1 1 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 2 COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION 3 4 5 6 In the Matter of the ) Public Hearing ) 7 ) Re: All items on the ) 8 agenda. ) _________________________) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 16 El Centro, California 17 Thursday, January 22, 2009 18 19 20 21 22 Reported By: 23 JANET TRAVIS Hearing Reporter 24 Job No.: 25 B0689WQRB 2 1 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 2 COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION 3 4 5 6 In the Matter of the ) Public Hearing ) 7 ) Re: All items on the ) 8 agenda. ) _________________________) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS, taken at 16 City Hall, 1275 Main Street, El Centro, 17 California, commencing at 11:00 a.m., 18 on Thursday, January 22, 2009, heard before the 19 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, 20 reported by JANET TRAVIS, Hearing Reporter. 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 APPEARANCES: 2 CHAIRPERSON: Ellen Way 3 VICE CHAIRPERSON: Jeffrey Hays 4 BOARD MEMBERS: Thomas Davis Edward Muzik 5 Richard Post Robert Perdue 6 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Tom Vandenberg Jose Angel 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 I N D E X 2 SPEAKERS: PAGE 3 4 Joel Hamby 12 5 Logan Raub 39 6 Dr. Monica Swartz 56 7 Nadren Zeywl 69 8 Anna Morales 97 9 Cliff Raley 99 10 Robert Asgian 99 11 Garry Forney 118 12 John Rokke 122 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 1 El Centro, California, Thursday, January 22, 2009 2 11:00 a.m. 3 4 5 MS. WAY: I call the meeting to order. And Jeff, could 6 you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please? 7 MR. HAYS: Ready. Begin. 8 (The Pledge is said by all) 9 MS. WAY: Terry, would you please call the roll. 10 MS. BARNES: Tom Davis. 11 MR. DAVIS: Here. 12 MS. BARNES: John Edney. Absent. Jeff Hays. 13 MR. HAYS: Here. 14 MS. BARNES: Red Martinez. Absent. Ed Muzik. 15 MR. MUZIK: Here. 16 MS. BARNES: Richard Post. 17 MR. POST: Here. 18 MS. BARNES: Ellen Way. 19 MS. WAY: Here. 20 MS. BARNES: Madam Chair, we have a quorum. 21 MS. WAY: Great. Thank you. 22 Mr. Edney wanted to be here. I'd like to say on 23 his behalf that his daughter graduated from the police 24 academy and, of course, that had to land on today. So we 25 came here in his honor to be down in his part of the region. 6 1 He's very sorry he could not be here. So could you please 2 not do anything with Yucca Valley. And also, Red Martinez is 3 recovering from knee surgery and that's why he's not here. 4 Okay. I'd like to introduce Robert Perdue to my 5 right, our Executive Officer. Jose Angel, our Assistant 6 Executive Officer in front. Tom Vandenberg, our legal 7 counsel for the State. Terry, who is in charge of recording 8 and keeping track of all of us. I would like to offer now 9 the opportunity for members of the audience to please stand 10 up, introduce themselves and say who they represent. If 11 anyone is a guest or -- or you. Would you like to introduce 12 yourself? Okay. Seeing none, we'll proceed with opening 13 statements. 14 The purpose of this meeting is for the Regional 15 Water Board members to obtain testimony and information from 16 concerned and affected parties within the Colorado River 17 Basin Region regarding water quality issues, to learn about 18 water quality projects and plans within the region and at 19 the state level and to make decisions that effect water 20 quality based on information and other evidence received. 21 We welcome hearing from the public at this meeting. 22 You may address the Board about any matter within the Board's 23 jurisdiction. Those items listed on the agenda -- please make 24 your presentation at the time the item is being considered. 25 Unless items may be -- unlisted items my be presented during 7 1 the public forum part of the meeting, which is coming up. 2 Please keep in mind, however, that although the Board can 3 accept your testimony for a matter that is not listed on the 4 agenda, the Board can not take any action at this time on 5 that matter. 6 In order to move the Board moving along in a 7 timely manner to ensure that all agenda items are adequate 8 heard, we may need to place limits on the amount of time of 9 the presentation. Therefore, we request that those persons 10 wishing to speak fill out a speaker card, yellow, in the back 11 of the room. 12 So keep your comments brief to five minutes, 13 please. If you think your presentation may take a little 14 long, please let us know before you began speaking how long 15 it may take. We can then decide how to schedule your 16 presentation. 17 Finally, as the Chair, I'd like to introduce 18 myself. I'm Ellen Way. These are the Board members from 19 all over the region. And we're glad to be here in 20 El Centro. I thank all of you for being here. And we will 21 proceed with the minutes. And there are several errata to 22 the minutes that you all received by e-mail. 23 So thank you for that. I think it's good to not 24 make so much paper in the world. So everyone receive that 25 on their own computers. Is there a motion to approve the 8 1 minutes from the November 19th, 2008 -- 2 MR. DAVIS: Madam Chair, I have a correction. I was 3 present at the last meeting and it shows that I am not -- 4 was not. 5 MS. WAY: Okay. Can we just get a motion on the floor 6 and then we'll make the correction. 7 MR. DAVIS: Okay. 8 MS. WAY: So, Tom -- 9 MR. POST: So moved. 10 MS. WAY: So moved by Rich. Is there a second? 11 MR. HAYS: Second. 12 MS. WAY: Seconded by Jeff. Yes, can you make that 13 correction that Tom Davis was at the meeting. Red was on 14 the phone and John left early -- with errata. Any other 15 additions or corrections to the minutes? Seeing none, all 16 those in favor, signify by saying "Aye." 17 THE BOARD: Aye. 18 MS. WAY: Those opposed? Minutes approved. 19 All right. We will now hold the public forum part 20 of the meeting. As I mentioned to the Board members, the 21 public may address the Board about any matter that is 22 within the Board's jurisdiction and that is not on today's 23 agenda. Does anyone here wish to speak? I have two, but 24 they're both with agenda items. Is there anyone else that 25 would like to address them in public forum? No. Okay. 9 1 We will now move to the uncontested National 2 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit -- or as we 3 call it "NPDES" permits. So we have four of those, which we 4 can take all at once. Just a moment. So I will read them, 5 then we'll ask for a motion. If no one objects, we'll take all 6 four at one time. Okay. First is Item 3, JS-R7-2009-002, 7 Update of Waste Discharge Requirement for the Niland Class 3 8 Municipal Solid Waste Management Facility in Niland, 9 Imperial County. 10 Item 4, JS-R7-2009-0009, Waste Discharge Requirement 11 Order Number R7-2009-0009 or K Partners Twentynine Palms 12 L.P., Owner, Fairfield Inn and Suites, Operator Fairfield Inn 13 and Suites, Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems; City of 14 Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County. 15 Item 5, JS-R7-2009-0010, Waste Discharge 16 Requirements for Nathsons Construction, Incorporated, 17 Owner/Operator, La Quinta Inn and Suites, Wastewater Treatment 18 and Disposal Systems; City of Twentynine Palms, 19 San Bernardino County. 20 Item Number 6, JS-R7-2009-0012, Rescission of 21 Waste Discharge Requirements for Synagro - Colorado, 22 Chuckawalla, and Whitewater; Riverside County. 23 Is there a motion to approve these four together? 24 MR. POST: Motion. 25 MR. DAVIS: I'll second. 10 1 MS. WAY: Okay. Moved by Rick Post, seconded by 2 Thomas Davis. Without questioning the Board, is there anyone 3 who wants to say on that level. 4 MR. VANDENBERG: Madam Chair, I think you might have 5 said JS instead of JC. 6 MS. WAY: Oh, I'm sorry. Please correct that. Three 7 and six are JS, and four and five are JC. Thank you. 8 MR. VANDENBERG: Madam Chair, let me correct you. The 9 JS and the JC are just the initials of the staff person who 10 is in charge. And the actual formal title for the order is the 11 R7 dash the year and the number. So the initials are not 12 part of the formal title, they're just the person who is in 13 charge of carrying the order. Something pertaining the 14 order. So just to correct the record. 15 MS. WAY: Thank you. Anyone here wish to say anything 16 regarding this motion? Any other questions by the Board? 17 Seeing none. All those in favor, signify by saying, "Aye." 18 THE BOARD: Aye. 19 MS. WAY: Those opposed? The motion carried 20 unanimously. All right. 21 You have to forgive me but there is some legalese 22 that I must read regarding three uncontested enforcement 23 actions Items Number 7 through 9. These public hearing -- 24 each of these are considered a hearing. So even though 25 they're uncontested each one could open up into a hearing 11 1 if there is someone here that wishes to do that. So these 2 public hearings are being conducted pursuant to the Notices 3 of Public Hearing that were published the requirements of 4 Section 13301 and 13385 of the California Water Code, and 5 Article 2, Chapter 1.5, Division 3 of Title 23, of the 6 California Code of Regulations, commencing with Section 648. 7 These public hearings are being conducted pursuant 8 to a special procedure, known as a separation of functions, 9 which is designed to ensure impartiality. In brief, the 10 procedure provides a clear separation between the team 11 prosecuting the action, called the Prosecution Team, and the 12 team advising and assisting the Board in making its decision, 13 which we call the Advisory Team. 14 The Prosecution Team is represented by 15 Mr. Jose Angel, Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Doug Wylie. 16 Doug, could you raise your hand, please. Senior Water 17 Resources Control Engineer; and Ms. Mayumi Okamoto, 18 Staff Counsel. Ms. Okamoto is an attorney from the 19 Office of Enforcement at the State Water Resources Control 20 Board. The Advisory Team is represented by Robert Perdue; 21 Mr. Jon Rokke, Water Resource Control Engineer; and 22 Mr. Tom Vandenberg, Staff Counsel. Mr. Vandenberg is an 23 attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel at the 24 State Water Resources Control Board. 25 These two items would act independently of one 12 1 another throughout all -- all phases of this enforcement 2 action and will continue to do so until the Matter is 3 concluded. I'm sorry. Okay. We have take each one 4 separately. 5 I shall note -- I shall now open the first of 6 these public hearings to consider Agenda Item Number 7, 7 Cease and Desist Order Number R7-2009-0001, issued to the 8 City of Westmorland, Owner/Operator, Municipal Wastewater 9 Treatment Plant, Westmorland, Imperial County. 10 The Discharger, the City of Westmorland, has 11 requested that the Board issue this Cease and Desist Order. 12 Accordingly, the Board understands that the adoption of this 13 CDO is not contested by the Discharger. Is there anyone 14 present who would like to like to speak to this Cease and 15 Desist Order? 16 Yes, sir. Please come forward. And for the record, 17 could you state your name, spell it, and your address. 18 MR. VANDENBERG: Madam Chair, since somebody would like 19 to speak we will need to have an administration of oath. 20 MS. WAY: Yes. For anybody -- before he introduces 21 himself? 22 MR. VANDENBERG: Yes. 23 MS. WAY: Okay. I'm sorry. 24 Do you wish -- I will swear you in. 25 MR. HAMBY: I'd like to introduce myself. 13 1 MS. WAY: I'd like to hear your name so I can -- 2 MR. HAMBY: My name is Joel Hamby, J-o-e-l, H-a-m-b-y. 3 Reside at 781 South Fifth Street in Westmorland. 4 MS. WAY: Okay. Great. All right. There is someone 5 who would like to speak. I'd like you to raise your right 6 hand, please. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 7 are about to give in this Matter is the truth; if so, answer 8 I do. 9 MR. HAMBY: I do. 10 MS. WAY: When called upon to testify, in addition 11 to stating your name, address, and who you represent, 12 please also state whether you have taken the oath. Shall 13 we allow him to go first? 14 MR. VANDENBERG: I think it would be best if you swear 15 us all in. Why don't we all stand up. 16 MS. WAY: Do it together. Okay. That will save time. 17 All right. We have Jon Rokke. Okay. Let's do 18 that. Could you stand one more time. Raise your right 19 hands. Lawyers too, Tom. 20 MR. VANDENBERG: What? 21 MS. WAY: All right. We're in a public hearing forum. 22 Okay. Do all of you solemnly swear that the testimony you 23 are about to give in this Matter is the truth; if so, answer 24 I do. 25 THE GROUP: I do. 14 1 MS. WAY: And if you are called to the podium, please 2 state your name and who you represent, your address and 3 state that you have taken the oath. Okay. You said Hamby? 4 MR. HAMBY: Hamby. 5 MS. WAY: Hamby. 6 MR. HAMBY: Yes, Joel Hamby. On behalf of the City of 7 Westmorland. I reside at 781 Fifth Street in Westmorland. 8 And City Council requested that I attend and represent -- 9 and speak for the city here today regarding the proposed 10 Cease and Desist Order for the Westmorland Wastewater 11 Treatment Plant. 12 And I have -- we have met by the way with 13 your staff -- oh, just a quick note. I like that oath. In 14 fact, as a public employee, elected official, a person that 15 is required to take an oath to defend the Constitution of 16 the United States and the State of California against all 17 enemies foreign and domestic, so that's very appropriate to 18 do that. 19 MS. WAY: Thank you. 20 MR. HAMBY: In case you haven't read the first sentence 21 of the California Constitution, do that. It's quite 22 interesting. It's a very profound sentence in our 23 Constitution. I appreciate it being there. 24 We have met with your staff on at least one or two 25 occasions. Jose Angel and Doug Wylie came to Westmorland to 15 1 meet and discuss with the City Mayor and myself and at 2 least one other regarding our particular issues here. What 3 you have before you, of course, is the draft order, and we 4 have -- we are not contesting this. I do want to review a 5 couple of thing in that as I proceed. 6 But one of the things I see, having done some 7 deliberation myself in the past is that a lot of time when a 8 document like this is presented, this is all you have to 9 review, look at, and there may be some history things that 10 are not part of the material that you have -- so I wanted to 11 give a very quick history going back to the year 2000 or prior 12 to that, and one of your members has some connection with that 13 and it's very helpful to us along the path when we make a big 14 improvement from going from just a pond system to our current 15 treatment system. 16 A huge step; huge cost. A lot of effort was put 17 into it. A lot of care and time and the small community of 18 Westmorland got a lot of assistance along the way. And we're 19 grateful for that. In fact we got, I believe, it was about 20 2.6 million or something like from the State, through 21 Water Resource Control Board. We got one-and-three-quarters 22 million, I think, from EPA, and another quantity from USDA. 23 And by the way, all of that debt incurred by the City has been 24 fully paid as of this year. 25 MS. WAY: Great. 16 1 MR. HAMBY: And that was in 1999 when we started the 2 process. One reason that we got in the position we did 3 then we just had some raw sewage spill. That incurred a 4 fine. The city paid off $50,000 fine over a five-year period, 5 about the time we started the construction of the new plant 6 that we currently have. And the new plant has operated quite 7 well. 8 We have -- what you see before you here is a list of 9 violations, and I'll give a quick explanation as to how some of 10 those came about, not really due to the plant. Once the plant 11 was constructed, we were given the opportunity to have 12 Bureau of Reclamation come in and build a constructed wetland 13 for the city that had an enhancement and a water feature to 14 benefit the community and the environment. 15 By doing some additional cleanup, and I think 16 we were even experiencing some benefit to the -- there's some 17 selenium and there another -- a couple of elements that we 18 had to look at, potentially to remove, and that was helping us 19 accomplish that. The unfortunate thing was we had a waste 20 discharge requirement permit for the constructed wetland and 21 then we had the MPDS permit for the plant. 22 We were not fully understanding exactly how that 23 was the function. City was doing the recording, as required, 24 for both of those permits going to two different departments 25 in the Regional Board and if you -- do you have the order to 17 1 look at? 2 If you don't mind, turn to Exhibit A if you will, and 3 take a look at page -- page 7 and page 8. And there's a whole 4 list of permitted C incidents here. These permitted C incidents 5 were associated with the wetland. We were recording our plant 6 limits, as required, doing the monthly report for the plants 7 under the MPDS permit. We were doing the reporting of the 8 wetland, with the WDR, not knowing that the wetland was 9 required to meet the same limits that the plant was required 10 to meet. 11 This is how we got from here to there. And we've had 12 some discussion and I believe there is probably some further 13 discussion that we will hopefully have with the staff. And, 14 I believe, there may be another item coming on the next 15 agenda. Administrative Civil Liability to Order regarding 16 minimum mandatory penalties. So, we'll be looking at that. 17 Also, if you'll turn to page 9 of that same 18 attachment. The -- once we reach this point at the end of 19 page 8 on September of '07, and learned that we were facing 20 these penalties, the city council took immediate action 21 saying, "Turn off the wetland. Took that step. 22 Unfortunately, it had an impact on the wetlands. 23 We're looking at ways that we may be able to restore that and 24 get that back in operation because we like the water amenities 25 for the community and we believe it's a benefit to the 18 1 environment, but we can't afford to face these penalties. So 2 we are looking for a way to accomplish that without using 3 wastewater plant fund. And we will be assessing that issue 4 as we go along the way. 5 If you'll notice then beginning page 9. We have a 6 list of violations. And these are violations that occurred 7 subsequent to turning off the wetland. However, the last 8 five violations are associated with one of the new 9 requirements we've just added to our permit in 2007, that 10 enterococci. I don't know if that is the correct 11 pronunciation or not for it. But -- and we have some 12 concerns about that because I looked at the lab results and 13 they looked a little suspect to me because having exact 14 200.5 for three of the tests. We have some questions, and I 15 believe some other agencies are having some of the same 16 problems, and I understand that there is a meeting scheduled 17 next week to review those things. 18 One of the things that I would like to put before 19 you, not necessarily to take an action, unless this is one of 20 the lock in things on the Cease and Desist Order, where it 21 can't be removed. I -- we have requested -- they've requested 22 staff that -- who received consideration that found that those 23 lab results are erroneous and should not reflect on the city 24 this way. That those be remove and disregarded. So in your 25 Cease and Desist Order, I would simply make that request. 19 1 However, it needs to be handled whether it's left in this 2 document and then later removed at the required subsequent 3 action or if you can just make note of it and then in the 4 administrative civil liability report, take care of it there. 5 MS. WAY: Jose, what is traditionally done here? 6 MR. ANGEL: Jose Angel, Assistant Executive Officer. 7 I've taken the oath. 8 The main purpose of the Cease and Desist Order, 9 Madam Chair, Board Members, is to put a time-out to 10 continuous stipulation mandatory. We agree with Mr. Hamby 11 that there are some violations, at least the reason one that 12 he mentioned that may be in dispute. 13 The purpose of this hearing is not to assess a 14 penalty for those violations, but rather for the Board to 15 consider adoption of the Cease and Desist Order to provide a 16 time-out with the mandatory penalties. The other data, the 17 valid data, so the Discharger has violated his permits. 18 He's qualified the Cease and Desist Order. 19 We will be meeting with Mr. Hamby as well as other 20 Dischargers here for Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to 21 go over some of the internal contract violations because they 22 were all using the same lab. And we have questions as to 23 whether or not their recent data is valid. 24 There is no question that the city -- in our opinion, 25 we have a specific need to follow up with the other violations, 20 1 but again, the Board is not adjudicating a penalty for those 2 violations, but rather considering providing a time-out for the 3 Discharger, giving a time schedule so he can troubleshoot the 4 wastewater treatment facility, make the necessary 5 adjustments to the facility. 6 If at some later point it is determined from the 7 executorial team that those violations are questionable, we'll 8 come back with you and make our recommendations to that effect, 9 so the Board can dispense with the penalties of those violations. 