon, Executive Director Central Valley Regional Water Resources Control Board.
Tom Howard made the presentation for both the state and regional boards. Made a comparison of the 1970’s when the Clean Water Act was passed forcing states to install secondary systems and recent history where the states are being pushed to tertiary systems. In the 70’s there was a generous grant system of under certain circumstances up to 97% to help facilitate the upgrades. The grant system was replaced with a loan system in the 1980’s the tertiary systems are expensive but manageable with the right economy of scale.
When the recording becomes available I suggest you take advantage of it. Even the public comments had good information.
No comments:
Post a Comment