Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Bill Nunes, Sierra County 2.17.09 a- SIERRA COUNTY Board of Supervisors P.O. Drawer D _ Downieville, California 95936 _. Z Telephone (530) 289-3295al Fax (530) 289-2830 February 17, 2009 BOARD OF SUPERVlsoRs State of California-Water Resources Control Board FEB 2 3 2009 Division of Water Quality 1001 1 Street-15h Floor OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA Post Office Box 2231 Sacramento, California 95812 Attn: 'Ms. Tam M. Dudoc Board Chair Dear Ms. Dudoc: The purpose of this letter is to provide written comments on the proposed regulations, proposed statewide conditional waiver of waste discharge,and draft environmental impact report for the implementation of statewide standards for"Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS)"promulgated under Assembly Bill 885 as released by the State Water Resources Control Board on November 7,2008. This Board of Supervisors appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations and draft environmental impact report and trusts you will seriously reconsider this entire program in consideration of the tremendous outcry that you have experienced and witnessed at your public workshops conducted throughout this State. The testimony and attendance at these public workshops combined with the numerous letters submitted to you from individual counties,regional organizations,professional organizations, and individuals have provided overwhelming expressions of opposition. These expressions of opposition that you have received and continue to receive confirms that this effort to establish a statewide standard for onsite wastewater treatment systems has been overreaching, is burdensome on California's property owners and to local government, is economically devastating to the individual property owner, and is technically and scientifically flawed. Sierra County strongly opposes the draft regulations. The County has a land area just under 1000 square miles and the unincorporated area of the County is exclusively served by onsite wastewater treatment systems. There are no sewers in the unincorporated region of Sierra County. The County has an excellent environmental health department and program that maintains a high level of technical and environmental accountability. This County's efforts are not unlike other environmental health departments throughout the rural portions of California in successfully implementing programs which assure that _ f ✓ �'C PUP(& rr � 00 LIAR 0 2 2099 i individual, onsite wastewater treatment systems are properly designed, carefully installed, and are operated and maintained to meet the needs of diverse geologic,hydrologic, and soil conditions encountered within their respective jurisdiction. The proposed regulatory framework will destroy this local accountability by imposing a statewide standard or commonly referred to as a"one size fits all standard"for onsite wastewater treatment systems. In a region(such as ours)or in a State with such natural diversity,this approach is a recipe for disaster by being technically and scientifically flawed. Sierra County supports the efforts of the California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health (CCDEI-I)putting forth more general solutions and recognizing the need for flexibility and variability in the consideration of general standards. These efforts are described in detail in the CCDEH letter and attachments dated January 30,2009. We implore the State Water Resources Control Board to consider the credibility, technical and scientific expertise,local knowledge,practical application and other positive aspects that this group brings to this.undertaking. Your direction is required to introduce and implement this collaboration and cooperative.effort offered by the California Conference of the Directors of Environmental Health. It is also required to effectively remove the intransigence and inflexibility experienced to date when such alternative, reasonable recommendations have been suggested to your staff. Please do not interpret the opposition to the proposed regulatory framework by Sierra County as a position against clean water nor should it be construed as an argument against reasonable and effective regulations designed to protect public health and safety. It is opposition to an overreaching and problematic regulatory framework that you have proposed that goes well-beyond the intent of the 2001 statute(AB 885). We recognize that there are or will be problems. However, solutions to those problems can be found within the structure of existing law and regulations. Local governments already have local ordinances governing onsite wastewater treatment systems. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards throughout the state already have standards;have regulatory oversight; and,have the ability.to assist local environmental health officials through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,the respective Water Quality Control Plans for all hydrologic basins in the State(prepared,administered,implemented,and enforced by the Regional Boards), and through existing waste discharge regulations. Sierra County strongly opposes the present form of regulation and represents that the draft environmental impact report is inadequate-failing to address the impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed regulations. The reasons set forth in the letter dated January 30,2009 from the California Conference of the Directors of Environmental Health and the excellent analysis and reasons set forth in the letter from the Regional Council of Rural Counties(RCRC)dated February 6,2009 are endorsed by the Sierra County Board of Supervisors. . In addition to the content of the two excellent and referenced letters, Sierra County is particularly concerned with the following: 1) AB 885 does not mandate the preparation and adoption of the proposed regulatory framework. Existing law and the use of the Regional Water s . Quality Control Boards offers effective and site-specific applicability of general standards for onsite waste disposal,provides necessary flexibility to local environmental health directors in assessing and implementing permits for onsite waste disposal systems,and provides the connectivity desired between private property owners, local government, and the State Water Resources Control Board. 