10 But again, that's beyond these proceeding at this point. What 11 we're asking the Board to consider is adopting the Cease and 12 Desist Order and providing the Discharger a time-out, mandatory. 13 MS. WAY: Okay. We understand that. Okay. Anything 14 else? 15 MR. HAMBY: Yes, that clarifies that for me 16 regarding that. Just so that we know that we can have a 17 consideration if it is determined or in fact did not get 18 results. To kind of wrap up things, the city did send a 19 letter to the Regional Board requesting -- we know that 20 penalties are coming. We have requested authorization to 21 encourage expenditures to move right ahead. City council is 22 highly interested and ready to move to take steps to make 23 the corrections that need to be made. That never has been 24 the City's intent at any time, even back when the first 25 penalty was imposed, back in 2000 or '98 or '9, whenever it 21 1 was. It never has been the City's intention to deliberately 2 violate any of these requirements. We want to reinforce 3 that now. 4 The one concern is there is a two-year time 5 limit until December of next year. I do not believe there 6 will be a difficulty meeting that time requirement for the 7 Cease and Desist Order. I would like to make a request, and 8 I think, based on a conversation with Jose Angel, that there 9 may be an opportunity if we have diligently pursued taking 10 care of the issues and we have not quite accomplished the 11 task, that we could request an extension. That -- if that is 12 the case then I don't think I really have anything further to 13 discuss or request. 14 MS. WAY: Okay. Robert has a question. 15 MR. PERDUE: Can I ask the Prosecution Team and 16 Mr. Hamby, where is that discretion in the CDO or how is it 17 codified? 18 MR. ANGEL: Jose Angel, Assistant Executive Officer. 19 We would have to come back before the Board to modify the 20 time schedule. At least from the executorial team's 21 perspective, that one of the Dischargers moves with due 22 diligence or for reasons beyond his control, he needs 23 additional time, we would be amendable to support our 24 recommendation to the Board, but once the Board adopts the 25 order, only the Board can modify the order because it is a 22 1 Cease and Desist Order. 2 So it does require by the Water Code that the Board 3 be -- so there is not that flexibility at the staff level to 4 modify the order, but we are clearly amenable to come back 5 before the Board for due cost to modify or extend it. Extend, 6 in this case, the time schedule for the Discharger. 7 MR. PERDUE: Then let me go further. Is it possible to 8 put the wording into the CDO to have that discretion 9 delegated to the executive officer? 10 MR. ANGEL: That sounds to me like more of a legal 11 issue. But my understanding of it and you maybe can waive 12 any time how you want. I don't believe Water Code, Staff, 13 that includes the Executive Officer or Assistant Executive 14 Officer to modify the Cease and Desist Order. 15 MR. HAMBY: Let me just comment. The city has no 16 problem with coming back to the Board if we reach that 17 point. That's not a concern for us. But I do understand 18 the legality of -- 19 MR. PERDUE: You answered my question. I also have a 20 question as to if the two-year period is set in stone if 21 not, why not add some more flexibility into that time period 22 or are we restrained on the two years? 23 MS. OKAMOTO: My name is Mayumi Okamoto. I'm counsel 24 for the prosecution team. As to first question that you had 25 regarding the delegation of the authority to the executive 23 1 officer, I believe we would have to take a look at what the 2 actual delegation clause to the CO from the particular 3 region says, whether or not that authority can be delegated 4 to an executive officer. If that is possible, then we would 5 be able to insert some type of language into the order to 6 reflect Mr. Purdue's ability to amend CO as far as the time 7 schedule goes on his own. 8 As for the second question, perhaps Doug Wiley 9 could talk about the dates as far as the time schedule. 10 MR. PURDUE: But the Board would have the ability to 11 reconsider then as we got up to the two-year period? 12 MS. OKAMOTO: Yes. 13 MR. PURDUE: That's acceptable? 14 MR. HAMBY: Yes. 15 MS. WAY: We'll do it that way. Doug, you need to add 16 anything? 17 MR. PURDUE: I'll take back my second question regarding 18 adding additional time. It sounds like there's a way -- 19 because we can try it and keep in compliance. 20 MS. WAY: Mr. Hamby, anything else? Do you have a 21 question for the Board? 22 MR. HAMBY: Two quick comments. One is taking the 23 latest violation date, July 30th of last year, the city 24 had no violations to the present. We don't expect we will 25 have any further violations. We think that things are 24 1 reasonable under control. 2 If, in fact, those questionable test results 3 are indeed determined to be not applicable, then that would 4 back us up to a full year of complying plant operation, and 5 we believe that reflects our will, our intent, our purpose, 6 and our practice. Especially with beneficial injection of 7 four-and-a-half-million dollars of public funds into 8 Westmorland -- or five-and-a-half million. We're quite 9 appreciative of that. 10 And the second comment is we appreciate the Board 11 coming here to El Centro instead of our having to travel all 12 the way to La Quinta or Palm Desert. 13 MS. WAY: Our pleasure. Just before you leave, Tom has 14 a question. 15 MR. DAVIS: How long, during this process -- you said the 16 supply to the water in the wetland is turned off. How long 17 will it take to make the wetlands viable again under this 18 order? 19 MR. HAMBY: We will not be able to utilize the 20 wastewater plant. We are looking at possibly doing through 21 the Citizen's Progressional Task Force with the New River 22 was how we made connections to the Bureau of Reclamations to 23 instruct the construction for us. That's just lost right 24 now. 25 Imperial Irrigation, by the way, we've had 25 1 conversations with staff to discuss the possibility of 2 a compliance project. One of the potential projects that we 3 are looking at is possibly obtaining some additional 4 assistance through that same task force to do what's being 5 done, sort of, along New River and drain ditches actively set 6 up a pump station to pump some of the drain ditch water 7 through the wetland to keep it alive, keep it restored and 8 functioning, which would not require, then the MPDS or the WDR 9 permit requirement and yet be able to have that enhancement 10 there, so we are looking at that as a possibility. 11 But other than that, the only other thing we could 12 do would be to pipe just ordinary irrigation water through it. 13 MS. WAY: Tom, does that satisfy you? 14 MR. DAVIS: Yeah. I'll be interested to revisit this 15 when this resolves. 16 MS. WAY: Yes, Doug. Thank you, Mr. Hamby, very much. 17 MR. WILEY: My name is Doug Wiley, Senior Engineer 18 in charge of the enforcement unit. I just want to add one 19 brief comment about the schedule that we've inserted in the 20 Cease and Desist Order. To be fair to all the Dischargers 21 that have Cease and Desist Order, for example, Brawly and 22 McCabe School District. We brought those to the Board last 23 year. 24 And then you have the City of Westmorland today as 25 well as Niland Sanitation District. We've all given them 26 1 the same schedule of approximately two years to complete the 2 the improvement. We are treating everybody fairly with that 3 regard in terms of asking them to complete the improvements 4 by the end of 2010. So that's basically why we came up with 5 those schedules. 6 MR. ANGEL: On a technical perspective, Madam Chair, we 7 believe that actually two years is more than a reasonable 8 enough time to A, troubleshoot to the problem; B, come up 9 with an alternative; and C, implement that alternative 10 beyond issues of government. From my perspective to approve 11 things like two years is sufficient time and a reasonable 12 time. 13 MR. WILEY: There's also two alternatives. It's the 14 same situation with all the Cease and Desist Order. They 15 have the option of making improvements to the plants so they 16 come in compliance with the permit requirements, but they 17 also have second alternative where they can look at 18 alternative methods of disposal so that they may recycle the 19 water and use it as irrigation water to, say, Alfalfa crops or 20 possibly send it to a geothermal plant in the region as 21 cooling water. They have that second option that they can 22 look at over the next year and a half within the time 23 schedule that we have provided. 24 MS. WAY: Okay. Thank you. 25 MR. HAYS: Aside from their issues, the wetlands are 27 1 typically used for a treatment of -- 2 MS. WAY: Turn your microphone on. 3 MR. HAYS: Sorry. Is there a compliance issue -- 4 technical problem with the wetlands issue or wetlands are 5 not working to treat the level or is it different -- is 6 there a way we can adjust -- 7 MR. ANGEL: The problem with the wetlands is that they 8 were receiving infections from the wastewater treatment 9 plant. The City of Westmorland had this infection 10 requirements for bacteria and the wetlands could not 11 consistently reduce the level bacteria to a level of 12 compliance with the permit. 13 In other words, the City was using the wetland, 14 in lieu of, rather, of it's disinfection system. So they 15 were having problems meeting the limits of the permit. 16 MR. HAYS: The pretreatment was only a fourth of that. 17 MR. ANGEL: That's correct. 18 MR. WILEY: They actually did testing at various points 19 in the process. The water was leaving the regular treatment 20 process and then being diverted though the wetlands and then 21 was being discharged into one of the drains. They tested it 22 upstream of the wetlands after it had gone through the 23 regular treatment process and it was failing the affluent 24 limits at that point. 25 Then after it went through the wetlands, it 28 1 continued to fail. So there may have been additional 2 contaminations from wildlife, but the fact is that they were 3 not meeting the limits even through the treatment process. 4 And then after the wetlands were discontinued -- after they 5 stopped sending any water there, they still had additional 6 violations over the last year. 7 Though they have seemed to have stopped over the 8 last six months. So they may have already fixed the problem, 9 which may be a very good thing for them. 10 MS. WAY: Just by turning it off. Thank you, Doug. 11 MS. OKAMOTO: One more point I have to clarify as to 12 Mr. Perdue's question earlier as to the delegation of the 13 CO. Section 13-223 of the Water Code specifically does not 14 allow the delegation to the executive officer for 15 modifications of Cease and Desist Orders. So it would have 16 to come back before the Board for that. 17 MS. WAY: Which is not a problem. 18 Are there any other comments or questions? Is 19 there anyone else who wishes to speak to this item? 20 MR. ANGEL: One quick comment. We'd love to see some 21 eagerness to move forward and correct the problem, but what 22 we have suggested to the city is before they implement a CP 23 to wait for the Board adjudicate the Matter so the Board 24 knows and approves the CP. Again, I wanted to make sure the 25 city understands that the purpose of this hearing is not 29 1 to punish the Discharger, adjudicate the CP, or demand 2 that there are penalties. We will have to issue a complaint 3 before we consider a CP. Then we'll bring the report before 4 the Board. Thank you. 5 MS. WAY: Okay. Mr. Hamby, if you could take our 6 thanks back to the city. We miss Mr. Lasika on our Board 7 here. We have been intimately involved with Westmorland for 8 a long time as a Regional Board, and he was a great leader 9 on this Board. So thank you for taking the time to be here 10 today. 11 MR. HAMBY: Thank you. 12 MS. WAY: Any other comments on Item 7? Okay. 13 Having heard from all persons on this Matter, I 14 declare this public hearing is closed. The Board will now 15 consider the evidence, testimony and staff recommendations. 16 Is there a motion to approve the Cease and Desist 17 Order Number R7-2009-0001? 18 MR. POST: Madam Chair, do we make a motions before we 19 introduce errata or do we introduce the errata now? 20 MS. WAY: Make the motions introducing the errata. 21 MR. POST: I move the motion for the recommendation to 22 approve both Cease and Desist Order R7-2009-0001. 23 MS. WAY: With the errata? 24 MR. POST: With the errata. 25 MS. WAY: A second? 30 1 MR. HAYS: Second. 2 MS. WAY: All those in favor -- there is no more 3 comment. All those in favor, signify by saying "Aye." 4 THE BOARD: Aye. 5 MS. WAY: All those opposed? 6 MS. WAY: The item passes. Thank you very much. 7 I shall now open the public hearing to consider 8 Agenda Item Number 8. Administrative Civil Liability Order. 9 It's different than the Cease and Desist. I'm talking about 10 Administrative Civil Liability Order R7-2009-005. In the 11 Matter of California Department of Corrections and 12 Rehabilitation and Centinela State Prison, Owner/Operator 13 Wastewater Treatment Plant; Imperial - Imperial County. The 14 administrative liability complaint and purposed ACL Order 15 seeks to impose an administrative civil liability penalty 16 of $78,000 in penalties against the Discharger. 17 The California Department of Corrections and 18 Rehabilitations, Centinela State Prison, Wastewater Treatment 19 Plant for specified violations of Board Order number 20 R7-2003-0096. The Discharger has proposed a supplemental 21 environmental project whereby the Discharger agrees to pay 22 a reduced penalty amount of $31,500 and implement a SEP in 23 the amount amount of $46,500, which is the money that 24 would go into the improvement project. 25 The proposed SEP is described in attachments B and C 31 1 of the Draft ACL Order. The Board understands that the 2 adoption of this ACL Order is not contested by the Discharger. 3 Is there anyone here today that wishes to speak? 4 And I just want to through out there that, yes, we 5 understand that it is the State of California and the State 6 of California is in violation. It is clear to all us, 7 however it is something that we have deal with and the 8 Governor's office has been involved and basically it is the 9 prison being over populate just like small towns in 10 California are. So is there anyone who wishes to speak to 11 this? 12 MR. POST: Madam Chair, if I might, for clarification. 13 You mentioned $31,500 and my notes indicate $41,500. Did I 14 misunderstand? 15 MS. WAY: Tom types up what I have to say and that may 16 be a typo. Can you confirm that? Thank you for catching 17 that though, that's significant. 18 MR. POST: These projects -- 19 MS. WAY: Yes, it is $41 in the book and $31 -- so Tom 20 can tell us which one is correct? 21 MR. ANGEL: It's $41,500. Mr. Post is correct, Madam 22 Chair. That's what Corrections is proposing and that's 23 what we're recommending you approve. 24 MS. WAY: Unfortunately -- thank you for that. 25 Unfortunately, the law tells us how much we can allow to put 32 1 back into this project. It would be nice if the would allow 2 more, but that's the way it stands. So anything you want to 3 say, Board Members? All right, then we will not proceed -- 4 I'm sorry. 5 I'm opening the hearing if you wish to speak. Are you 6 clarifying, or -- 7 MR. WILEY: We just wanted to let you know that 8 Mr. Juan Nessi, the plant manager, is here and the engineer, 9 Mike Bohannan. 10 MS. WAY: Thank you very much for coming over today. 11 Do you want to say anything? You don't have to. We're all 12 good? Okay. 13 All right. Seeing that no one would like to 14 speak on this Matter, is there a motion to move that 15 Administrative Civil Liability Order Number R72-2009-005 be 16 moved for approval? 17 MR. HAYS: Move to approve. 18 MS. WAY: Moved by Mr. Hays. Any second? 19 MR. POST: Second. 20 MS. WAY: Seconded by Rick Post. Now open to comment 21 and questions? Seeing none. All those in favor, signify by 22 saying, "Aye." 23 THE BOARD: Aye. 24 MS. WAY: Those opposed? Order is adopted. Thank you 25 very much. We can appreciate the fact that you had more 33 1 people than your facility was planned to have. Not a good 2 problem, I guess. 3 I shall now open the public hearing to consider 4 Agenda Item Number 9. The Cease and Desist Order R7-2009 -- 5 MR. VANDENBERG: Madam Chair, I just want to say that 6 the last order is adopted with errata; is that correct? 7 MS. WAY: I'm sorry. With errata. So the motion to 8 second is just going to include the errata. That is fine. 9 Thank you. I think it was a typo, if I recall correctly. 10 MR. VANDENBERG: Yes. 11 MS. WAY: Okay. Issued to Niland Sanitary District; 12 Owner/Operator Wastewater Treatment Plant; Niland - Imperial 13 County. 14 The Discharger, the Niland Sanitary District, has 15 requested that the Board issue this Cease and Desist Order. 16 Accordingly, the Board understands that the adoption of the 17 CDO is not contested by the Discharger. 18 Is there any one present who is contesting the 19 proposed Cease and Desist Order or wishes to present evidence? 20 No. Thanks. There's a nod back there. Anyone else wish to 21 speak regarding this Item. Again, another small community 22 that we are trying help improve their wastewater system. Is 23 there a motion to approve the Cease and Desist Order, R7-2009-0007. 24 MR. POST: Madam Chair, I move that we adopt the Cease 25 and Desist Order Number R7-2009-0007 with the Errata. 34 1 MS. WAY: With the Errata. Is there a second? 2 MR. MUZIK: Second. 3 MS. WAY: Seconded by Ed Muzik. Are there any other 4 questions or comments? Seeing none, those in favor signify 5 by saying. "Aye." 6 THE BOARD: Aye. 7 MS. WAY: Those opposed? Order is approved with the 8 errata. 9 Now we will move to Item 10. And, again, you'll 10 have to forgive that I have to read this to you. 11 This public hearing regarding Section 303(d)List, 12 which is a list that we have to develop with regard to the 13 impaired body of water in this region. I shall now open the 14 public hearing to consider Agenda Item 10, Resolution to the 15 Proposed Revision to the 303(d) List of Impaired Water 16 Bodies in the Colorado River Basin regionwide. 17 This portion of the public hearing is being 18 conducted pursuant to the requirements of Section 13240 and 19 13244 of the California Water Code; federal Clean Water Act 20 Section 303(d) and 305(b); and implementing federal 21 regulations set forth in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 22 Parts 130 and 131. 23 The Clean Water Act Section 303(d) requires each 24 state to identify surface waters that do not meet 25 applicable water quality standards even after application of 35 1 certain technology-based controls. Section 303(d) and 2 implementing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3 regulations in 40 CFR Part 130 requires each State to 4 develop and submit to the USEPA for its approval a list of 5 polluted or impaired waters. 6 This list is commonly referred to as the "303(d) 7 List" or the "List of Impaired Waters." The 303(d) List must 8 also include a description of the pollutants causing impairment 9 and a ranking by priority of those impaired waters for the 10 purpose of developing Total Maximum Daily Loads for those 11 waters. The 303(d) List was last updated in 2006, approved by 12 the State Water Board that year, and then by the USEPA in 2007. 13 Clean Water Act Section 305(b) requires each State 14 to monitor, assess, and report biennially on the quality of 15 its waters relative to the designated beneficial uses. The 16 report that is generated is called the "Surface Water 17 Quality Assessment Report." The updated 303(d) List, when 18 combined with this report, is referred to as an "Integrated 19 Report." 20 This introduction helps explain the purpose of 21 this hearing, which is to take evidence and testimony 22 concerning: 23 One. The findings of the Draft 2008 Integrated 24 Report which includes the Section 305(b) "Surface Water 25 Quality Assessment Report" and the updated 303(d) List. 36 1 Which is in your book. 2 Two. Adoption of Resolution Number R7-2009-0014, 3 which: 4 A). Acknowledges completion of the 2008 Colorado 5 River Basin Regional Water Board Integrated Report 6 assessment cycle; 7 B). Adopts the list of proposed additions, 8 deletions, or modifications to the Region's 303(d) List; 9 C). Directs the Executive Officer to transmit the 10 Colorado River Basin Regional Water Board's Integrated 11 Report, other supporting information, and the administrative 12 record to the State Water Board for its consideration and 13 approval; 14 D). Authorizes the Executive Officer to make any 15 minor non-substantive corrections that are identified by the 16 State Water Board during its review, which are needed for 17 clarity or consistency, and directs the Executive Officer to 18 report back to the Regional Water Board regarding any such 19 changes made. 20 We shall now begin the presentation for this 21 hearing. Your order of presentations shall be as follows: 22 One. Presentation of evidence or comments by 23 Regional Board Staff. 24 Two. Presentation of evidence or comments by 25 interested persons. 37 1 Three. Executive Officer recommendations. 2 The Regional Board, its Executive Officer, and 3 Staff Counsel may ask questions at any time to clarify any 4 evidence presented or comments made. Other persons wishing 5 to have evidence or comments clarified should ask me, as the 6 chairperson, to obtain the answer or clarification. 