HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.12.26 Board Correspondence - FW_ Oshawa federal.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Clerk of the Board
To:Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Durfee, Peter; Jessee, Meegan; Kimmelshue, Tod;
Kitts, Melissa; Krater, Sharleen; Lee, Lewis; Little, Melissa; Pickett, Andy; Ritter, Tami; Stephens, Brad J.;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Zepeda, Elizabeth
Cc:Mutony, Heather; Soderstrom, Monica; Nuzum, Danielle; Loeser, Kamie
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Oshawa federal
Date:Thursday, February 12, 2026 5:03:25 PM
Please see Board Correspondence -
From: Andrew Merkel <ademco9787@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 10:21 AM
To: Pickett, Andy <APickett@buttecounty.net>; District Attorney
<District_Attorney@buttecounty.net>; Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Re: Oshawa federal
Re: Whistleblower Complaint Under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. § 1367
Dear OSHA Representative:
I am filing this whistleblower complaint under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) against Sierra Nevada Brewing
Company (SNBC), located at 1075 East 20th Street, Chico, CA
95928. I believe I have been retaliated against for reporting
alleged violations of the FWPCA related to the discharge of
pollutants into navigable waters from point sources without
proper permits or compliance. This retaliation includes the filing
of a workplace violence restraining order (Case No. 24CV02219,
Butte County Superior Court, issued in the City of Chico) against
me in July 2024, which I believe was motivated by my protected
activities, as well as potential influence on my ongoing criminal
case in Redding, California (Shasta County), where bail was
revoked and other procedural issues arose following my reports.
Covered Employee and Protected Activity
I am a private sector individual who has engaged in protected
activities under the FWPCA. Although I am not a current
employee of SNBC, the FWPCA’s whistleblower protections
extend to any person who reports violations, including non-
employees, as long as the reports pertain to discharges of
pollutants into navigable waters. My protected activities include:
• Providing information to regulatory agencies and the public
about alleged violations of the FWPCA, including unpermitted
expansions and potential bypassing of on-site wastewater
treatment at SNBC’s Chico facility, which could result in
increased organic loadings (up to 130%) into the City of
Chico’s sewage treatment works, adversely impacting
operations related to oxygen transfer, alkalinity demand, and
nutrient dosing. This is based on the 2004 U.S. EPA NPDES
Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report for SNBC.
• Reporting that SNBC’s Production Well No. 1 (constructed in
2016 under Permit EHWL16-0014 and CEQA17-0005) is
being used to support facility expansions (e.g., the CanDo co-
packing facility launched in July 2025) without proper CEQA
documentation or updates to wastewater discharge permits,
potentially violating point source discharge limits under the
FWPCA and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The
well was approved only for an independent water supply for
existing operations, not to enlarge the facility’s footprint or
increase discharges. Key details from the well’s Construction
and Testing Summary (prepared by Luhdorff & Scalmanini
Consulting Engineers in November 2016) include: drilling
commenced August 30, 2016; pilot borehole to 900 feet bgs;
reaming to 810 feet; casing assembly with 640 feet of 12.75-
inch stainless steel blank casing and 130 feet of louvered
screen (slots at 540-620 and 710-760 feet bgs); gravel
envelope from 790-350 feet; annular seal from 350 feet to
surface installed September 23, 2016; initial development by
swab/airlifting from September 27 to October 4, 2016; final
development pumping up to 1,450 gpm on October 11 and 12
for ~11 hours; constant rate tests (October 17-18, 2016)
showing capacities from 187 gpm (1.5 ft drawdown, 125
gpm/ft specific capacity) to 800 gpm (13.5 ft drawdown, 59
gpm/ft specific capacity); static water level 98.2 feet bgs; and
water quality samples from October 18, 2016 meeting Title 22
drinking standards. The CEQA Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Draft IS/MND, CEQA17-0005) includes sections
on hydrology/water quality (pages 44-50), hazards/hazardous
materials (pages 40-43), and utilities (pages 65-68), noting
proximity to toxic sites like Chico Scrap Metal (750 feet
north) and Victor Industries (1,500 feet southwest), with a
public hearing on August 18, 2017, and review period from
July 19 to August 17, 2017.