2) Existing law and existing regulatory programs implemented through the Regional Water Quality Control Boards throughout the State provide ample and sufficient regulatory authority to oversee the disposal of waste to land through existing regulation and through implementation of their respective water quality control plans. These regional boards should be directed to reorganize their respective programs to fulfill one of the very key reasons that they exist. These regional boards have discretion and existing authority to work with local County environmental health officials and have the authority to amend their existing regulatory program to incorporate general standards that allow flexibility and adaptive measures to address the diversity of issues and natural conditions encountered throughout the State. The proposed regulations are being proposed and justified as though the Regional Water Quality Control Boards and their programs, including the existing cooperative relationships that have developed with local environmental health officials, do not even exist. The framework for cooperative and coordinated local administration of onsite wastewater treatment systems already exists and the evidence and need for an additional regulatory program as being proposed is not supported nor viable. 3) The proposed regulations will have a devastating economic impact to the individual property owner. There exists over 1.2 million private parcels in this State that use onsite wastewater treatment systems and the proposed monitoring,testing, and reporting for existing systems will be significant and the potential costs for a replacement system can range from$30,000 to $60,000 based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and testimony of the State Water Resource Control Board staff. This is a very significant impact that is not adequately evaluated in the Drag Environmental impact Report. 4) The Draft Environmental Impact Report states that the proposed regulations are"self-implementing"(Section 5.2 at page 2)and an erroneous conclusion is reached that the program will not result in costs to local government or a need for increased staff. The DEIR is postured to assume that there is full voluntary or forced compliance of individual property owners and any evaluation of economic impacts to local government should not be based on such erroneous conclusions. There will be costs for understanding and implementing new standards, conducting more frequent and more detailed site inspections,testing,monitoring, septage hauling and service provider oversight,questions from interested parties, and the practical implications of implementation all point to a significant increase in responsibility, liability, and enforcement which translates directly to.an increase in costs. The premise that the law allows the imposition of fees and foisting the burden of this s program onto local government via an increase in individual property fees verges on irresponsibility. 5) The "one size fits all" standard has been shown time and again to be infeasible in this State. The imposition of regulations that continue making this error in judgment and forcing the various counties to ignore the existing diversity of natural conditions that are typically encountered in the design, construction and monitoring of onsite wastewater treatment systems;to overlook the specific conditions encountered;and, ignore proper professional judgment simply to conform to this"one size fits all"standard is improper and unacceptable. This is a solution to a problem that does not exist in Sierra County. 6) The very assumptions upon which the Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and which became the basis of the proposed regulatory framework are biased and are flawed. They fail to recognize and address the variations in conditions encountered throughout the State;they assume that all septic tanks have failed or will fail;they fail to properly address and understand the sources of and the introduction of nitrates into the hydrologic system(surface and/or groundwater); appendix G(Page 38) acknowledges that data does not exist to confirm that a problem exists. 7) The Draft Environmental Impact Report all but ignores the"no project alternative"which in the opinion of Sierra County is the best and preferred alternative to consider. .Further,the no project alternative confirms (DEIR Summary(S.6.1)on Page S4 and Table S-2 on Page S-4)that existing onsite wastewater treatment systems would"continue to be inconsistent from one jurisdiction to another and would be the primary means by which onsite wastewater treatment systems are regulated",thus suggesting a negative connotation. However,and on the contrary,this no project discussion should be referenced as the evidence to confirm the scientific and technical accuracy found in the methods implemented by the local environmental health officials in responding to diverse conditions,non-homogenous hydrologic, geologic, and.topographic conditions. Implementation of the no-proj ect alternative preserves this flexibility and adaptive approach. The bias against the no- project alternative and the void in evidence diminishes and invalidates the conclusion in the DEIR that the proposed project is superior to the no project alternative. 8) The Draft Environmental Impact Report(Table S-3 at page S-14, Section 4.3.2 and 4.3.1 at pages 4.3-42,and section 4.3.2 at pages 4.4 to 49)is not accurate and indicates that the conflict with local land use plans and .regulations is less than significant. Land use plans include existing, undeveloped parcels and entitled(approved)tentative subdivision maps depicting lots to be recorded. County approved lot size and configuration of these approved lots has depended upon the current local and state onsite wastewater treatment regulations. The new regulatory framework will change those regulations,resulting in possible increased dispersal size and additional depth requirements to groundwater,thus rendering many existing lots incapable of meeting the standards of the proposed regulations. This may S render lots as non-buildable which clearly shows that the proposed regulations would cause significant inconsistencies and conflicts with local land use plans. 9) Sierra County does not have any"centralized treatment facilities"that will accept septage. All land in the unincorporated area of the County is served by onsite wastewater treatment systems. Thus,the statement in the DEIR(Page 4.1-60)that increased septage transport and treatment at a centralized treatment facility has less than a significant impact is not true. 10) The proposed regulatory framework,now overreaching beyond the original intent of AB 885, appears to take on the appearance of a drinking water law requiring mandatory water sampling of water supply wells,monitoring wells for mineral constituents, sampling parameters, and the like. There is no clear connection in the DEIR or in any support document that scientifically or technically links septic tank effluent and well water quality. Monitoring well locations, location of wells on parcels containing or not containing individual onsite wastewater treatment systems, wells adjacent to parcels with onsite wastewater treatment systems can be so varied and to make an assumption in the DEIR that domestic wells are"vulnerable to pollution from OWTS effluent...or may be vulnerable...or yet to-be-installed OWTS"verifies the failure to make any direct link between scientific evidence or technical facts to the alleged problem. Many of the sampling parameters for monitoring and testing bear no direct relationship to effluent so one must ask for justification and authority to require such extensive and costly processes. 