7 I may also allow additional answers to be given 8 based on a number of factors such as: 9 The need to accommodate all various interests 10 within the time we have. 11 Two. Relevancy of the area of inquiry to be 12 pursued by further questioning; 13 Three. The adequacy of questioning all ready 14 provided in covering the area of inquiry; and 15 Four. Allowing questions to be submitted in 16 writing instead with such questions and answers becoming 17 part of the Administrative Record. 18 The hearing on this Matter will not be conducted 19 according to the Rule of Evidence. Instead, the Board will 20 accept any evidence and testimony that is reasonably 21 relevant to the adequacy of the proposed Draft 2008 22 Integrated Report. Therefore, in my view, the evidence or 23 testimony seems repetitive or irrelevant, I may limit it. 24 We request that if people have similar comments or 25 viewpoints on this Matter, they should select a spokesperson 38 1 to express them. Also, for those in the audience who wish 2 to speak, please fill out the yellow form and give it to 3 Terry right here, please. So you can be recognized during 4 this hearing. When you are at the podium, please state your 5 name, address, and who you represent. 6 First, we are going hear from Regional Staff. I 7 believe -- who would that be? 8 MR. ANGEL: That will be Mr. Raub, Environmental 9 Scientist, who is going to present the staff report. 10 MS. WAY: Okay. Let me get the list. 11 Go ahead and state your name. 12 MR. VANDENBERG: He didn't take the oath. 13 MS. WAY: It doesn't say that. He needs to have the 14 oath, also. It's not in your notes. 15 MR. VANDENBERG: It's advisable but it's not required. 16 MS. WAY: Okay. So to save in time, if you think you 17 might speak. Could Dr. Monica Swartz -- could you stand also 18 please? We will take care of everybody at one time. Anyone 19 who might need to comment? 20 MR. ANGEL: I already did, Ma'am. 21 MS. WAY: If you could stand and raise your right your 22 hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth and answer 23 all questions correctly? 24 THE GROUP: I do. 25 THE COURT: Thank you. And when you come up to the 39 1 podium if you could say that you have taken the oath, that 2 would be great. Okay. Please go ahead, Logan. 3 MR. RAUB: Good morning Regional Board members and 4 Regional Board Chair. My name is Logan Raub. I live at 5 81066 Alberta Avenue, in Indio, California, and I represent 6 the Regional Board Staff. Today I'll be giving Staff's 7 presentation to support proposed provisions to 303(d) List. 8 In my talk, I will give a little background 9 information about the list, how it is developed and how it 10 is approved. I'll discuss some guidelines and milestones 11 and discuss the proposed 2008 updates to the Region's 12 303(d) List. 13 Like Madam Chair was saying, State of California 14 is required by Federal Clean Water Act 303(d) to develop and 15 submit to the United States Environmental Protection Agency 16 a list of polluted or impaired waters. This list is made up 17 water bodies not meeting waste quality standards. In the 18 listing, the State is also required to identify the 19 pollutants causing the impairments and prioritize the water 20 bodies with the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads or 21 TMDLs. 22 The listing remains on the 303(d) List until they 23 are delisted. Listed water bodies can be delisted when 24 evidence reveals that such impacts have ceased, impacts never 25 existed, or the water bodies meet water quality standards. 40 1 California first 303(d) List was developed in 1976 and was 2 last updated 2006. I just want to note that the 42 or so 3 listings on the 2006 303(d) List carry over to 2008 4 303(d) List because they are not being delisted. 5 Regional waters were assessed using applicable 6 water quality standards found in the basin plan and the 7 statewide water quality policies. Water quality standards are 8 composed of water beneficial uses, the applicable water 9 quality objectives to support and protect those uses and an 10 anti-degradation policy. 11 Beneficial uses include municipal and recreational 12 activities in and around waters. And other uses that 13 support and protect wildlife. Beneficial uses of 14 regional waters are identified in the basin plan or can be 15 exiting known to occur. Water quality objectives can be 16 expressed either as numeric limits or narrative conditions 17 and are found in the basin plan or published in 18 statewide policies. The California Water Code is the 19 state's policy for the implementation of policy standards. 20 In 1968, the State Water Board adopted a statewide 21 anti-degradation policy. This policy is an effort to 22 maintain high water quality. It balances the need to 23 protect existing water quality. The maximum benefit of 24 California as a whole while allowing some degradation to 25 occur so long as it will not lower the quality of water to 41 1 below that described in Water Quality Control Policies. 2 Here is an example of American Water Quality 3 Standards found in the basin plan. Here the standards 4 specifically mention the beneficial use that is being 5 protected, and sets numeric limits for arsenic and barium. 6 Here is an example of a narrative water quality standards 7 found in the basin plan. Here the standard does not 8 identify specific beneficial use nor does it set a numeric 9 limit. It simply expresses a desired condition. To assess 10 narrative standards, Regional Board selected appropriate 11 evaluation guidelines and applied them in our assessment. 12 When completing assessments and making decisions 13 about proposed updates to the list, the Regional Board Staff 14 applied guidance developed by the State Board. In September 15 2004, the State Board adopted the Water Quality Control 16 Policy for developing California's Clean Water Act Section 17 303(d) List. I referred to it in the listing policy. This 18 policy establishes the standardized code developing in the 19 303(d) List. It provides guidance for assessing water 20 quality data, for making listing and delisting decisions, 21 scheduling TMDLs and provides other guidance necessary for 22 developing the lists in a consistent and defensible way. 23 The policy recommends we use this approach when 24 deciding whether the evidence is in favor of listing or 25 delisting the water body. This approach takes into account 42 1 what was previously known about a water body and combines 2 it with any new information brought forward. To develop an 3 accurate assessment of the conditions in a water body. 4 The process for updating the 303(d) List began 5 when the Regional Board Staff requested water quality data 6 and information from the public on December 4, 2006. From 7 February 2007 to June 2008, old and new water quality data 8 were gathered and assessed and draft lines of evidence were 9 created. 10 From June until November 2008, the evidence was 11 evaluated to make the decision to list or not. And once 12 those decision were finalized, the staff report identified 13 possible updates to the 303(d) List and supporting documents 14 are drafted and circulated. 15 On November 26, 2008, the public was notified and 16 invited to comment on the proposed updates either in writing 17 or orally at the Regional Board hearing. At this hearing the 18 Regional Board considered for approval each proposed list and 19 a change of any and to consider adoption of a resolution in 20 support of it's recommendation to the State Board for 21 inclusion of the regional list into the statewide 2008 22 303(d) List. After this Hearing, staff forwarded the 23 administrative records to the State Board. 24 In complete assessments of regional waters staff 25 identified and collect readily available data from ten 43 1 sources. Regional Board read approximately 175,000 points 2 of historical and up-to-date data. Generated 699 lines of 3 evidence from that data and made over 700 decisions to list 4 or delist water pollutant combinations. There were 5 approximately 600 decisions where a decision was to "do not 6 list" on the 303(d) List. So 85% of the decision we made 7 were not to list. And data and reports for all decisions 8 can be found on our website. 9 MR. DAVIS: When would it be appropriate to ask 10 questions? 11 MS. WAY: You know if -- at the point where he is at 12 right now. 13 MR. DAVIS: Go to that last slide. 14 MR. RAUB: Okay. 15 MR. DAVIS: Presuming that you start the process in 16 December of '06, when does the next process begin? Annually? 17 Does it begin after this process is over? It's a two-year 18 process. 19 MR. RAUB: Right. You know, there were a lot of delays 20 at the State Board. We're working with the State Board to 21 develop these lists. And it is a two-year process, and, I 22 believe, the next cycle will start probably the middle of 23 this year. And they will go though the request for 24 information and stuff. 25 MR. DAVIS: Is there no such standard of when the 44 1 process starts, correct? 2 MR. RAUB: No, but you require that we review our water 3 bi-annually. 4 MR. ANGEL: We try to provided continuity, 5 Mr. Davis, and we try to do it every two years to the month. 6 Sometimes resources has a lot to do it. Every since the 7 listing policy was developed, we're doing it every two years. 8 The State Board did it for the Board for the previous cycle. 9 That's why it was not brought before you. Because it just 10 had been enacted, the listing policy, and it, as a state, 11 was behind. We are trying to make it to the month on a two 12 year cycle of this listed report. 13 MR. POST: I also have a question on next slide. 14 There were 600 decisions on "do not list." Is our table one 15 that we were given as part of our agenda; is that just a 16 sample? 17 MR. RAUB: I think that we just proposed -- or gave 18 fact sheets for ones that we're proposing to update the 19 303(d) List. 20 MS. WAY: But this is the whole list, right, these two 21 pages? 22 MR. RAUB: That's the 2006 303(d), yeah, table one is. 23 MS. WAY: Okay. Table one is two pages. 24 MR. ANGEL: Yes, that's correct. 25 MS. WAY: That's the completed -- 45 1 MR. RAUB: 2006. 2 MR. ANGEL: 2006, and then in the staff report, we're 3 adding -- 4 MR. RAUB: Proposing to add in. 5 MR. ANGEL: -- the other pollutants in the waters we 6 wish you to consider to add to that update list. 7 MS. WAY: Is that in front of us? 8 MR. ANGEL: It should be. 9 MR. RAUB: Right. I think it was one of the handouts. 10 MR. ANGEL: The handouts. 11 MR. HAYS: It was one of the attachments. 12 MR. PERDUE: Part of the resolution. Let's straighten 13 this one out. Could one of you please look at this book 14 here and tell us? 15 MS. WAY: As I understood that, that one was proposed. 16 MR. PERDUE: I'm assuming that this is what the Board 17 is distributing. These two? 18 MS. WAY: But it says proposed additions to the 19 modification -- 20 MR. PERDUE: And this is the resolution? 21 MR. HAYS: Right. That's correct. 22 MR. PERDUE: So does the Board have what we asked? 23 MS. WAY: Not the 2006. 24 MR. RAUB: I thought you were talking about the staff 25 report. 46 1 MS. WAY: Please feel free to ask. 2 MR. PERDUE: I just wanted to try and clarify it. 3 MS. WAY: But we know what you wanted. 4 MR. PERDUE: Right. 5 MS. WAY: And please feel free to ask questions. 6 We'll be going over along the way to do it. 7 MR. RAUB: There are 17 proposed new listings to the 8 Region's 303(d) List. The ten pollutants listed for the 9 Alamo River, Coachella Valley Storm Water Stormwater 10 Channel, and Imperial Valley Drains are proposed new 11 listings. 12 The decisions to list were made following listing 13 policy guidelines. These are additional listings that would 14 be added to the list of pollutants occurring in these waters. 15 The Alamo River is currently listed for six pesticides and 16 selenium. The Stormwater Channel is currently listed for 17 bacterial and toxaphene. And the Imperial Valley Drains are 18 listing pesticide and selenium. 19 Please note that the Imperial Valley Drains 20 supporting listing only applies to the Barbara Worth, Peach, 21 Greeson, South Central and Holtville main drain areas of the 22 Imperial Valley Drains. And also, based on comments received, 23 staff have agreed to limit the proposed listings for the 24 Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel to a two mile section of 25 the channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea. So that 47 1 one applies for the listing of DDT, Dieldrin and PCB in the 2 Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. 3 MS. WAY: I just have to clarify. So that would 4 be the only section at all listed as impaired? 5 MR. ANGEL: That's correct, Madam Chair. The 6 prior portion -- mainly the portion from Indio all the way 7 the Lincoln Street did not impair by those pollutants. The 8 reason being was because we didn't have any data to support 9 that listing. And the data we have is the data collected 10 from that section of the channel. 11 MS. WAY: Can you say that again? Lincoln and what? 12 MR. ANGEL: To the Salton Sea. 13 MR. PERDUE: May I ask a question. Is that included in 14 the errata to this list here? 15 MR. ANGEL: That's correct. There is an errata that 16 goes along with this item and it's included in the errata. 17 Just for the record, Madam Chair, we received comments from 18 Coachella Valley Water District and Palo Verde Recreation 19 District. The Coachella Valley Water District comments were 20 received after the deadline for submitting to make public 21 comments but, nevertheless, we responded. 22 MS. WAY: Say that again, Juan? 23 MR. ANGEL: I apologize, Madam Chair. Part of the 24 reason for the errata is that we received comments from 25 Coachella Valley Water District pointing that out to us in 48 1 part that it was only a segment of the channel that was 2 impaired. Unfortunately, we received their comments after 3 the deadline for submitting the comments. 4 But, nevertheless, we wanted to consider their 5 comments and bring them to the Board's attention via the 6 errata. We responded to their comments in writing yesterday. 7 We apologized, but nevertheless, we got their comments late. 8 And so, just for the record. 9 MS. WAY: So you concur? 10 MR. ANGEL: Yes. 11 MS. WAY: Okay, go ahead. 12 MR. RAUB: The seven pollutants listed above for the 13 New River, Palo Verde Outfall Drains and Lagoons, Salton Sea 14 and Wiest Lake are additional components to the 303(d) List. 15 Again, the decisions to list were made following listing 16 policy guidelines. These are additional listings for the 17 New River, Palo Verde Outfall Drains and Lagoon, and the 18 Salton Sea that will be added to the list of pollutants 19 impairing these waters. 20 The New River is currently listed for eight 21 pesticides, seven volatile compounds, nutrients and other 22 pollutants. Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon is listed 23 for DDT and bacteria. The Salton Sea is listed for 24 salinity, nutrients, and selenium. For Wiest Lake, this 25 will be the first listing. Also, based on comments received, 49 1 staff agreed to withdraw our proposed listing of diazinon for 2 the Salton Sea, and that was on CWD. 3 MS. WAY: Where is Wiest Lake? 4 MR. RAUB: Wiest Lake -- 5 MR. ANGEL: It's here in Imperial County, Madam Chair, 6 on the western side of the Imperial County. Just northeast, 7 I believe, of Brawly. 8 MS. WAY: And it's never been listed on the impaired 9 list before? 10 MR. RAUB: No. 11 MS. WAY: And DDT is shown in there? 12 MR. RAUB: Correct. 13 MS. WAY: And what outflow through Wiest Lake? 14 MR. ANGEL: A drain is going though it. The 15 combination sometimes of spills, also operational spills 16 contaminate that. 17 MS. WAY: No one is farming with DDT. 18 MR. ANGEL: No, it's the pollutants that is leaching 19 from previous use. It's a legacy pollutant but, 20 nevertheless, the policy does not make exceptions for legacy 21 pollutants. What we do about it is a different issue at 22 this point. On behalf of the Board to consider here's a 23 list of impaired water bodies. Eventually, when we get down 24 to the nuts and bolts with what we do about it. We always 25 come back to you to make the recommendation or 50 1 consideration. That's not an issue here. 2 MS. WAY: Is part of it our detection tools are better? 3 MR. ANGEL: That's correct. We're getting better. And 4 what you're look at it, we're putting more granularity to the 5 list of impaired waters for the region. That's partly 6 correct with the better testing. Just to give you an 7 example of granularity of what I mean. We have -- 8 MS. WAY: Granularity? 9 MR. ANGEL: Granularity. Granular. We had both the 10 New River and the Alamo River already listed for pesticide, 11 now we're identifying which pesticides are -- we're getting 12 more precise as to each test for which pesticide is causing 13 the impairments. 14 MR. POST: So that is why on the New River that you're 15 delisting some of those because the pollutant is below the 16 limits? 17 MR. ANGEL: That's correct. That's a good observation, 18 Dr. Post. For example, we've been listing for volatile 19 organic compositions for a number of reasons. One is that 20 the testing doesn't show it anymore. There have been 21 infrastructure in place in Mexicali also that have helped us 22 take away some of those pollutants from the surface water 23 anyway. 24 MS. WAY: Now that we're on the subject, Jose, you were 25 taking in the car, we had made a recent trip down to the waste 51 1 treatment plant with Mr. Vandenberg. Is there a point in 2 which you think the treatment plant and all the technology 3 we've seen there that at some time go away completely; is 4 that a reasonable goal or no? 5 MR. ANGEL: Well, it's obviously the goal. You know, 6 to be blunt -- not frank, but to be blunt, I seriously doubt 7 that in my lifetime we are going to see what comes across 8 from Mexico meet our standards even if everything goes well. 9 Number one, Mexico has different standards. So we 10 need to spend, literally, billions of dollars over there, 11 which may not make much sense as a matter of public policy on 12 that side of the border to have the water quality we have here. 13 Having said that, nevertheless, we want to get things to the 14 extent practical under control at the point of origin. 15 So I can read the Board in more detail because I 16 actually have been here for the two days. I was attending 17 meeting precisely where we touched on some of those 18 discussions border infrastructure in particular in Mexicali. 19 What I'm seeing in the long term is just my perspective, 20 Madam Chair. 21 I haven't had a chance to discuss it with Robert or 22 both of you, for that matter. It is that eventually we are 23 going to have to reckon with the beneficial uses, and not 24 just at the border, but all the way downstream within the 25 watershed, to see how we determine what make sense considering 52 1 the expenditure that we are going to have to ask people to 2 undertake to get them up to our standards. 3 So it is not unreasonable for us to start 4 considering in the near future site specific objectives, 5 meaning things different than what we have in the basin 6 plain. Some my be more lacks, some may be more stringent, 7 but it's a long drawn process and it's a public process. 8 I'm not sure that we're there yet, but I think that starting 9 the early discussion, probably, we'll get to it. 10 MS. WAY: Okay. Any further question at this point? 11 Okay. Go ahead. 12 MR. RAUB: There are eight proposed delistings for the 13 region's 303(d) List. For seven of these water body 14 pollutants, combinations the decision to delist were made 15 followed the listing policy guidelines. These seven 16 pollutants are volatile organic compounds that maybe came 17 from industrial sources in Mexico. 18 Monitoring data collected to date shows that the 19 concentrations of these compounds have diminished to below 20 applicable water quality standards. The New River pesticide 21 delisting is being proposed to replace the general 22 pesticides listing with the existing listings. 23 New River listing for the specific pesticide 24 called pyrothon, DDT, diazinon, dieldrin, and toxaphene. 25 The New River test listing this proposed category change on 53 1 the Region's 303(d) List. Testing was completed by Regional 2 Board Staff and approved by the EPA. This listing should be 3 moved to the list category of being addressed by an EPA 4 approved TMDL. 5 Once the Regional Board staff forwarded the 6 administrative records to the State Board, State Board's 7 Staff will combine the Regional 303(d) List and completed 8 assessment into a statewide 2008 integrated report. The 9 public will, again, be notified of the proposed revisions to 10 the 303(d) List and invited to comment. After the State 11 Board hearing, Staff will forward the records to the USEPA 12 for their review and approval. 13 In summary, the State of California is required by 14 federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d), to develop a list of 15 polluted or impaired waters. Regional Board Staff invited 16 the public the participate in this process both with the 17 submission of data and the opportunity to comment on 18 proposed updates for the Region's 303(d) List. 19 Proposed listings were modified and one list was 20 broad based on comments received. Staff assessed all readily 21 available data and made decisions to list or delist by 22 applying standardized guidelines developed by the State Water 23 Board. Staff's support of the 17 new proposed listings, 24 eight delistings and one category change. Staff recommends 25 that thee Regional Board adopts the resolution in support of 54 1 each proposed revisions and forward their recommendations to 2 the State Board for inclusion of the Regional List Statewide 3 2008 303(d) List. Any questions? 