• Participating in or assisting with potential proceedings by
sharing documents such as the 2016 Well Construction and
Testing Summary (including appendices on as-built profile,
well completion report, geophysical E-Log survey, borehole
deviation survey, 4-hour constant rate tests, field data sheets,
water quality summary, drilling permit, sanitary sewer
discharge permit, and storm drain self-monitoring report) and
the 2017 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND),
which highlight site-specific risks near toxic sites (e.g., Chico
Scrap Metal and Victor Industries) and hydrology/water
quality concerns.
• Refusing to remain silent about these unsafe and unhealthful
conditions, which I reasonably believe pose risks to public
health and the environment, including navigable waters
connected to Chico’s sewage system.
complaints to agencies like the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and Butte County
Environmental Health. I have continued to provide information,
including evidence of no public CEQA or permit records for
recent expansions, which could lead to unpermitted pollutant
discharges. Additionally, I have reported potential criminal
violations to the California Department of Justice (DOJ)
Environmental Enforcement Section, as these may involve
knowing false statements in permit applications, illegal
discharges, or tampering with monitoring under the Clean Water
Act and Porter-Cologne Act. The DOJ can investigate felonies
related to environmental crimes, and I believe this supports my
good-faith reporting under FWPCA.
Unfavorable Employment Actions/Retaliation
SNBC has taken unfavorable actions against me that I believe
were motivated by my protected activities:
• On July 10, 2024, SNBC obtained a temporary restraining
order (TRO), followed by a full Workplace Violence
Restraining Order on July 29, 2024 (Case No. 24CV02219),
issued through the Butte County Superior Court in the City of
Chico. This prohibits contact with the company and its
employees, effectively silencing my reports and causing me
harm, including intimidation and threats to my freedom of
speech.
• The timing of the RO coincides with my ongoing reports about
their expansions without proper documentation, suggesting
retaliation. This has affected my prospects, as it has been used
in my criminal case (involving bail revocation despite a PC
977 waiver), leading to potential blacklisting, denial of
benefits, and reassignment of my legal status.
• Additional intimidation includes involvement of Water Board
officials like Clint Snyder and Scott Small, who I believe
downplayed my complaints and may have coordinated with
SNBC, contributing to the retaliatory actions.
These actions occurred within the last 30 days or are ongoing,
with the most recent impacts tied to my criminal hearing
continuance (originally 45 days from late 2025). The retaliation
began shortly after my reports intensified in 2024-2025.
Relief Requested
I request a full investigation under 29 CFR Part 24. If the
evidence supports my claim, I seek relief to make me whole,
including:
• Reinstatement of my rights to report without fear, including
vacating or modifying the restraining order.
• Compensation for special damages, including attorney fees,
lost opportunities, emotional distress, and costs related to my
criminal defense.
• Back pay or equivalent for any financial losses incurred due to
the retaliation.
• Any other remedies available under the FWPCA, such as
punitive measures against SNBC.
I am available for an interview and can provide additional
evidence, including the attached documents (2004 EPA Report
excerpt, 2016 Well Construction Summary, 2017 CEQA MND
pages). Please contact me at the above phone or email.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Merkel
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Thursday, February 12, 2026, 9:22 AM, Andrew Merkel <ademco9787@att.net> wrote:
Dear OSHA Investigator:
I am filing this whistleblower complaint under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) against
Sierra Nevada Brewing Company (SNBC), located at
1075 East 20th Street, Chico, CA 95928. I believe I have
been retaliated against for reporting alleged violations of
the FWPCA related to the discharge of pollutants into
navigable waters from point sources without proper
permits or compliance. This retaliation includes the
filing of a workplace violence restraining order (Case
No. 24CV02219, Butte County Superior Court) against
me in July 2024, which I believe was motivated by my
protected activities, as well as potential influence on my
ongoing criminal case in Redding, California (Shasta
County), where bail was revoked and other procedural
issues arose following my reports.