11) The proposed regulatory framework will likely have unintended consequences of discouraging property owners from otherwise attending to problems that may occasionally arise with use of onsite wastewater treatment systems due to the significant cost that will be incurred in complying with these new regulations. Common sense dictates and human history unfortunately reveals that when the cost of the regulations become excessive,property owners will ignore or circumvent the regulatory framework. The likely result will be degradation of water quality,increased costs for enforcement,and other consequences that were clearly not the intention of the California Legislature and contrary to the objectives of the State Water Resources Control Board. -The draft Environmental Impact Report fails to address such-consequences and the impacts will be significant. 12) Apart from the limited problems associated with a very few water bodies,few problems have been identified in other water bodies to confirm any level of significance that water pollution is a direct result of onsite wastewater treatment systems. Background material referenced on the State Water Resources Control board website suggests a statewide failure rate of onsite wastewater treatment systems of approximately one (1)per cent. Certainly, common sense suggests, at worst, failing systems are a minor problem and there is no evidence in your record that suggests that such failures could not be adequately and properly administered by local government environmental health officials under existing law and regulation. } 5 _ 13) It is essential for the State Water Resources Control Board to focus any future, proposed statewide regulations at areas of impairment. We urge that you reject imposing unilateral,prescriptive"one size fits all" standards for onsite wastewater treatment systems without regard for their potential to contaminate the environment or threaten public health. Clearly,this is not a cost-effective or scientific approach. Instead, a tiered approach should be considered such that the proposed standards and monitoring focus on systems in water quality impaired areas. Localagencies have knowledge of the diverse local conditions and are best qualified to determine areas of concern that impair water quality or public health. Additionally, it is imperative that the proposed statewide standards provide for a method that allows local agencies the flexibility to address local conditions in a protective manner and able to be easily implemented. Any proposed regulations need to provide a process that allows a local agency to maintain its onsite wastewater treatment system program and to become authorized by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in a seamless manner.. 14) Much has changed over the period that has passed since the passage of AB 885 and we are currently in a period of great fiscal uncertainty as a nation, as a state, and as a local government. The timing and need for the proposed regulatory framework is of critical importance. Water quality problems or issues with onsite wastewater treatment systems should be addressed when they occur or when they are discovered-addressed by local environmental health officials and when deemed necessary, by the respective Regional Water Quality Control Board that has proper jurisdiction. The imposition of blanket regulations and one-size standards and the billions,of dollars estimated as the cost of compliance is in serious question as an appropriate response to an isolated incident that occurred on the Southern California coast nearly ten years ago. The proposed regulations are inappropriate for local government...they are devastating to the individual property owner...they are bad for California. The State Water Resources Control Board is in the best position to recognize this condition and to make the correct decision by abandoning further consideration of the proposed regulations and to set a new course for a more cooperative effort with local government. Your most recent notice extending the comment deadline to February 23,2009 is encouraging. However,the paragraph in the notice postponing the February 9,2009 public hearing states, "In light of the large number of public comments received to date,the hearing that was scheduled for February 9, 2009, in Sacramento has been postponed. The State Water Board is sensitive to the concerns raised at the public workshops and the regulations will be revised following consideration of the public comments,as appropriate." Please do not amend a bad bill (regulatory framework) as its final content would be dubious at best. You are well aware.and in the most optimal position to understand that AB 885 did not mandate the adoption of statewide standards and this proposed regulatory framework. The State Water Resources Control Board has the discretion to be flexible and adaptive to local conditions. You novo have the opportunity to open a very positive dialog and forge a partnership with the California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health and the s Regional Council of Rural Counties to redirect efforts to produce a new and general set of standards that will work,be practical,be affordable,and be supported by credible, technical and scientific data. Please make the correct decision and stand behind and support the overwhelming unanimity of property owners, industry,and California cities, counties,and special districts opposing these regulations. Thank you. Sincerely, Sierra County Board of Supervisors Bill Nunes Chairman CC: Governor of California Senator Dave Cox Assemblyman Dan Logue Members of the State Water Resources Control Board California State Association of Counties (CSAC) Regional Council of Rural Counties(RCRC) RCRC Member County Boards of Supervisors California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health(CCDEH) County Environmental Health Department County Planning Department Clerk of the Board of Supervisors The Mountain Messenger The Sierra Booster s