4 MR. DAVIS: I have a -- I don't know if it's appropriate, 5 but I have this errata in front of me. This one page errata 6 regarding Item number 10. And it's the first two items, 7 Complaint Resolution entitled. There's a page in there; I 8 don't see any different between those two. 9 MS. BARNES: What is the Order number? 10 MR. DAVIS: Order number. Thank you. 11 MR. RAUB: One says resolution order and one says 12 resolution number. 13 MS. WAY: I have a question. With the current 14 financial crisis in the State of California and what I've 15 understood that lot of TMDL funding is not going to be 16 there. Is that going to push off your goal date? 17 MR. RAUB: Those are proposed dates. And I think when 18 we start getting closer and developing TMDLs then we start 19 to require those dates, but -- 20 MR. ANGEL: The answer is yes, Madam Chair. We're 21 going to have less money to do more work. We are going to 22 have to re-prioritize some of those are going have to be 23 adjusted. The DMD will put us on the chopping block, pardon 24 the expression, because it's mostly funded through general 25 funds. 55 1 MS. WAY: And that's the point I want to make is that 2 I have to say in the last four years that we would really 3 focus on those bodies of water that we can fix. And that 4 are truly meaningful to people in their use. As we all know, 5 there's a lot of what I think are false designations in some 6 of these bodies of water and consider that the Stormwater 7 channel in the Coachella Valley is still an applicable 8 waterway is ridiculous. 9 If it were up to me, I would eliminate it altogether. 10 I don't even know if the EPA -- so, I didn't know that we 11 actually choose this because I thought it was designated by 12 the federal government, and we don't have the time nor money 13 then it's going to remain on this list and be a problem for 14 the Dischargers. I just want to throw that out there. What 15 if we took one off? What would happen-- 16 MR. VANDENBERG: Madam Chair, Tom Vandenberg. The 17 designation of a certain waterways as designated by the U.S. 18 Army Corps of Engineers as being jurisdictional waters that 19 falls within their jurisdiction. They have the authority to 20 determine which waterways to use and it's not within the 21 discretion of the USEPA to make that determination. 22 State works based off the what U.S. Army Corps of 23 Engineers to determine our jurisdictional waters. And then 24 we follow the EPA regulations in the Clean Water Act 25 requirement regarding waters of the U.S. that the Court's 56 1 determined navigability waterways. In navigability also, 2 there's a lot of cases law that says it's not waterway. 3 In fact, Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which 4 says that the navigability aspect of the water that promotes 5 interstate commerce. And therefore -- it's a -- for example, 6 the part of the flyway for the birds and so forth that can 7 have an effect interstate commerce and that's one of the 8 criteria upon which the Army Corps of Engineers determine 9 that it is a navigable water. 10 MR. DAVIS: I think our chairman is having problems 11 with military intelligence. 12 MS. WAY: No, I just remembered things on the list to 13 get to. I'm very supportive of the military. 14 So as long as the constituent exceeds the limit in 15 one of these bodies, we can not remove it. It can only be -- 16 any other? Enough of that. Anybody else want to say 17 anything about this? We are going to have Dr. Monica 18 Swartz, please come forward. Thank you for being here. 19 DR. SWARTZ: Yes. 20 MS. WAY: You traveled a good way. Please state your 21 name. 22 DR. SWARTZ: I did travel a good way. I came from 23 Antarctica. I picked up a bit of a cold. Good afternoon, 24 Members of the Board. My name is Dr. Monica Swartz. That 25 always sounds like my dad. I'm the biologist for the 57 1 Coachella Valley Water District, and I'm also one of the 2 two science advisors to the State of California on the 3 Salton Sea ecosystem restoration. 4 I'm also a science advisor to many other public 5 agencies. And I'm here to comment on seven on the proposed 6 impaired water listings on the 303(d) List. I have taken 7 the oath. And if you will indulge me for two little points 8 for the moment. As an advisor, I'd like to give a little 9 bit of advice to the City of Westmorland. 10 In that I would highly recommend that you consider 11 developing a property conservation agreement on that wetlands 12 of yours with the State and with the California Department of 13 Fish and Game Fish and the U.S. Wildlife Service. So that if 14 you turn off the water to your wetlands, you're not in 15 violation to either the state or federal endangered species 16 act. 17 A safe harbor will essentially set a baseline above 18 which everything that you do is considered a benefit. And 19 return it to the zero baseline you don't get dinged for, so 20 just -- 21 MS. WAY: I'm sorry. We have to stay on subject, but 22 maybe the two of you can talk. You seem very helpful to 23 him. 24 DR. SWARTZ: It's just a very nice agreement the state 25 can cover. It has just been drafted so it's ready to go. 58 1 MS. WAY: Okay. Thanks. 2 DR. SWARTZ: One other little comment. The Swank 3 decision avoided the ability of use of bird migration as a 4 designate for what is jurisdictional waters. So that's sort 5 of a somewhat recent legacy. 6 MR. ANGEL: I think it just it more difficult. I think 7 what it imposed on the state says is a more higher burden 8 to show there is some linkage or nexus. I'm sorry they couldn't 9 use it so. 10 DR. SWARTZ: It's for final destination. It requires 11 significant nexus to the navigable water body that feeds 12 into, in this case, the Salton Sea. The Salton Sea use for 13 interstate commerce is not entirely clear, but -- 14 So let's get started on this. My first comment is 15 sort of an obvious one. As much of a pain to state the 16 obvious, the Salton Sea is not a fresh water body. The 17 designated beneficial use for the Salton Sea is listed as 18 fresh water habitat. And the Salton Sea is not and never 19 has been fresh water. 20 The Salton Sea has steadily increased in salinity. 21 It's a terminal lake. And it exceeded the criteria in 1903. 22 It exceeded the salinity of sea water in 1917. It's continued 23 to go up since then. Unfortunately, we're up to over 50 parts 24 per thousand at this point. It's hyper saline water body. 25 The proposed Salton Sea listings for pyrifos and 59 1 diazinon are based on the results of water quality tests 2 performed in 1996 and 1997, which shows the chemicals exceed 3 fresh water aquatic life criteria established to protect fresh 4 water habitat. There is no fresh water habitat in the 5 Salton Sea. It's really inappropriate to use fresh water 6 criteria for those listings. 7 Based on the response you received yesterday 8 afternoon, we understand that the Regional Board Staff agrees 9 that it is inappropriate to use fresh water criteria and has 10 agreed to remove the proposed listing for diazinon. We 11 appreciate this acknowledgement by staff, but we do not agree 12 with the decision to not remove the propose listing for 13 pyrifos. 14 Based on the response to Staff, now plans to use 15 the saltwater aquatic life criteria for chlorpyrifos to 16 protect a warm fresh water habitat for the beneficial use 17 designation. It just is inappropriate to use a saltwater 18 aquatic criteria to protect a warm fresh water habitat 19 criteria as it is to apply a fresh water aquatic life 20 criteria to the Salton Sea. 21 Before Staff can use saltwater aquatic life 22 criteria to protect saltwater habitat, the Salton Sea would 23 need to have a beneficial use designation for saltwater 24 habitat, and I recommend that we do this. No such 25 beneficial use designation exists in the basin plan. 60 1 Therefore, we request that for chlorpyrifos also be removed 2 from the proposed listing. 3 Staff can revisit this proposed listing after 4 completing a review of beneficial use designations for 5 surface waters and revising the basin plan as described in 6 the 2007 tri-annual review list final work plan. This will 7 also provide time for staff to collect new data to ensure 8 any future proposed listings based on the current conditions, 9 rather than data that's over ten years old. 10 Two additional proposed Salton Sea listings were 11 arsenic and DDT are based on fish tissue data collected 12 between 1980 and 2000. And depend on data of fish species 13 including: Bairdiella, orange mouth corvina, red belly 14 Tilapia, and Sargo that no longer live in the Salton Sea. 15 The biology has changed really rapidly and dramatically in 16 the last decade. As the rising salinity has surpassed 17 the salinity tolerances for Salton Sea marine fishes. 18 The California Department of Fish and Game's 19 census records shows the decline and extirpation of the 20 species I just mentioned between 1991 and 2003. They're 21 now extinct in the same. And salinity has continued to 22 increase significantly since the collection of the most 23 recent data cited in the proposed listing. 24 Since the bioaccumulation of 25 toxins has been well known to be highly dependent on 61 1 salinity. We should expect that different amounts of 2 bioaccumulation under the current conditions than were seen 3 in the samples done in the 1980s. Salinity and exposure and 4 PH are the three most important criteria for how organisms 5 accumulate toxins. 6 In addition, the only two fish remaining in the 7 Salton Sea are bulletproof desert pupfish. Yeah. Our 8 only native fish and a hybrid tilapia. A fish that was 9 created by fish breeder and it made an escape. And that 10 salinity in the Salton Sea have accelerated life histories 11 with shorter life spans and shorter toxin exposure duration 12 for any of these species prior samples. 13 These are living and breeding in -- essentially, 14 annually. Most adult tilapia live no longer than a year at 15 this point. And the average life span is considerably 16 shorter. A typical tilapia, even a hybrid tilapia in 17 aquiculture captivity, or even in the wild, would live about 18 a decade. 19 But these guys are essentially breeding early, 20 growing really fast and dying fast. And there is -- I have 21 provided references for all of this. It's all easily 22 available in the literature. 23 MS. WAY: Is that the tilapia that was purposely placed 24 in the canals to eat the weeds? 25 DR. SWARTZ: No, it not. My data indicates the current 62 1 tilapia in the Salton Sea is now -- well, tilapia are fishes 2 from the Great Lakes of Africa. They are fresh water fishes. 3 It's almost unimaginable how they can now live in these hyper 4 saline conditions. 5 There are two things that are to their advantage: 6 One, the current tilapia in the Sea is a huge benefit for 7 agriculture. It's a hybrid of at least two or possibly three 8 species probably done by Doug Frazier and his aqua farms 9 project up at the top end of Salt Creek and they probably came 10 down Salt Creek and invaded the Sea. 11 And because they're hybrids, there's also rift lake 12 species, which are known to be evolutionarily very passive. 13 They've evolved incredibly rapidly. They no longer can even 14 communicate with -- or having any gene flow to the drains 15 or the rivers or anything like that. 16 They are essentially speciated in the last decade. 17 It's really remarkable. And their behavior and life 18 history is now quite interesting and quite different than 19 anything we've seen. It's cool. But no, they are not what 20 was originally stocked. What was stocked was red-bellied 21 tilapia, the ones we said in the sample. There are no 22 red-bellied tilapia in the Sea. 23 MS. WAY: Okay. 24 DR. SWARTZ: Anyway. The written testimony that has 25 been provided to you today includes reference for readily 63 1 available data on the fish currently in the Salton Sea. 2 Influences on the salinity on bioaccumulation of pollutants 3 in fish tissues. And I must recommend there is quite a lot 4 of available, more recent data on fish tissue and 5 bioaccumulation. 6 The Salton Sea Eco-Restoration Effort is a 7 joint effort between many public agencies. We all have the 8 ambition of restoring the ecological value of the Salton 9 Sea, and we very much would like more participate from the 10 Regional Board in this effort. We want you guys to help us 11 and participate with us. 12 We have ongoing toxic monitoring via the water 13 quality groups. With the Bureau of Reclamation, USGS, 14 Department of Fish and Game, Department of Water Resources 15 of Salton Sea organisms. Please help us by participating 16 with your expertise as well. But also use the information 17 that's already available in both our DIR and other 18 information. 19 So, basically, effective protection of the 20 beneficial uses of the Salton Sea should be based on the 21 good science. And we request that the Board consider 22 withdrawing the proposed Salton Sea listing for arsenic and 23 DDT and for diazinon until monitor data is available to 24 evaluate the correct target pollutants under current 25 conditions. 64 1 Thirty-year-old data really don't represent 2 what's happening right now. Those same toxins are likely 3 behaving in radically different ways in current conditions 4 than they did 30-years-ago. And different toxins may be 5 what we need to be focusing on. That's the Salton Sea. 6 MS. WAY: If you can direct us on the Salton Sea -- 7 DR. SWARTZ: I also have a short comment on the 8 Stormwater Channel for the Coachella Valley -- 9 MR. PURDUE: Could I say one thing. I'm a geologist 10 and I have to disqualify myself. 11 DR. SWARTZ: Yes. Please. 12 MR. PERDUE: You have arsenic that was found in certain 13 species. The ones that died off. You said with TDS, these 14 kinds of species is that mean the arsenic is now not 15 deleterious to the fish life? You said it has an impact, 16 but you didn't mention whether it was up or down. Sort of 17 a neutral statement. 18 DR. SWARTZ: I don't know. I don't know whether 19 arsenic is having a (sic) increased or decreased impact on 20 the fishes of the Salton Sea or on the things that eat the 21 fishes of the Salton Sea or, probably more importantly, on 22 the pile worms, which are currently the main basis of the 23 food. 24 MR. PERDUE: That was my question. 25 DR. SWARTZ: I don't know. It would be very important 65 1 to find that out but the current data that you've include in 2 here will not give us that information. 3 MS. WAY: Can we just clarify. I didn't realize that 4 when we are doing this two-year evaluations. We don't -- 5 we're not having completely new data or current data. We 6 are referring to 30-year-old data? 7 MR. ANGEL: These are policies we recently use and in 8 that context we use readily available data. The data maybe 9 is current as this year or may go back several years. We 10 use the most current available data. 11 I believe it was data for the toxic substance that it 12 administered by the Department of Fish and Game under a 13 contract with the State Board. 14 MS. WAY: How old is that? 15 MR. ANGEL: Some we have current. 16 DR. SWARTZ: The nearest data was 2000. 17 MR. ANGEL: 2000. 18 MS. WAY: 2000. 19 MR. ANGEL: But not fundamentally, Madam Chair. What 20 I'd like to point out to the Board is that the listing 21 policy took away a lot of the discretions that the Regional 22 Boards had and made it more problematic. There is certain 23 statistics conducted of line, it's a very fine line of 24 evidence, that the data needs to meet in order for us to 25 consider it. And the staff believes the data meets that 66 1 and the data is very consistent. 2 It certainly makes sense to me that it's the 3 tributary stuff pesticides. And the data show, and 4 current data, I'm talking even data just released by the 5 U.S. Geological Survey for the Alamo River and the New River 6 shows that the tributary pest sides and you saw the kinds 7 of pesticides that we are recommending you add for the New 8 River and the Alamo River. That you are going to find 9 pesticides in the Salton Sea, albeit a different 10 concentrations and albeit a different water quality impacts. 11 MS. WAY: But her argument is the use designation as 12 a fresh water in the Salton Sea. 13 MR. ANGEL: Our system we used under the Clean Water 14 Act. Beneficial uses have been in the book for quite some 15 time. The issues of the designated uses is not an issue at 16 this Hearing. Although, I can understand why the District 17 would want to pursue that final recommendation. 18 The instances have been approved by the State Board 19 and the USEPA and we cannot just capriciously change those 20 uses. The Salton Sea, regarding Dr. Swartz, is beyond any 21 entity's control pursuant to the restoration project, so 22 listing and what we do about it are two different things. 23 In my opinion, nothing's going to happen if there's not a 24 restoration project. 25 MS. WAY: Wouldn't you agree that it shouldn't be listed 67 1 for fresh water? 2 MR. ANGEL: No, I don't agree with that. We've 3 responded to that comment in writing. Staff is going to go 4 over it a little bit more -- respond more directly to 5 Dr. Swartz' current comments. 6 MS. WAY: Go ahead, please. 7 DR. SWARTZ: I just wanted to add one small comment on 8 the Stormwater Channel. And I do agree, by the way, about -- 9 I'm working with the Corps on discussing how a sand dune 10 lizard preserve can be considered a navigable waterway and 11 down to the interstate commerce act, I find that quite 12 interesting. It's gets water on it once a decade or so. 13 I wanted to make a quick comment on the proposed 14 Coachella Stormwater Channel listing. Based on the response 15 that we received yesterday, we understand staff intends to 16 revise the proposed Stormwater Channel listings for DDT, 17 dieldrin and diazinon to identify the two-mile long water 18 segment of the Stormwater Channel related to the Salton Sea. 19 By the way, if you guys ever want to see that site, 20 it's a marsh refuge. It's one of the only two sites in the 21 state that is a community mass breeding site for Western 22 Clark's Grebes where they all have these mass simultaneous 23 breeding events. It's absolutely spectacular. We also have 24 several endangered species there. It's a wonderful place. 25 While we believe -- while this is the correct 68 1 water segment, according to this data collected, we don't 2 agree with using fish tissue data that's -- the newest data 3 is over eight years old to justify these listings. These 4 pollutants are legacy pollutants. Legacy chemicals now 5 banned for use, not found in the water or sediments collected 6 in the Stormwater Channel, and as is the case with Salton Sea, 7 we believe that proposed impaired water listings should be 8 based on data that representative of current conditions in 9 the Channel. 10 We request that the Board withdraw the Stormwater 11 Channel listings until new monitoring data is completed to 12 evaluate the target pollutants under current conditions. To 13 avoid impaired water listings that may divert all of our every 14 limited resources to address chemicals that are limiting our 15 beneficial uses. 16 We all have to be focused on what's important and 17 not get distracted by looking at old data from -- in order 18 to inflate a sample size, for example, to meet the power 19 sufficient to determine the significance and recognize the 20 problems that we have to face, and identify those problems, 21 and target those problems without getting distracted by old 22 information that no longer represents what's actually happening 23 right now. 24 We have to band together in these economic difficult 25 times and focus our attention on doing what's right for the 69 1 ecological benefit of that region. Because it's precious to 2 all of us. 3 MS. WAY: I have one question. Who's charge is it to 4 collect current data? Is that something we would expect the 5 Water District to go out and collect? Is that our of 6 charge? 7 MR. POST: Can I have the Dr. Zeywl, could you please 8 talk about that? 9 DR. ZEYWL: Sure. 10 MR. POST: If that's okay? 11 DR. SWARTZ: Please. 12 MR. POST: I do believe we are participating it that. 13 MR. ANGEL: Let me just point out to the Board that the 14 Regional Board had a seat at this table on the restoration 15 project for the legislation. I don't believe we missed any 16 of the meetings. I, myself, accompanied the previous chair, 17 Mr. Rice, to those meetings and to the extent that the resources 18 allowed, we also participated in the various supplemental 19 meetings and technical meetings. We have been at the table 20 from a policy perspective representing those interests. 21 DR. ZEYWL: Hi. Good morning. My name is Nadren Zeywl 22 from the Regional Board. And I have taken the oath. With 23 regards to the specific question of who's going to need to 24 collect the data or who is responsible for collecting the 25 data, the 303(d) List is different from what we did before 70 1 when we got in the TMDLS. It's a plan. It's a 2 requirement that the State is required to develop and update 3 every three years. 4 With regards to collecting the data, all that we do 5 when we revise the 303(d) data is to ask the public for any new 6 data. If we have data that we have collected ourselves or 7 agencies, we use that data to put it on the list. The 303(d) 8 list doesn't require that we collect it immediately or to do 9 any collection of the data. 10 When we prioritize for the open specific TMDLs, 11 that's the time when -- and it's a different process. It's a 12 new process when we ask people to add, development management 13 practices, or collect data similar to what we did with the 14 Coachella Valley. 15 MR. PERDUE: So in essence, it's a literature search for 16 whatever is available? 17 DR. ZEYWL: It is. 18 MR. PERDUE: The TMDL comes later on in the game 19 process of monitoring -- 20 DR. ZEYWL: And the TMDL requires us to collect recent 21 data before we can go ahead with move ahead with the TMDLS, 22 or the d List or decide at that time. 23 MR. PERDUE: Can I ask the other doctor, the standard as 24 far as quality or timeliness of the data, you've followed 25 Dr. Zeywl. It seems that the 303(d) Listing is a lesser 71 1 standard. If you take this information, you get old verses 2 TMDL, which actually has a monitoring to TMDL. I assume 3 that's common knowledge. 4 MR. HAYS: We also do a public call for data. In other 5 words, other agencies can provide information to them if 6 they're available. 7 DR. ZEYWL: That's correct. Over the first two years 8 we requested data and in fact the past three months we 9 released a public notice. We requested comments from the 10 303(d) List and any data that came to us, we tend to consider. 11 MR. HAYS: How many of specific groups just say hey, we 12 know you may have something that we ask for a public notice. 13 If they catch it, they catch it. My concern is how far -- 14 DR. ZEYWL: We love to have the data. It makes our 15 job easier. But we never received any data to either, you 16 know, to revise whatever we did. If I can go to one of the 17 comments regarding the diazinon listing for the Salton Sea. 18 That this came with a good point, with a good argument that 19 there is no criteria for fresh water habitat for fresh water 20 for the Salton Sea. We agreed with them. We checked with the 21 State Board, and they said, "Yeah, we don't have that criteria." 22 So we removed that listing. 23 For chlorpyrifos, we also checked with the State 24 Water Resource Control Board and found several things that 25 there is actually a saltwater criteria and that's why the 72 1 chlorpyrifos stayed in the listing. Again, these are 2 standard issues. What we do here is just to work with the 3 data we have and try to, you know, make sense out of them. 4 Then, as I said, in the future we need to figure out some 5 new regulations for requirements. That would be another 6 process. 7 MR. POST: Did the CDWT participate in these as far as 8 data and assessing data that's being used and so forth, for 9 this process? Are they participating and giving you the data 10 that they have? 11 DR. ZEYWL: They never provided us with any data, as 12 far as I know. And even in our response to them yesterday, 13 we asked for -- they mentioned something about the salinity 14 its effects on the pollutants, the bioaccumulation. And 15 we'd love to see that data. That is our intention. If we 16 have new data we will redo that data and asses that and 17 get it. 18 MR. MUZIK: If this report is done every two years 19 wouldn't you assume that the data would be less than two 20 years old or that it should have been on listed many years 21 ago? 22 MR. ANGEL: We actually we are relying, Mr. Muzik, the 23 State Board standardizing the listing process. We are 24 trying to use the latest data. Meaning current data in this 25 context. Before every regulation any which way you want it, 73 1 pretty much. The policy, itself, cements across the State 2 and particularly in this region. 3 We want to be able to start using some of the more 4 recent data. Whether we collect or some of the resource 5 agents collect to the list or modify the list. The list 6 does not lock in place anything other than, here's the 7 surface water, but based on current data and that's what the 8 listing policy says. That is a valuable and reasonable line 9 of evidence. It doesn't put any limitation on the age of 10 the data. 11 MR. MUZIK: Shouldn't we have a limit, though? A time 12 limit, I mean, that's over three years or five years? 13 MR. ANGEL: I don't want to make decisions like that. 14 I think it will depend on the type data that you monitor. 15 There is some data, for example, pesticides, that only get's 16 worse with time. In terms of bioaccumulation, so I would not 17 necessarily dismiss data that was collected ten years ago 18 because it also enables us to track to what extent it's 19 getting worse or it's getting better. I would not 20 necessarily dismiss the data because it's five years old or 21 ten years ago. 22 DR. SWARTZ: Yes, but a trend analysis which is -- what 23 is not being discussed here. And I would venture that there 24 may be chemicals in the Salton Sea that are having 25 deleterious effect. That we weren't aware because we have 74 1 no new information as being present here. But the legacy 2 chemicals that we're talking about here may no longer be an 3 issue. Given -- the species that were tested had fairly long 4 life span, long exposure times and no longer exist in this 5 system. 6 MS. WAY: Any one have any questions? Jose, I'm just 7 curious, why aren't we the center of current data? I would 8 think if I were Joe Public and we're the Regional Water 9 Quality Control Board, we would be the place that people 10 would come for the data. And it gets back to the discussion 11 we had two years ago on the TMDL, I don't understand why we 12 have a room full of scientists and we're not the center of 13 the current data. 14 MR. ANGEL: It has to do with resources. Monitoring 15 water resources in California is a shared responsibility. It 16 does not reside exclusively with the Regional Board, nor are 17 we the exclusive center for the decision of the data. We do 18 get resources to monitor certain surface waters. We 19 prioritize those resources, but by and large, my main point 20 is the collection of data is a shared responsibility. 21 Some other responsibilities in many cases is 22 transferred to the regulated community. Other one is 23 transferred to resources agencies or water districts. So we 24 have no obligation, necessarily, to be the center coordinated 25 agency for data. 75 1 MS. WAY: But we're writing the prescription for fixing 2 something, and we don't have the deduction for determining 3 what the problem is. How can we put the onus on someone 4 when we don't have the most current data? That's why we 5 tabled the TMDL. Let's go find the data and then write 6 the appropriate TMDL. 7 MR. ANGEL: I think I understand what your concern is, 8 Madam Chair. We undertake a significant effort at the staff 9 level to accomplish and get done what you want to get done. 10 Have the most current data. But when we don't get the data, 11 we deal with the currently available data. It's the best 12 available data. 13 Some agencies have data and they don't transfer it 14 to us. I suppose we could subpoena it. But we do go to the 15 effort to use the most current data, to do it with formal 16 solicitations, partnership sometimes, but you're always 17 going to get into situations where you only have so 18 much data. It may not be the most current data but it was 19 data that was collected with quality controls in place. 20 Under those circumstances, we do not dismiss it. We factor 21 it in. 22 MS. WAY: Dr. Swartz, do you think there is any degree 23 of commitment to the water district? You want us to table 24 some of this until the data could be collected. Are you 25 making the commitment to go and get it? 76 1 DR. SWARTZ: I can not make that commitment for the 2 water district. I personally would be glad to help the 3 Board obtain that data as it exists from the various 4 cooperating agencies. When I spoke to the California 5 Department of Fish and Game about this the day before 6 yesterday, this caught them totally by surprise. 7 They are in discussion with DWR submitting a 8 comment on this at this point because they are concerned 9 about how this can affect the Salton Sea and the ecosystem 10 restoration process program. They have data that they 11 would be glad to share with you, USGS also expressed that. 12 MR. VANDENBERG: Madam Chair, we did have a formal 13 comment period. We went overboard to the accept late the 14 comments of CDWD. They had notice, they chose not to 15 respond in a timely manner, but nevertheless, the Regional 16 Board staff has made efforts to incorporate their comments 17 and with respect to additional data that they said should 18 be considered, we said -- in our response we said, "Okay, 19 that's fine. Show us the data." 20 MR. PERDUE: I think it's the word "current" that I've 21 seen that's bogged around. There's "current new" and there's 22 "current available," is really the two terms. You're saying 23 that there's actually current new data available and you're 24 saying you can give access to the Board to that data or 25 some -- 77 1 DR. SWARTZ: I would be glad to personally do what I 2 can to make sure that the Board receives the data as it 3 comes -- 4 MR. PERDUE: Not as it comes in. Sorry. Stick with 5 me. We've got to have some sort of cutoff as far as is there 6 existing new current data -- 7 DR. SWARTZ: Yes. 8 MR. PERDUE: That you're saying that is actually 9 obtainable that addresses these specific listed items? 10 DR. SWARTZ: I believe so. 11 MR. PERDUE: That's this word that's been running 12 around. I believe counsel's pointing out that procedurally 13 we want errors, and we've done our attempts to collect 14 current, both available and new data. And you're suggesting 15 there's this other body of data that we haven't stumbled on 16 or have we? 17 DR. SWARTZ: All the data is stored in the California 18 State Data Warehouse. I would be glad to assist staff with 19 accessing that information. 20 MR. HAYS: First off, if this is something that we've 21 gone through -- this window, period of time and we're going to 22 be starting it again in six more months. Maybe we can wait 23 and make that effort back on that. That segues to my question, 24 which is, the ultimate testing that's done on CMDL storm drains 25 is if we pass these as they stand and for the next few years 78 1 they hold off so we can evaluate it again. The onus of 2 testing of the Salton Sea falls onto who? How do we track 3 that? 4 MR. ANGEL: We're not assigning responsibility to act 5 at this point. We're not pointing a finger, you have to do 6 something about it. Or you need to give us this as much. 7 I'm saying that this surface water from here to here is 8 impaired by this. The Board is not adjudicating 9 responsibility to act, it is fulfilling the requirements 10 under the Clean Water List to identify. 11 MR. HAYS: What I'm looking for is, there's no 12 consequential impact or physical impact alliance that 13 inclines we put burden on this. We're just saying that 14 we've identified this concern, be aware of it, and until 15 we find some other limitations, those are the -- 16 MR. ANGEL: That's correct. It is no different than 17 the salinity listing, from my perspective. I'm sure someone 18 may disagree with that. We're not asking any particular 19 entity out there to undertake and restore the Sea for 20 salinity contents. In fact, the Salton Sea Restoration Act 21 itself is bigger than pointing out or singling out a 22 particular Discharger. 23 I would also like to bring this up before the 24 Board's attention, that we do have a monitoring program in 25 place with State resources where we are collecting more current 79 1 data, and we are collecting data on a monthly basis. I 2 believe throughout key locations in the region, but also the 3 Stormwater Channel. It started with the Salton Sea and from 4 the Salton Sea. When we get new information or information 5 that points out that this listing was wrong or it should have 6 been something else, we'll come back and just list it again or 7 delist. Then it will -- 8 DR. SWARTZ: But doesn't -- If I may make a comment. 9 You're beginning the process of establishing a TMDL for 10 these toxins. 11 MR. ANGEL: No. No. That's a different process. 12 DR. SWARTZ: By putting this on the proposed TMDL list? 13 MS. WAY: Well, she's right. Eventually the next step 14 would be to list -- 15 MR. ANGEL: Not necessarily, Madam Chair. I think that 16 what this does is identify the list of impaired waters, and it 17 proposes that, all things being equal, this is what you would 18 do. Let me give you an example of why that's not so. If 19 you recall the issue of Palo Verde. The pathogens in there. 20 Sure, we undertook the process, but in undertaking the process 21 it was our conclusion and we agreed that it didn't make 22 sense to have TMDL. We didn't push the TMDL. Let me give 23 you another example the salinity -- 24 MR. HAYS: Our work priority list identifies and 25 qualifies, and if you find it deemed or not then we had -- 80 1 MS. WAY: That's not the way I understood it. 2 MR. HAYS: --segue here. By identify it's priority of 3 concern but now, new data that we collected in this next 4 process will allow us to determine these. This segues into 5 we got the new data but based on what we've seen the -- even 6 priority TMDL or may be delisted? 7 DR. SWARTZ: But doesn't that divert resources to the 8 process, let's say, of delisting on potentially the wrong 9 targets? 10 MR. HAYS: I think to identify the concern, it would be 11 it's impact and the fact that the burden was -- I would say 12 we assume the responsibility of due diligence. If we did 13 know about it. And it is the point that we collected more 14 data to address it but rather than -- we're taking a 15 proactive step for resolution rather than saying we did not 16 do this. 17 MR. POST: Madam Chair, I find the discussion to be 18 fascinating about the data or the fact that certain 19 pollutants or stressors are perhaps not present based upon 20 current new data as opposed to current data -- 21 MR. ANGEL: Current available data. 22 MR. POST: -- current available data. But there was, 23 as I understand, there was a notice of public solicitation 24 of water quality data that went out two years ago. The 25 deadline for that was this past February. And so I think 81 1 based upon all of that, based upon the fact this current new 2 data or alleged new data is coming to us in this eleventh 3 hour then I think that we should move on this resolution. 4 And as Mr. Hays indicates that we should make 5 this new data or collection data as part of the next cycle. 6 I just think it's prudent to do that because we have gone 7 though the process and put out the notices and done whatever 8 and if folks did not participate or people did not provide 9 that new data, then I think it would be remiss for us to 10 try and inject it now at this late date. 11 MS. WAY: Any other comments? 12 MR. DAVIS: Doctor, do you represent CDWD in this 13 discussion? 14 DR. SWARTZ: Yes. 15 MR. DAVIS: You don't have the authority from CDWD to 16 provide their data to us? 17 DR. SWARTZ: No. I don't have any -- I'm an advisor 18 for CDWD. I can't make any commitments on their behalf. 19 MR. DAVIS: But you believe they have data? 20 DR. SWARTZ: I know that they have water quality data, 21 but I don't believe they've been doing fish tissue work, 22 which is the fundamental basis for all of this. 23 MR. DAVIS: Staff, I want to ask that if and when we 24 pass this resolution it goes to the region and is combined 25 with others in the districts; correct? And there's another 82 1 process of review? 2 MR. ANGEL: Yes. There's another -- 3 MR. DAVIS: At the State Board level, it could be 4 modified? 5 MR. ANGEL: That's correct, Mr. Davis. 6 MR. DAVIS: So any new data would be introduced at that 7 time? 8 MR. ANGEL: The State Board would have to -- there are 9 two steps actually. If I may, so the rest of the Board 10 members understand. What you're doing today, if you approve 11 the resolution, it directs the executive officers take 12 everything with it, send it to the State Board for approval. 13 The State Board will go through the process of 14 public representation process, issuing a order of notice of a 15 public hearing to approve the statewide listing. It will be 16 compiled into one big list from all the other regions 17 combined. 18 The State Board typically has a workshop before 19 it has the public hearing to try to address some of these 20 issues. If there's something big that the Regional Board 21 didn't consider or should have considered. So what we try 22 to do is cross our T's and dot our I's. Due process so we 23 don't get tripped up and get due process. After the 24 State Board approves the list, then it goes to the USEPA for 25 approval. USEPA may add to the list with or without public 83 1 hearing. They're not required. They may modify the listing 2 on their own. 3 MR. DAVIS: So what you're telling us is that there's a 4 second bite of this apple? At another level. And there's a 5 third bite of this apple, possibly? 6 MR. ANGEL: Yes. 7 MR. DAVIS: Thanks a lot. 8 MR. VANDENBERG: Matter of fact, I did attend the last 9 303(d) List public hearing with the State Water Board a 10 couple of years ago and there were a huge number of people 11 coming up to speak because they raised issues. The current 12 speaker did -- saying, wait a minute, you didn't consider 13 certain data or this listing is wrong or you didn't add a 14 certain thing that you should have for a listing. 15 The State Board considered all that and they 16 accepted all the comments; written comments, oral comments 17 any other data that people said, you know, you didn't 18 consider or you overlooked or missed or whatever. Then they 19 came -- the State Board said, okay, we've now come out the 20 another list, which either accepts or rejects the comments 21 and responds to those comments. And they revised the list 22 accordingly. And that shipped off actually to the Office of 23 Administrative Law for, I guess, its rule making. And then it 24 goes to the USEPA. The USEPA then can decide yea or nay. 25 And, again, as Mr. Angel explained they can decide 84 1 over that with a public hearing on not. But there is a 2 final level approved by USEPA who even had the Palo Verde, 3 for example, they were trying to delist. I checked with the 4 constituents there and EPA rejected our delisting. We got 5 to meet the delisting policies. And this is related to the 6 E. Coli, coliform, and enterococci were increased criteria. 7 Well if you have one of them, they said, well then, you have 8 them both. There's no other criteria you haven't met it so 9 you're out of luck on delisting. 10 So CPA then rejected our request to be 11 delisted. The EPA has final ultimate authority to say yea 12 or nay on what the State Board approves. So we do have these 13 three levels; our level, State Water Board, and USEPA. So 14 there are additional levels. And I'll just add one last 15 thing, too. This is kind of, in a way, a continuing the 16 planning process. It is every two years the data comes in 17 it's not a one time thing. We set it, we look at it, we 18 consider it. It continually updated. 19 MR. DAVIS: What prevents the staff from working with 20 other agencies, other sources of bona fide data to update our 21 information and fit that due process? 22 MR. ANGEL: Nothing. In fact we do it, Mr. Davis. We 23 do it in a number of ways. We do it through the formal 24 solicitation process. We also do it through agents of 25 public notice hearings, so people can supply us with the 85 1 data. 2 We also call in. Sometimes we're not that formal. 3 We consider all the data that people provide us. So we do 4 undertake a precise process that you're describing. And 5 what we are suggesting also, some of you have already, to 6 the District that they have to give it to us. And if the 7 data shows that it shouldn't be listed, we'll come back and 8 say, "Board, we don't agree with it. We've reviewed the 9 data." They gave us current data on the delist. 10 MS. WAY: I'm curious why they responded -- 11 MR. ANGEL: I'm not sure. I can't answer that. 12 MS. WAY: And are you concerned to other agencies 13 whether that's correct our not, is it odd that we didn't 14 hear back from agencies that you think would have data? 15 MR. ANGEL: Right. We work closely with our 16 counterparts at Fish and Game. They're under contract with 17 us to collect data. But we'll look into that. Maybe we 18 overlooked the data that Fish and Game has, but if 19 Dr. Swartz has some additional leads, we'll consider it. 20 MR. HAYS: This is just a suggestion, but when we do 21 this, we're doing a public notice so that Bureau has a CYA 22 that we also know who we sent it to, and we list all the 23 people we've identified. If there is any other we can say 24 who we sent it to, what groups, as a backup. It's still a 25 definitive way to track it rather than relying on public 86 1 information. 2 MR. ANGEL: On behalf of the Staff, if I might say 3 something, and they do -- go through such effort and it's 4 been a lot easier for us to get the proficient 5 investigational point out on this southern portion of this 6 watershed. Because we have cemented probably more and more 7 cooperative relationship with the Farm Bureau, with the IND, 8 and so forth, so we can assure you that have has current 9 data, we're talking last year's data/early this year's part, 10 for this part of the watershed. 11 And we are a depository, meaning which we have 12 contracted with the University of Redlands, who enable us to 13 create a program through centralized data for this southern 14 part of the watershed, the Salton Sea. So we hope we can 15 compensate it. It well make everyone's lives somewhat 16 easier. We'll follow up on what you're suggesting. It 17 sounds pretty reasonable to me. 18 MR. DAVIS: Barring the process that Dr. Swartz -- I 19 found your presentation fascinating, especially about the 20 pup fish. Barring all that, I think we are all pretty 21 interested in the restoration improvements at the Salton Sea. 22 Whatever the end result is that makes it a healthy 23 environment for all of us, and I think we should just move 24 on the process as recommended and at the same time let's 25 work, as you suggested, we should all be working together in 87 1 these hard time and get to a solution. 2 MR. ANGEL: We appreciate that, Mr. Davis. Let me just 3 go back and repeat what I said awhile ago in the context of 4 this listing, you know. I alluded when Ms. Way asked me, 5 you know, what do you see in the near future coming from 6 Mexico out there? To paraphrase the question, Madam Chair. 7 Will there ever be a point when they are meeting our 8 standards? 9 I'm looking at the Salton Sea and I said it's 10 beyond any one agency's control but it will be a time this 11 Regional Board will have to reckon with some of the issues 12 that Dr. Swartz pointed out. Including the designation of 13 certain particular uses and certain particular criteria. 14 At this point, we the Regional Board, are not in 15 the lead for that effort. It is for the Department of 16 Water Resources and the Department of Fish and Game. It 17 would be counter-productive for us within the context of the 18 Restoration Act that you alluded to, Mr. Davis, for us to 19 start modifying beneficial uses or things within the Salton 20 Sea basin -- within our basin plan because other two 21 resources (sic) agencies that I mentioned, DWR and the 22 Department of Fish and Game. 23 I think their basic plan that they are taking 24 directly from the legislation and these are the uses and 25 objectives that the restoration project needs to meet. 88 1 DR. SWARTZ: Can I have one small comment, please? 2 MS. WAY: Certainly. 3 DR. SWARTZ: Thank you. This is the region that we're 4 dealing with. We know this better than folks in Sacramento. 5 By essentially pushing this up, we are creating more work for 6 our staff. For example, to delist something once it is 7 listed, that could potentially be put to better use with all 8 of our limited resources. 9 So essentially punting it along doesn't necessarily 10 address any of the problems here. We have another large 11 terminal lake in California. Mono Lake, which has a 12 beneficial use for saline inland habitat. And so, we have a 13 precedent for an appropriate beneficial use instead of 14 following the bureaucracy of -- that is potentially a mistake 15 way back when, when this was listed. 16 MS. WAY: Thank you. Does any one on the Board have 17 anymore questions for Dr. Swartz? 18 DR. SWARTZ: I'll be glad to answer any question about 19 the Salton Sea or anything else you can come up with. 20 MS. WAY: Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone 21 else who wishes to speak in the Hearing? Before we go back 22 to the Board meeting. 23 DR. SWARTZ: I have references of -- that support the 24 information here. 25 MS. WAY: Give those to Terry. 89 1 Having heard from all persons in this Matter, I 2 hereby declare that the public hearing is now closed. The 3 Board will now consider the evidence, testimony, and staff 4 recommendations. We will go back to our board meeting, 5 which we are considering the adoption of Board Resolution 6 R7-2009-0014. Can I get a motion on the floor before we 7 begin new discussion? 8 MR. HAYS: I move that we approve the resolution as 9 proposed by staff. 10 MR. DAVIS: Second. 11 MS. WAY: Okay. The motion was made by Jeff Hays, 12 seconded by Tom Davis. 13 MR. VANDENBERG: Madam Chair, this does have just a 14 minor errata. 15 MS. WAY: Yes, with errata. Everybody has a copy of 16 that one page. Anybody need to comment? 17 MR. HAYS: I think we just fall into protocol. I think 18 we're making a decision based on protocol if we had to deal 19 with the bureaucracy we inherit and we continue to make an 20 effort to move forward on the issue. Staff talked about 21 updated information and it's an option that we should still 22 consider. 23 MR. DAVIS: I, for one, disdain pushing things along for 24 process of the process. But in this case, I think we made 25 it clear that the staff will work diligently on collecting 90 1 new current data in the meantime and we'll work on resolving 2 some of these issues in the meantime without being burdened 3 by the process. And so I think that's what make sense. 4 MS. WAY: If I just may. I just want to go on the 5 record as saying that I do not support pushing alone. The 6 same thing with TMDL. I do not feel comfortable sitting up 7 here voting on something which I question whether or not we 8 have the facts. We spent two years. 9 This seems to be a common occurrence where we're 10 having this last minute, "Hey, why don't you know everything?" 11 at the podium. And how diligent were we in calling to find 12 it? You know, where is that data? I still believe that some 13 of onus belongs with us. The public looks to us to uphold 14 that. 15 My main discomfort is with the Stormwater Channel. 16 I think we need to know what's in it. I just finished TMDL, 17 which we were going to place onus on some people, and we 18 didn't know that onus was appropriate. Therefore, we 19 tabled it just so we can go out and get that data and make 20 the right decision. 21 It's an uncomfortable decision, I have to be quite 22 honest. There are only a quorum here and if it doesn't pass, 23 does it come back to us to finish it? Are we in trouble if 24 we don't meet the deadline? I'd like to know the 25 repercussions. 91 1 MR. DAVIS: Does it have to be five or can it be a 2 split vote? 3 MR. VANDENBERG: It just requires a majority quorum. 4 3-2 affirmative votes would pass the motion. 5 MS. WAY: Is there a repercussion to us if we're 6 missing a deadline? 7 MR. VANDENBERG: Well, Mr. Angel probably can answer 8 that question better because the State Board has it's own 9 schedule, I'm sure. 10 MR. ANGEL: Yes, I think the comments on target. The 11 State Board will take the Matter on schedule. I'm not sure 12 if we give the Board another crack at it. Even if the State 13 Board did, the USEPA may just say we agree. Do what you 14 want to do. So, we hear you and I understand your concerns. 15 We'll try our best to work with them and get more current 16 data. 17 MS. WAY: Well, it seems like it would be an 18 embarrassment. We pass it along and then people line up at 19 that State Board meeting with all the data -- 20 MR. ANGEL: No, that's happened before. If I may, from 21 a due process perspective. It is not the first time this 22 happened. In fact I, like Tom, was at the State Board 23 hearing for the previous listing. We have representatives 24 from the other end with the same arguments. "Hey, you know, 25 we got this new data." They said, "Well, show us your new 92 1 data." 2 In the meantime, we are going to proceed with 3 planning process. If you have new data, then give it to us. 4 From a due process perspective, not only do I feel very 5 strongly that we met the burden of the regulations to engage 6 the public and solicit better data to try to ascertain the 7 conditions for the surface waters. We went beyond that. 8 We even considered late comments. 9 MR. HAYS: I think I qualified that though by saying 10 that two different issues. We're putting a notice of 11 concern not with TMDL. So we're not putting any of the 12 onus on this point, but we're putting up there is concern 13 to be aware of so that if we do the next TMDL. We learn 14 through the cooperation of the District that we don't 15 necessarily make the theoretic line but we do take a 16 better study of the listing and just do better research -- 17 MR. PERDUE: What happened when the State Board started 18 doing the 303(d) List, the Regional Board went back -- and 19 this is to play off Dr. Swartz' point about the locals, 20 we've been conservative until then, whereas the State Board 21 tends to, through a huge number of items from the hearings, 22 over those were quite argumentative the local entities and 23 a lot of Regional Boards were saying no to the State Board 24 staff overstepping its bounds. 25 MS. WAY: You mean it was just kind of letting the 93 1 State say this should be listed -- 2 MR. PERDUE: It was the other way around. Where the 3 local Regional Board entities were trying to stop the 4 State Board and adding things of which were inappropriate. 5 MS. WAY: And that goes back to the 600 -- 6 MR. PERDUE: Six hundred delisting. Which is the thing 7 that caught everybody's eye and watch that PBT. Our 8 research -- and I want to also add the Web in. The Web is 9 our new entity so it's not like it's in a dark hole in a 10 library wherever the heck. There's massive access, very easy 11 access to available data, and we do have some very highly 12 qualified environmental staff that spends massive amounts of 13 time researching the data. So we are not blind to what 14 sources exist. 15 MS. WAY: How many requests were there for things 16 to be listed? Were there a lot? Can you guess? No? 17 MR. RAUB: Nobody wanted to be listed. 18 MS. WAY: Any other comments? Anything else? Okay. 19 We'll move forward. All those in favor of approving 20 Resolution Number R7-2009-0014, signify by saying "Aye." 21 THE BOARD: Aye. 22 MS. WAY: Those opposed? Nay. The motion passes four 23 for and one against. 24 MR. VANDENBERG: Madam Chair, the court reporter would 25 like to take a break. 94 1 MS. WAY: I'm sorry. We'll all take a break. 2 (Recess) 3 MS. WAY: I'd now like to introduce Jose. It's not 4 the best part of the job, right. We're going to move to the 5 Resolution Agenda Item 11 Memorial of Carlos Marin. Jose, 6 I'll let you speak. I know you want to do that. 7 MR. ANGEL: Thank you, Madam Chair. Back in September, 8 we informed the Board that there had been a plane crash, and 9 we were afraid that Commissioner Marin along with his 10 counterpart from Mexico were in that plane. The pilot and 11 two other dignitaries. The crash was confirmed thereafter. 12 Right after that Board meeting, as a matter of fact. So, 13 you know, we're obviously deeply sadden by the death of our 14 Commissioners and the other passengers. 15 Commissioner Carlos Marin, although he had been 16 serving for several years as the Commissioner, he had an 17 illustrious career, nearly 30 year career dedicating his 18 life to public service. In particular, and mainly with 19 International Boundary Water Commission, U.S. Section, the 20 commission is charged with, aside from resolving boundary 21 issues, overseeing water resources by national agreements 22 and water resources and water quality issues with Mexico. 23 Needless to say that Commission Marin was highly 24 instrumental; number one, in providing us access to Mexico 25 and facilitating the Regional Board's participation through 95 1 the national technical committee so we can address pollution 2 from Mexico. 3 So from my perspective, in losing the Commissioner, 4 we not only lost an ally for water quality to address 5 pollution from Mexico, but I think the commission itself in 6 the United States lost a wealth of knowledge. You have 7 somebody who dedicated his life, essentially, to public 8 service. One of the things that I particularly remember 9 about him that he never minced words in making 10 representations to Mexico about water quality for what needed 11 to be done. 12 So he was, in essence, an advocate for water 13 quality for this Regional Board. And he always provided us 14 with a fair hearing. Sometimes we disagreed, but make no 15 mistake about it, he always kept improving water quality, 16 boundaries, and addressing the Board's concerns in mind. 17 I did not have a very frequent, personal contact 18 with him, but the very few occasions that I was able to share 19 some of the Board's concerns, he always accommodated us. He 20 gave us a fair shake. Obviously, through this resolution, we 21 want to memorialize him, his accomplishments, his friendship 22 to this staff, and service not just to the commission but to 23 this Regional Board. 24 We have Ms. Anna Morales, who is the head of the 25 Yuma office, traveled all the way from Yuma on behalf of her 96 1 agency, the IBWC, received the resolution on behalf of his 2 entire family. He is survived by his widow and also his 3 sons. Needless to say, we have lost somebody very valuable 4 to water quality and a friend to this staff. 5 MS. WAY: Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. We are missing 6 two Board Members. So we can not give you this today, 7 because we need their signatures. We will make sure that 8 you receive it. 9 In honor of Carlos Marin, I would like to read the 10 resolution: 11 The Resolution Number R7-2009-0017, Memorializing 12 Commissioner Carlos Marin, U.S. International Boundary and 13 Water Commission for His Contribution to Water Quality. 14 Whereas, in 1979, Carlos Marin joined the United 15 States Section of the International Boundary and Water 16 Commission as a staff engineer and through his performance 17 and dedication rose to executive positions at IBWC, including 18 principle engineer; 19 And whereas, in December of 2006, Carlos Marin was 20 appointed US IBWC Commissioner by President George W. Bush. 21 And whereas, Carlos Marin distinguished himself for 22 his unwavering commitment to addressing bi-national issues 23 including cleanup of New River pollution from Mexico. 24 And whereas, while under his leadership, crucial 25 and successful bi-national projects to clean up New River 97 1 pollution came to fruition, including the new Mexicali II 2 Wastewater Treatment Facility, Las Arenitas Wastewater 3 Treatment Facility, which has resulted in significant water 4 quality improvements of New River. 5 And whereas, Carlos Marin died tragically in an 6 airplane accident on September 15, 2008, while assessing 7 flood damage along the Rio Grande. 8 And whereas, Carlos Marin was a friend of water 9 quality, this Regional Board and its staff. 10 And whereas, Carlos Marin will be missed by the 11 many people he served in the U.S./Mexico Border region and 12 by the State of California. 13 Therefore, be it resolved that the members and 14 staff of this Regional Board extend their sincerest 15 condolences to the Marin family and great appreciation for 16 the loyal service of Carlos Marin to the People of the State 17 of California. Signed by all of us. Thank you. 18 MS. MORALES: Madam Chair -- 19 MS. WAY: Please stand at the podium, if you don't 20 mind. Thank you very much for being here. Do you want to 21 make a comment? 22 MS. MORALES: Yes. On behalf of the Marin family and 23 the IBWC family, they would like to say they truly 24 appreciate and thank you for this honor of the Commissioner. 25 Thank you. 98 1 MS. WAY: Now we'll go to other business. We are going 2 to do these in a little different order, because of time. 3 The first one we are going to take care of -- we have to 4 elect a new Chair and a Vice Chair for our committee -- 5 MR. MUZIK: I believe our current Chair and 6 Co-Chair are doing a wonderful job, and I would like to keep 7 both of them. 8 MR. POST: Second. 9 MS. WAY: Does my pay go up? Well, I would be honored. 10 I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you. And you're 11 willing? Is there a motion to keep myself? That was a 12 motion by Tom. Is there a second -- Ed, I'm sorry. Ed, 13 you made the motion and Tom seconded it. 14 MR. MUZIK: Yes. 15 MS. WAY: All those in favor, signify by saying, 16 "Aye." 17 THE BOARD: Aye. 18 MS. WAY: Those opposed? The motion carries. Now we 19 are going to go to Item 15 -- 20 MR. VANDENBERG: Madam Chair, who's the Vice Chair? 21 MS. WAY: Vice Chair is Jeff Hays. I thought you heard 22 that. It's staying the same, status quo. 23 We're going to go to Item Number 15, which is 24 informational update on operational status of the Mesquite 25 Regional Landfill. Hopefully everyone's heard about that. 99 1 The world's largest landfill. Cliff Raley is here. 2 MR. RALEY: Yes. Madam Chair and Board Members, good 3 afternoon. I'm Cliff Raley. I'm the Senior Engineer and 4 waste discharge at the land unit. We have Mr. Brian (sic) 5 Asgian here today. Mr. Asgian is the Operations Section 6 Head for the L.A. County Sanitation District. We also have 7 Mr. Brian Louie, who is the Division Engineer. And 8 Mr. Asgian is going to give us an operational update of the 9 Mesquite Landfill. And we are very appreciative of him 10 being here today. Thank you. 11 MS. WAY: Thanks for being here. 12 MR. ASGIAN: Thanks for inviting me. My name is 13 Bob Asgian, just for the record. The -- with the L.A. County 14 Sanitation District, if we could just get that out. I'm going 15 to start by giving a brief history of who the L.A. County 16 Sanitation Districts are and why we're down in Imperial 17 County, "history of how this project came to be, where we're 18 at in the status, and what's going to happen in the future 19 out there. 20 So, again, the Mesquite Regional Landfill is in 21 the Southeast portion of Region 7. The L.A. County 22 Sanitation District are a partnership of 24 independent 23 special districts. We serve the wastewater needs and solid 24 waste management needs for most, but not all of L.A. County. 25 We operate three active sanitary landfills including, at this 100 1 point, the largest active landfill in the country, The 2 Puente Hills Landfill that's permitted 13,200 tons a day. 3 We operate various other facilities, including 4 gas recovery from landfill gas facilities, recycle centers, 5 material recovery facilities, et cetera. 6 Traditionally, within Los Angeles County, 7 historically, most of waste has been managed within its own 8 boundaries. Now as landfills close as their capacity were 9 reached, et cetera, more waste is now leaving the County. 10 You can see we're going into at least three other counties 11 right now. 12 And this is obviously -- this trend is going to 13 continue as local capacity within the metropolitan areas are 14 depleted, we need to look elsewhere for total capacity. 15 This problem was identified very early on back in the mid to 16 late 1980's. 17 And the Districts put together a request for 18 proposal to provide disposal capacity for the metropolitan 19 Los Angeles area, and we received a number of responses from 20 various proposals including a consortium of private 21 companies that put together the Mesquite Regional Landfill 22 Project Group. 23 It was originally Southern Pacific Rail Line, the 24 Mesquite Gold Mine and, I believe, one other investor. And 25 so they started going through their process to get their 101 1 permits to operate the site. And in 1995, this Board 2 issued waste discharge requirements for that landfill. 3 Now, because of 8939, the recycling laws, it took 4 some of the pressure off the regional systems in terms of how 5 much waste there was to manage. Some other landfills got 6 re-permitted. So kind of, the immediate pressure was off and 7 kind of pushed out the horizon on when the landfill would 8 become operational and the private investors were looking to 9 sell it. And in 2002, the District purchased that project. 10 Waste-by-rail, this is -- Mesquite Regional Landfill 11 is going to be a waste-by-rail landfill. Basically, it is 12 just a system that -- where waste comes into a material 13 recovery facility at the jurisdictions of origin. It's 14 sorted to extract recyclable and hazardous materials, like 15 paint and things like that, that shouldn't be in there. 16 It's packaged into intermodal rail containers that 17 you see on railcars, you see them on the roads, et cetera. 18 It goes to a intermodal rail facility where those containers 19 are placed onto a train, brought to the site where we're going 20 to have our own intermodal rail facility. And then brought up 21 to the landfill. 22 Here's what that system will look like. We just 23 completed, a couple years back, the construction of the 24 Puente Hills Materials Recover Facility, which would be, 25 kind of, our front end facility were it is permitted for 102 1 4,000 tons a day to receive this waste, recover recyclables. 2 You can see cardboard, et cetera. That's being recovered 3 through mechanized means as well as manual recovery. 4 Next slide please. This is kind of what the 5 intermodal rail operations will look like. Basically, there's 6 a number of different kinds of cranes that will move the 7 containers from one mode to the other. So this is a picture 8 of our intermodal train moving. 9 Actually, both of these pictures are actual 10 waste-by-rail trains. The one on the bottom is moving Seattle 11 waste to a landfill in eastern Oregon. Those containers have 12 waste. And the other slide on top is a picture of a 13 waste-by-rail movement in the eastern side of the country. 14 And then again, with the system that we're putting together, 15 it would travel on the Union Pacific Rail Lines to the 16 Mesquite Landfill. 17 So the Mesquite Regional Landfill -- I mentioned it 18 received permits from the Regional Board. It also has a 19 solid waste facilities permit that was issued by the local 20 Health Department. We have air permits, et cetera. Permits 21 from multiple different agencies. It's permitted for 22 20,000 tons a day. 23 Its life expectancy is in the range of 100 years. 24 And because it has a large capacity, it is about 2,000 -- 25 over 2,000 acres of actual waste footprints when it's 103 1 completed. Part of the reason why the job -- why the 2 project got permitted was because the local benefits that 3 this project is going to bring to this region, including 4 local jobs and revenue to Imperial County, the County gets 5 a cut of our tipping fee at the site. So every ton that 6 comes in, some revenue flows through Imperial County. 7 So, when we're talking about the development of 8 the Mesquite Regional Landfill, it's tied intimately with the 9 operation of the Puente Hills Landfill. In 2002, we received 10 a new permit for our biggest landfill in Los Angeles County. 11 And the planning commission there wanted to make sure that 12 we were on track with our waste-by-rail plan and put in a 13 couple milestones for us to achieve in order to keep our 14 capacity. 15 The first milestone being that we needed to begin 16 development of our waste-by-rail landfill by 2007, end of the 17 2007, or our capacity at Puente Hills would be cut by 18 2,000 tons a day. We met that milestone. 19 The second milestone in that permit was that, by 20 the end of this last year, 2008, we had to have a landfill 21 completed and ready, or we would lose that capacity. And 22 that construction of the liner system is complete. So it is 23 ready to receive waste right now. And I'll talk a little 24 bit about when we're actually going to start disposing in 25 just a little bit. 104 1 But, I also wanted, at this point, to thank your 2 staff for really working with us. It was a long effort to 3 get to having the liner completed by the end of 2008. And 4 it was a big effort on both staff, my staff as well as your 5 staff. I really appreciate the effort they put into that. 6 So in the WDR's, there are multiple conditions 7 where the landfill has enhanced environmental control over 8 and above what Title 27 is required and just sit there. And 9 these were put into the waste discharge requirements. 10 Title 27 calls for two layers of liner material, waste 11 discharge requirements specified that we had to put in 12 three layers of liners. 13 In addition, underneath the liner, there's a 14 secondary liner that is also used as a monitoring point to 15 verify that the first liner set is working properly. 16 MR. HAYS: When you say "liner," is that like a clay 17 liner or membrane? 18 MR. ASGIAN: It's both. When it was originally 19 permitted, the liner package, if you will, was two plastic 20 liners sandwiching one foot of clay. And if you recall back 21 to the original components of the project, none of the three 22 entities were waste companies that had experience operating 23 landfills. 24 We looked at that liner package that was 25 originally permitted and thought there was some 105 1 constructible issues with, kind of, the clay sandwiched 2 between the two plastic sheets, and we hired an 3 internationally recognized expert, Dr. Bonaparte (phonetic). 4 He put together an evaluation package. We 5 submitted it to the EO for review and got approval for what 6 is a superior liner package, which is the two plastic liners 7 sandwiching what's called a geosynthetic clay liner, which 8 provides a better performance and much more destructible as 9 well. 10 So underneath this liner package, there's these 11 other -- another liner along the flowlines and in addition, 12 on every acre there's a Vadose Zone Well drilled -- actually, 13 it's underneath where the waste is going to be. And this is 14 a new concept that I don't think I've seen anywhere else. 15 MS. PERDUE: Can you explain Vadose Zone? 16 MR. ASGIAN: I'm sorry. If I use words that you don't 17 understand, please stop me. 18 MS. WAY: Just to let you know none of us were on this 19 board -- 20 MR. ASGIAN: Yes. Which is why I kind of wanted to -- 21 if this is too much, let me know. A Vadose Zone Well is kind 22 of a well in the unsaturated zone between the ground surface 23 but above the ground water surface so that you can monitor, 24 if there was a leak in the liner, you can monitor it, detect 25 it before the leach aid reached the ground water. So this 106 1 is kind of a new thing and so that is at the site and that's 2 part of what was condition as part of the Regional Board's 3 approval. 4 MR. POST: You detect something and then what? 5 MR. ASGIAN: Then what you have to do is look at -- 6 obviously, once it's there, we would have to look at, cam we 7 remediate the ground water if it needs it. It would also 8 play -- that information would play into how we would build 9 the next liner. Because the liners -- you just don't line 10 22,000 acres. The first liner is seven acres. You build 11 upon it and connect new liner systems to that, so we would 12 obviously have to do something different or figure out why 13 that liner leaked. This would give the Regional Board the 14 tool to detect that. 15 MR. PERDUE: If something is leaked into that system, 16 is there a way for you to pipe it out, funnel it out from 17 this Vadose? 18 MR. ASGIAN: There's a number of different options that 19 could be taken. One is enhanced collection of the detail 20 from the top of the liner, better surface water control to 21 prevent taking draining into the landfill; enhanced gas 22 control, could effectively be the reason for this. There's 23 a number of different -- depending on what was detected, a 24 number of different ways we could mitigate that. But it 25 would depend on really what it is we found. 107 1 MR. PERDUE: Thank you. 2 MR. ASGIAN: Again, we're a public entity. We're not 3 looking at -- the Districts are a public entity. We're not 4 looking at our next quarterly bank statement and saying if 5 this is our bottom line. Our bottom line is long-term 6 performance. We're in here for the long haul, and we 7 understand that enhanced environmental control is to our 8 own financial benefit as well as the environment's benefit. 9 That really is kind of the key to our whole approach on the 10 design of this. 11 On our own, we hired a third party panel of experts 12 to review the design. We're moving into a whole new area. 13 We have built a number of liners before under, you know, 14 various conditions. But we wanted to be consistent because 15 this is a new area. We brought in a panel of experts to get 16 third party review. We also brought in a number of 17 internationally recognized professors to consult with us on 18 various aspects of this project. We really put together a 19 great design team to help us put this liner together. 20 In addition to kind of what is minimally required 21 in the WDR, we instituted some additional measures on our own. 22 We put a leak detection survey in the liner so we could look 23 for leaks that might have occurred, that might have 24 punctured the liner during construction, that we could 25 detect that upon the completion of the liner. We added on 108 1 our own a three foot thick screen soil layer to protect the 2 liner from the refuge to make it function better and ensure 3 its long-term performance. 4 We also -- the drainage layer that we collect the 5 leach aid from on top of the liner, we spec a drainage 6 layer that is ten times more effective than what was 7 prescribed in the WDR. And then, for surface water control, 8 we installed a 47 acre drain detention basin and almost six 9 miles of drainage channels to protect the site and to keep 10 runoff from coming on to this site and protect the drainage 11 course around there. And I'll show you some pictures of 12 that in just a second. 13 MS. WAY: Which wouldn't be a big issue. 14 MR. ASGIAN: Well, you know, it doesn't rain much there 15 but when it does, it really comes down. So, you know, we've 16 spent a lot of money for those few instances where it really 17 does matter. 18 So, again, I just kind of want to give you an 19 update on the infrastructure involvement that we've put in. 20 This is a significant public works effort that has gone into 21 getting to where we're at right now. The purchase of the 22 landfill -- it's, again, 22,000 acres of landfill footprint 23 on about 42,000 acres of landfill property, $43, almost 24 $44 million just to buy the property, which is basically 25 just a piece of land with permits. There's no 109 1 infrastructure there. 2 There's desert tortoise, migratory birds, 3 et cetera, lots of biological concerns. So we spent 4 $2.9 million just in fencing and clearing the property of 5 tortoises et cetera, informing other federal agencies just 6 to protect those resources. 7 Again, we got significant drainage channels. You 8 can see 85 by 10 feet at the cross-section here. Some of 9 these channels run the full north/south length of the site, 10 which is a mile and a half in length. We did an extensive 11 hydro-geologic investigation of this site and put in a 12 number of new monitoring wells at a cost of almost 13 four-and-a-half-million dollars. 14 And, again, we had to build the infrastructure at 15 the site. We had to bring electricity to this site. We had 16 to -- the adjacent mine had a water supply system. We had 17 to pull off of that and expand that to suit our purposes. 18 MR. HAYS: Did you have dust control? 19 MR. ASGIAN: Yeah, dust control, compaction of various 20 earth works projects, etc. And just -- and some of these 21 facilities cost alone $6.8 million. And the liner design 22 and construction cost four-and-a-half-million dollars, 23 and that included the hiring of a third party quality 24 control consultant that tested the construction, as it went 25 on, to make sure that we were conforming with all the plans 110 1 and specifications. 2 They put together a report, stamped by 3 a registered engineer, and provided it to your staff to 4 certify that the liner was constructed appropriately. 5 And, again, this wasn't done in a vacuum; both the design as 6 well as the contraction was reviewed and inspected by your 7 staff. 8 So up and coming projects to complete this system 9 is the construction of the rail yard and spur with a five 10 mile spur between the existing Union Pacific Line and our 11 site. We're going to have to build that railroad spur as 12 well as a new rail yard. That will start -- it's currently 13 under design. In the next couple of years, we'll start 14 breaking ground. 15 MR. HAYS: Just that spur alone costs $70 million? 16 MR. ASGIAN: That's the design and construction of just 17 the spur, just the rail yard. Yeah. 18 MR. HAYS: Until then, do you provide trucks or just -- 19 MR. ASGIAN: That a good question. I'll get to that in 20 just a second. When we have the systems up and running, this 21 is the amount of money we'll have invested in it. And this 22 is money, it's not tax money, it's money that we've put in 23 reserve from our rate payers to pay for this very thing. 24 Over a long periods of time, we've been setting 25 aside money so that we could build this infrastructure. And 111 1 that's what it's going to cost us. And that's just for the 2 initial system. As we build new liners, that is going to be 3 more. That's just to get us to where we're at today. Seven 4 acres of liner all the infrastructure we need to operate, 5 et cetera. 6 So when are we going to start operation? That 7 answer kind of depends. There's a proposal with Imperial 8 County under review right now to open the site up for some 9 limited trucking from out of the county. If that proposal 10 passes in terms of CEQA and the appropriate CUP and whatever 11 else is necessary, we can start operation at the site near 12 the end of this year. 13 Clearly, you know, the thing that's driving this, 14 in terms of when large scale operations stated that when the 15 Puente Hills Landfill closes in Los Angeles, right now it 16 serves, I think, somewhere in the range of a third or 17 so of the total capacity needs of L.A. County. When that 18 site closes, we're going to need to move into the system. 19 We'll need to have that ready by the time that site closes. 20 MR. HAYS: Does Imperial County get to use that site? 21 MR. ASGIAN: Yes, it does. In fact, I think there's 22 some capacity reserved for Imperial County, and they can use 23 it. The only requirement is that the waste has to be 24 processed and if there will be some sort of transfer truck 25 or something like that. And so coming up into the future, 112 1 you're going to see probably -- or you and your staff will 2 see a number of different items before you in the future. 3 We're going to, obviously if one liner fills up, 4 we're going to -- have to build another one. Each liner 5 requires review and approval by your staff, inspection of 6 the construction by your staff. That will be an ongoing 7 issue. The monitoring program -- we have groundwater 8 monitoring wells. 9 Obviously, we're going to be learning more about 10 this site as we operate it. And as we know more, that 11 monitoring program may have to be changed to account 12 for the new information we have. We realize that and are 13 clearly willing to work with your staff on that. And, 14 again, the WDR's were issued in 1995. They reference 15 Subchapter 15, Title 27. So there's some updating that 16 needs to occur on those, probably this Spring. We'll be 17 before you with WDR's for that. 18 MS. WAY: Just a question. Why the delay on the rail 19 line? Was there a funding issue, or -- I would assume you 20 would be building the rail line at the same time. 21 MR. ASGIAN: Part of it has to do with our 22 negotiations with the rail company. They're going to be 23 potentially operating on that line. Until we have a firm 24 agreement, MOU with them, but until we have the nitty gritty 25 spelled out, we might not -- that certainly plays into the 113 1 delay. 2 MR. HAYS: That's part of the third rail development 3 part of that portion? 4 MR. ASGIAN: That could be. I'm not that tied in with 5 that though. Again, my function up to this point has been 6 Regional Board issues, water quality issues for this site. 7 And I'm going to be transitioning from that function and 8 that's going to be taken over by Brian Louie here. 9 I've recently taken over -- I'm the Operation 10 Sections Head for the Sanitation District now. So I'm in 11 charge of the direct day-to-day operations of all of our 12 solid waste landfill, transfer stations, et cetera. When 13 we get this facility up and running, that will be my new 14 responsibility. 15 MR. HAYS: Are you moving to Imperial County? 16 MR. ASGIAN: We'll see. Any other questions? That's 17 all I have prepared. 18 MR. DAVIS: Eagle Mountain Landfill; do you own that? 19 MR. ASGIAN: We do not own it right now. We have an 20 option to purchase that site. That site is still wrapped up 21 in federal litigation on, I believe, some EPA issues as 22 well as some land exchange issues. And that's been tied up 23 in federal courts for quite a while, and I haven't heard any 24 update on it. 25 MR. DAVIS: This doesn't take its place, necessarily? 114 1 MR. ASGIAN: Say that again? 2 MR. DAVIS: This does not necessarily take the place of 3 Eagle Mountain? 4 MR. ASGIAN: No. 5 MR. DAVIS: You still have designs on developing that 6 or possibly purchasing that? 7 MR. ASGIAN: All I can say really is that the disposal 8 capacity used in Los Angeles County, even with full 9 compliance with 8939 recycling -- the long-term needs in 10 excess of the permitted capacity of Mesquite. And, you 11 know, just because of all of the development within the 12 metropolitan area, the possibility of new landfills being 13 built there is slim to none. 14 And so remote facilities are going to be needed. 15 Is it Eagle Mountain or is it some other? Time will tell 16 on that. This is a certainty that we have. 17 MS. WAY: Another question. Would you mind asking him 18 after. I'm sorry, because we don't have time. Any other 19 questions? Thank you for being here. We appreciate it. 20 Okay, now we are going to go to the Informational 21 Update on Bull Enterprises. Cliff Raley. 22 MR. RALEY: Madam Chair, Cliff Raley, again. To 23 refresh your memory a little bit, in September of '08, we 24 came before you. We had done a review of the Bull Holding 25 Corporation Facility on Bowker Road. As you recall, Acacia 115 1 Canal runs parallel to Bowker Road and it is also a source 2 of drinking water for the Meadows School, located about three 3 quarters of a mile up from the facility. 4 One of the issues that we've had was, does this 5 facility impact that surface water as a source of drinking 6 water for the school? And, as Mr. Forney pointed out, 7 Mr. Forney is the owner/operator of this facility, pointed 8 out that about 19 years of data indicates that -- I'm sorry. 9 About 12 years of data indicates that the facility has not 10 increased the fecal coliform bacterial concentration in the 11 Acacia Canal, and therefore requested that it be elimination 12 or at least the reduction in the surface water monitoring 13 requirements. 14 At the time, Regional Board staff was concerned 15 about upgrading that location what that locating being 16 affected of other potential sources of bacteria upgrade. 17 Following our September Board meeting, Regional 18 Board Staff met with Mr. Forney and we arranged, that's a 19 very big time of the year for him, and asked if we could 20 contact him after November 15th. I did on November, excuse 21 me, on December 15th. I inspected the facility. I met with 22 their representative. I observed their sampling methodology 23 and sampling locations and the process seemed very good. 24 The location that they were actually sampling, the 25 upgradient did not appear to be in a location that could be 116 1 affected by stagnant water. It looked good. It looked like 2 they were sampling a good location. It proved false and 3 everything looked fine. 4 And also, Mr. Forney provided some data showing 5 that the fecal coliform concentration to the raw material 6 that they were testing at that time had very low 7 concentrations of fecal coliform in the order of three, 8 probably noted for grain. 9 I also contacted the California Department of 10 Public Health, the drinking water staff. I explained the 11 situation. I explained our concerns of what's going on. I 12 asked them if they could give me recommendations. 13 These are their recommendations: They suggested 14 that we monitor surface water during and after storm events. 15 They also suggested that surface water monitoring may be 16 treated by certain criteria. And they also suggested that 17 if monitoring indicates there isn't an incident of the fecal 18 coliforms downgradient, but that they not only contact the 19 Regional Board, but that they should also contact the local 20 department of public health and also the school systems 21 operator if they were ever to exceed. 22 I want to say that composting facilities are -- 23 they're kind of a difficult area to regulate because they 24 don't fit right into the regulations of black and white; 25 they are kind of the gray area. What we want to do is do 117 1 something that protects water quality and also to do 2 something that is consistent with what we're doing at 3 other composting facilities. 4 You know, this compost facility is not a dairy. 5 And there are hundreds of dairies, thousands, within the 6 state. And those are different issues. They are being 7 looked at. They are -- there could be a tremendous source 8 of nitrates particular to ground water and bacteria as 9 well. But anyway, I want to say this is a different issue. 10 We're dealing with a commercial composting 11 facility and so what I would like to do -- the Regional 12 Board staff would tell you that we want to do the right 13 thing. It's just -- we want to do the right thing. We want 14 to look at reducing the monitoring. They are currently 15 doing weekly monitoring. I agree to this point based on 16 expensive data that that should be reduced. And I'm 17 thinking something in the course of quarterly monitoring. 18 Which is less than -- more than a 90 percent reduction in 19 this monitoring. 20 I would also like to prepare new monitoring 21 requirements that require observational monitoring. Like 22 during a storm event, that may not necessarily trigger that 23 you go sample but at least require that you go and 24 investigate. Make some observations. You have this surface 25 water -- also, are there any spills? Those kinds of things 118 1 would trigger some monitoring. 2 And I would also like to -- I've already done some 3 review of other composting facilities, and we need to do 4 something that is consistent with similar type facilities. 5 And I want to emphasize that other composting facilities -- I 6 don't want to get in an argument that it's not being treated 7 like a dairy. That is it. 8 And I would also like to -- whenever we propose 9 something, that we bring it back before you because this is 10 contentious. You know, I would like to have your judgment 11 on that. 12 MS. WAY: Thank you. Appreciate that. Before we go, 13 does anyone have any questions for Mr. Raley? 14 MR. HAYS: Does Mr. Forney have any questions? 15 MS. WAY: He's going to come up. Any questions for 16 Mr. Raley? Okay. Mr. Forney, you didn't fill out a card. 17 Do you want to come up? Please come up. 18 MR. FORNEY: Just a quick comment. 19 MR. VANDENBERG: Madam Chair, didn't I also say that as 20 we discussed prior to the meeting, this is an informational 21 action. No action is being required of the Board. 22 MS. WAY: Yes, yes. I was going to say that. If you 23 could just give your perspective, but we're not debating 24 this because it's not an issue. 25 MR. FORNEY: No, I understand. Garry Forney, Bull 119 1 Enterprises, Bull Holdings, 1701 Bowker Road, El Centro. 2 Mr. Raley and I have been in contact with each other as well 3 as Mr. Perdue. In a meeting that we had prior, they asked 4 for data, we merged more data in regards to the testing that 5 he had asked for, which kind of lends itself to what we had 6 been saying all along. 7 My only concern, however, over this is, while, yes, 8 I applaud their realization that perhaps reduction would be 9 in order, what I am concerned about are these triggering 10 mechanisms that water -- that he's gotten recently, and I 11 guess he just got the data yesterday. Wherever -- from 12 public water or wherever he got that from. 13 It needs to also be pointed out that the initial 14 design of the facility, as far as surface water, there were 15 specific details that were put into the design that where we 16 had constructive burns so that no water, surface water, can 17 leave there. There's a dedicated three acres for a retention 18 field, which quite frankly, my wife is a little upset about 19 because it's open here by the trees and stuff. 20 We wanted to make that a nice looking facility, but 21 it's your guy's retention pond. But anyway, all these issues 22 have kind of been covered a long time ago. And we look 23 forward to hopefully getting this changed. My question to 24 you is, do they change it or do we have to go back through 25 and present this document to the Board or how does this get 120 1 handled from here on? 2 MR. VANDENBERG: I'd like to just make a comment before 3 the Board. We accept public participation at the hearing 4 process. So that you can provide comment, or we can provide 5 comment and be duly considered at the public hearing. 6 MS. WAY: So if they agree today, can we move that 7 forward so it will be before us at the next meeting? 8 MR. VANDENBERG: We can't. This is just an 9 informational update. There is no agreements to be reached 10 today. It's just to say that they met with Mr. Forney, they 11 are working on these issues. When they work out something 12 long range, then they can bring it back to the Board 13 formally. There is a public participation process required. 14 MS. WAY: But he has gone on the record. If you're 15 willing to concur with his recommendations that we have -- 16 MR. RALEY: To a certain degree. There's a couple 17 issues in there that, again, I would disagree with. I mean, 18 he's suggesting quarterly, and we had suggested total 19 elimination. But as I told him and I told you as mediator, 20 Mr. Perdue, I had met with Meadow School on a number of 21 occasions. They would like to see us do something 22 semi-annually, and I concur with that because they're a 23 neighbor of mine and they've been neighbors of mine for 24 12 years now. So we want to do the right thing, but on the 25 same side, we don't want -- my concern is cluttering the 121 1 system with information that isn't really relevant. 2 MR. PERDUE: I would just say that we're hoping to come 3 to an uncontested item in front of this Board. 4 MR. RALEY: I guess I would like to see the Board 5 continue to push the staff along, and we kind of get this to 6 a resolution in the very near future. 7 MS. WAY: That's what I'm saying. Let us know today 8 that you can move forward with these arrangements. After 9 you set up a reduction in testing time. We can get -- 10 MR. PERDUE: No, no. 11 MR. RALEY: I don't agree to everything -- 12 MS. WAY: No, no. I'm saying -- 13 MR. RALEY: The bases are there. 14 MR. PERDUE: Let them work it out. 15 MR. ANGEL: What we did, Madam Chair, we took several 16 steps back. We engaged with the Department of Public Health 17 with their expertise and jurisdiction orders and the Water 18 Treatment Plant to provide us with their regulatory 19 detective work -- 20 MR. PERDUE: I'm going to take executive privilege 21 here. I'd like to -- everybody said everything. I want my 22 staff to work in good conscious with Mr. Forney and it 23 sounds like Mr. Forney will work in good conscious with 24 Mr. Raley. And we hope to come to you with a consent item 25 at some point. 122 1 MR. FORNEY: Okay. Thank you very much. 2 MR. VANDENBERG: Madam Chair, I just wanted to clarify 3 or get clarification regarding whether result action was 4 taken on the resolution. It wasn't quite clear to me. 5 MS. WAY: We can do that again. 6 MR. VANDENBERG: Ms. Barns pointed out that she didn't 7 have a vote count and I think she's correct. 8 MS. WAY: On the Marin Resolution. No, no. Robert 9 just told me that. I thought we made a motion. You don't 10 have motion and second, Terry? 11 MS. BARNES: No. 12 MS. WAY: Is there a motion to approve to adopt Board 13 Resolution R7-2009 -- I'm sorry. 14 MR. HAYS: Move. 15 MR. POST: Second. 16 MS. WAY: -- 0017. Moved by Jeff, seconded by 17 Mr. Post. All those in favor signify by saying, "Aye." 18 THE BOARD: Aye. 19 MS. WAY: Opposed? Okay. Next, we're going to 20 informational update on the Basin Planning Activities. 21 John Rokke. 22 MR. ROKKE: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Board Members. 23 My name is John Rokke. I'm on the Board of Resources, 24 Control Engineer currently assigned to the Basin Planning 25 Unit. I'm going to give you a brief update on what our unit 123 1 is working on currently. 2 Currently, we have seven separate basin plan 3 amendments that we are working on in some fashion or form. 4 The first is an amendment to use a single indicator bacteria, 5 specifically E-coli in the Coachella Valley Stormwater 6 Channel to protect human health and the water contact 7 recreation beneficial use, Rec-1, as it's known in the 8 basin plan. 9 This requires amending the basin plan to remove 10 water quality objectives in the Stormwater Channel for all 11 the fecal coliform, which includes enterococci and fecal 12 streptococcus. 13 The second thing we are working on is the 14 amendment to suspend that Rec-1 water contact beneficial use 15 in the Stormwater Channel when there are critical quotes 16 caused by storm water events. The third and forth and fifth 17 items that we're working are conditional prohibitions of Ag 18 discharges for the Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley and 19 the Bard Valley. 20 The sixth item is an amendment to conditionally 21 prohibit septic tanks in the town of Yucca Valley. 22 And lastly, staff is completing an amendment to 23 correct an update basin plan, parts of which have not been 24 revised since 1984. I just wanted to talk very briefly 25 about some of the meetings that have been going on. 124 1 Basin Planning Staff has met with the National 2 Weather Service in San Diego and confirmed with a 3 metrologist there about the methodology they use to issue 4 different levels of flood warnings in the Coachella Valley. 5 This could very well become the scientific underpinnings 6 of the Stormwater Channel's amendment to suspect Rec-1 7 because of those flash flood watches. 8 Staff attended the Economic Stimulus Workshop 9 yesterday up in Riverside. Mr. Muzik was in attendance as 10 well as the post of Brawly I saw there. It was a huge turn 11 out, standing room only. They actually had to hold a second 12 event. 13 There are so many public entities interested in 14 getting in on some of this economic stimulus money that 15 looks like it's coming down the pike. The meeting was held 16 by the State Board's Division of Financial Assistance, 17 which estimates that California may receive $425 million. 18 Which is about current -- double the current value from 19 what's known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill 20 that was introduced to Congress last Thursday. 21 The new administration commitment is that this 22 money be disbursed through existing programs with the State. 23 In our State, that means it'll go through the State Revolving 24 Fund Program. They're really looking for what they call 25 "shovel ready projects." Projects that are ready to go and 125 1 will have an immediate impact. 2 Some of the incentives that are going to be 3 included are listing terms: Principal forgiveness, negative 4 interest rates, and grants. So the Department of Financial 5 Assistance stressed that the specifics of this program is 6 still under development and it is a very dynamic situation. 7 But Congress intends to finalize the Bill in the next couple 8 of weeks. As I said, it was standing room only. Hundreds 9 and hundreds of people out there. 10 Okay. Now back to the projects. Just a little 11 bit about each one. The bacteria indicate amendment staff. 12 Staff is progressing with the amendment to reduce the number 13 of bacteria indicators in the Stormwater channel to just 14 E.Coli, which has been shown by USEPA, studied to be the most 15 reliable indicator of pathogens in Rec-1 waters. A draft 16 copy of the Staff Report, the Amendment, the Resolution, and 17 the Check List are currently under internal review. 18 MS. WAY: When do you expect to see that? 19 MR. ROKKE: Later this year, probably. I'm not sure of 20 the exact date. It depends on how their review process 21 goes. 22 But for the critical flow amendment, staff is 23 continuing to work to develop a methodology to suspend that 24 Rec-1 beneficial use during storm events. We're collecting 25 information on the flood warnings and the scientific methods 126 1 used by the National Weather Service to issue flood warnings 2 such as radar and satellite data. 3 Basin Planning Staff is collaborating with the 4 National Weather Service to explore a gap in one of their 5 predicting models to the Coachella Stormwater Channel. If 6 successful, it would be the first waterways in the Colorado 7 River Basin Region to utilize a National Weather Service 8 developed adapted predicted model. 9 It was derived from their, what's called their 10 Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service. They have information 11 that's currently available on the Internet for other rivers 12 closer to the Coast. The Stormwater Channel would be the 13 first in our region, as I said. 14 For the Palo Verde amendment, the documents, 15 draft amendments, staff reports, CEQA checklist in support 16 of the conditional prohibition are currently under 17 management and legal review. The basin plan amendment is 18 slated to go before the Board for adoption in June of this 19 year. 20 For the Bard Valley and the Coachella Valley, 21 additional prohibition they're proceeding along in a 22 simultaneous path, and we're estimating that those 23 amendments will be ready for the Board in late 2010. 24 Yucca Valley Septic Prohibition. We are currently 25 awaiting final reports from the subcommittees of the Yucca 127 1 Valley Septic Technical Advisory Committee. Those, of 2 course, are due next month in February. Prior action list 3 TAC as installed as a technical advisory committee has been 4 hindered through cancellation of several meetings, lack of 5 quorum, actually a foot of snow one meeting recently caused 6 us to call it off. That amendment is schedule to go before 7 the Board September of this year. 8 And then the updates. This is kind of a catch all 9 at the end. Per issue nine of the 2007 review, we're in 10 the process of updating outdate information on the basin 11 plan, such as maximum contaminants levels, MCL's, discussion 12 concerning the Salton Sea restoration efforts, New River 13 Pollution, and the recently completed Mexicali II Wastewater 14 Treatment Facility, groundwater recharge in the Coachella 15 Valley and so on. Staff plans to complete this amendment or 16 this current batch of updates by the end of this year, 2009. 17 Any questions? Thanks. 18 MS. WAY: Okay. Informational updates on State Water 19 Board Activities, which Tom makes me put all that in writing. 20 Should I highlight that for you? 21 MR. VANDENBERG: I'm just going to highlight that in 22 writing because there's a lot of information. If you have 23 time to look at it and if there's questions you think ahead 24 of, I'll try. I will talk about just a couple things in the 25 interest of the time. 128 1 The State Water Board is in the process of looking 2 to fill Gary Wolf's vacancy as a State Board member because 3 he resigned. There are still on going prospects. As we 4 know, a couple of people have expressed interest but are not 5 quite sure what the timing is going to be for when that can 6 be filled. 7 They're looking to fill it as soon as possible. 8 But at any rate, there is a time limit in which the Governor 9 needs to appoint somebody within the six to eight window 10 after there -- well, sorry. There are two parts. One is, 11 Francis Webber's terms that have expired and there is 60 12 days to reappoint them. 13 By all indications, they probably will be 14 reappointed. The third is to fulfill Gary Wolf's vacancy. 15 And they are on that process. Right now they're kind of 16 dealing with the economic situation and it's kind of 17 "stay tuned" at this point as to how that's all going to 18 work its way out. 19 There are a number of policies here that are being 20 considered for adoption workshops, et cetera, water board 21 policy. There is a statewide Bacterial Objective Board for 22 contact recreation in fresh waters of California. That's 23 started. The process is in the very early process. 24 What's interesting, and this is something Robert's 25 going to talk about, too, but is the result of the downturn 129 1 of the economy that the Director has indicated that we will 2 need to cut back on what we can do as a State Water Board 3 because of the lack of funds and furlough days, et cetera, 4 if that does go through. 5 And so some of these policies like the statewide 6 bacteria objective may be put back in the lower priority and 7 other things that are more advanced. It's kind of a strange 8 plan. We're going to have to agree to that. There are 9 things to figure out those priorities. Maybe reschedule 10 priorities. 11 Water quality portion policies. They're actually 12 working on that. That's pretty important, so that's probably 13 going to continue. Onsite wastewater treatment systems, that 14 type of information. It may have been in the newspaper; 15 everybody hates it. The public in general. A lot of people 16 are really upset about it. You can see what I wrote about 17 that. But at any rate, that looks like it. It's a difficult 18 task. 19 We did have oral arguments in the California 20 Supreme Court in the Brombo case. This is where we had a 21 temporary injunction. All I can say is that a few of us 22 were selected, not me, to attend the oral argument. The 23 justices were very harsh, I guess, towards the plaintiff and 24 indicating to him that his relying on one single case that 25 poor business issued is a separate function. 130 1 They didn't really feel that that was a very 2 strong authority. It was particularly not a very sufficient 3 authority case. A decision was required to be issued within 4 90 days of the oral argument. So we are figuring -- or we're 5 hoping to hear sooner than later, but the oral argument 6 appeared not that favorable towards us, but you never know 7 how things turn out. 8 It's an important enough issue that the 9 California Supreme Court felt that, because not only was the 10 burden on the State Water Board in party interest, but on 11 all of the administrative agencies, all other state 12 departments, et cetera, to require separate functions 13 particularly unique in our situation that that would be a 14 very huge financial burden and there -- the basic question 15 was, was it really necessary to protect the rights of the 16 individuals, the due process? So, however, that's going to 17 be very interesting to see how that turns out. 18 I'd like to just quickly comment a little on a 19 visit with Jose Angel. I attended a trip with him and, 20 Mike, a Regional Staff person. We went on a tour of the New 21 River and the Mexicali terrain. This was the more extensive 22 tour that they do twice a year? 23 MR. ANGEL: Monthly. 24 MR. VANDENBERG: Oh, okay, monthly. But they gave me 25 the bigger tour. Right. I haven't had a lot of this -- 131 1 That's where Mr. Angel can comment -- history about how 2 relations went, but he did explain that things have 3 improved considerably in terms of working with the Mexican 4 counterparts. Ms. Morales came here today, and she is a 5 good example of the good relationship that Mr. Angel has 6 developed with the U.S. International Boundary Commission 7 Section and the Mexican Section of the International 8 Boundary Water Commission. 9 At any rate, it was very enlightening to see what 10 they have done, but the New River contributories, there were 11 still a number of issues. We did see a slaughterhouse that, 12 when they saw a bunch of us there, all the red waste water 13 suddenly got turned off. So that was problematic. 14 But other -- when I talk to others there, 15 they said it looked a lot better. Largely because of the 16 cooperation of the Mexican officials and their efforts to 17 try to clean up the New River and also because completion 18 of the Mexicali II project, which was significant. 19 Not only of restoring the large portion of 20 Mexicali but also, notwithstanding operating the existing 21 wastewater treatment. It is a work in progress, but it is 22 making progress and that's good news. 23 MS. WAY: Thank you. Can we table any more discussion 24 on that. Okay. Robert. 25 MR. HAYS: Thanks, Robert. 132 1 MR. ANGEL: Well said. 2 MR. PERDUE: You may have read there's a budget 3 crisis, if you haven't. There's everyone on here fighting 4 legislature, the management, the Governor. We don't know 5 how it's going to work out. Basically, we've got to cut 6 our general funds somehow. There's going to be layoffs, 7 furlough, nobody know. 8 But I do want to say to Board members, you will 9 probably get approached by people with grants and projects 10 that are state-funded. I've got a feeling that there may 11 be individuals where everything seems to be frozen. Even 12 with tank cleanup programs, because the 1.4 cents per gallon 13 in that's put into the program to up the leaking tanks and 14 that's maybe not a lot of money because there's an economic 15 deal to it. 16 If you're approached, you know, this Regional Board 17 does not have any say in the matter. But we're just seeing 18 the beginning of the end. 19 For example, Mission Springs Water District has 20 spent two million bucks based on us giving them money and 21 that's just been frozen. So there -- it's not -- as you all 22 know and you're all involved in big projects, once you start 23 turning off the money valve on -- that is about it. We are 24 trying to do our best. Again, I think the mantra of the 25 state workers, as I recall right now, is we are lucky to 133 1 have jobs, and that's about all we got. 2 MS. WAY: Is that all? 3 MR. PERDUE: Yeah. 4 MS. WAY: Any Board members comment? 5 MR. MUZIK: I would just like to make a few comments 6 about attending the economic stimulus. I know here in the 7 past we've talked about small disadvantaged communities in 8 size. Yesterday they said it was 20,000 or less. That what 9 they're basing the grants on. They also talked about "shovel 10 ready plan," yet they don't have a definition of what is a 11 "shovel ready plan." 12 MR. ROKKE: Right. 13 MR. MUZIK: And the Department of Health doesn't have 14 their application to be submitted for this. And the other 15 thing; Prop. 84, $36 million was allocated to our region, the 16 Colorado region. And there is talk that there is going to 17 be $4 million available. 18 Currently there is only one integrated plan, that's 19 Mohave. Hydrogen Water District has plans. They have a 20 recharged process for waste water. Coachella Valley Water 21 District has not completed their integrated wastewater 22 management plan. So it looks like they won't be eligible at 23 this time. It will all go to Mohave. 24 MR. HAYS: Is anyone going tomorrow to what the EPA is 25 hosting? 134 1 MR. ANGEL: No, I actually met with Ms. Becks regarding 2 funding for some of her areas here yesterday. 3 MR. HAYS: The EPA is conducting a meeting tomorrow -- 4 MR. ANGEL: That's correct. 5 MR. HAYS: -- to try to bring in money for those state 6 directly through EPA, USEPA. 7 MR. ANGEL: Right. There's six billion dollars, I 8 believe, allocated in the stimulus package for USEPA. 9 MR. HAYS: And also for the USDA, so they'll be looking 10 to bringing water to all mobile home parks and tribes on the 11 East Valley. 12 MS. WAY: Are you going? 13 MR. HAYS: I will be doing it by teleconference. 14 MS. WAY: Is it important for one of us to be there? 15 MR. HAYS: I thought someone was on the list. I 16 thought I saw a name -- 17 MR. ANGEL: I think Doug Wiley is attending, I may be 18 wrong. But I will make sure that somebody tomorrow -- 19 MS. WAY: Do you think you could let us know? 20 MR. ANGEL: Yes. 21 MS. WAY: Any other Board comments? I don't have 22 anything to report, so our next meeting is Thursday, March 23 19th at 10:00 a.m. in Palm Desert. 24 MS. WAY: Is there a motion to adjourn? 25 MR. MUZIK: Motion. 135 1 MR. DAVIS: Second. 2 MS. WAY: Motion by Ed Muzik and seconded by Tom Davis. 3 All those in favor, say "Aye." 4 THE BOARD: Aye. 5 MS. WAY: Meeting adjourned. 6 (Hearing concluded at 2:45 p.m.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16