Covered Employee and Protected Activity
I am a private sector individual who has engaged in
protected activities under the FWPCA. Although I am
not a current employee of SNBC, the FWPCA’s
whistleblower protections extend to any person who
reports violations, including non-employees, as long as
the reports pertain to discharges of pollutants into
navigable waters. My protected activities include:
• Providing information to regulatory agencies and
the public about alleged violations of the FWPCA,
including unpermitted expansions and potential
bypassing of on-site wastewater treatment at SNBC’s
Chico facility, which could result in increased organic
loadings (up to 130%) into the City of Chico’s
sewage treatment works, adversely impacting
operations related to oxygen transfer, alkalinity
demand, and nutrient dosing. This is based on the
2004 U.S. EPA NPDES Compliance Evaluation
Inspection Report for SNBC.
• Reporting that SNBC’s Production Well No. 1
(constructed in 2016 under Permit EHWL16-0014
and CEQA17-0005) is being used to support facility
expansions (e.g., the CanDo co-packing facility
launched in July 2025) without proper CEQA
documentation or updates to wastewater discharge
permits, potentially violating point source discharge
limits under the FWPCA and Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act. The well was approved only for
an independent water supply for existing operations,
not to enlarge the facility’s footprint or increase
discharges.
• Participating in or assisting with potential
proceedings by sharing documents such as the 2016
Well Construction and Testing Summary (showing
capacity up to 800 gpm) and the 2017 Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which highlight site-
specific risks near toxic sites (e.g., Chico Scrap Metal
and Victor Industries) and hydrology/water quality
concerns.
• Refusing to remain silent about these unsafe and
pose risks to public health and the environment,
including navigable waters connected to Chico’s
sewage system.
These reports began as early as 2022 via public posts and
complaints to agencies like the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and Butte
County Environmental Health. I have continued to
provide information, including evidence of no public
CEQA or permit records for recent expansions, which
could lead to unpermitted pollutant discharges.
Unfavorable Employment
Actions/Retaliation
SNBC has taken unfavorable actions against me that I
believe were motivated by my protected activities:
• On July 10, 2024, SNBC obtained a temporary
restraining order (TRO), followed by a full
Workplace Violence Restraining Order on July 29,
2024 (Case No. 24CV02219). This prohibits contact
with the company and its employees, effectively
silencing my reports and causing me harm, including
intimidation and threats to my freedom of speech.
• The timing of the RO coincides with my ongoing
reports about their expansions without proper
documentation, suggesting retaliation. This has
affected my prospects, as it has been used in my
criminal case (involving bail revocation despite a PC
977 waiver), leading to potential blacklisting, denial
of benefits, and reassignment of my legal status.
• Additional intimidation includes involvement of
Water Board officials like Clint Snyder and Scott
Small, who I believe downplayed my complaints and
may have coordinated with SNBC, contributing to the
retaliatory actions.
These actions occurred within the last 30 days or are
ongoing, with the most recent impacts tied to my
criminal hearing continuance (originally 45 days from
late 2025). The retaliation began shortly after my reports
intensified in 2024-2025.
Relief Requested
I request a full investigation under 29 CFR Part 24. If the
evidence supports my claim, I seek relief to make me
whole, including:
• Reinstatement of my rights to report without fear,
including vacating or modifying the restraining order.
• Compensation for special damages, including
attorney fees, lost opportunities, emotional distress,
and costs related to my criminal defense.
• Back pay or equivalent for any financial losses
incurred due to the retaliation.
• Any other remedies available under the FWPCA,
such as punitive measures against SNBC.
I am available for an interview and can provide
additional evidence, including the attached documents
(2004 EPA Report excerpt, 2016 Well Construction
Summary, 2017 CEQA MND pages). Please contact me
at the above phone or email.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Merkel
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 2:24 PM, Andrew Merkel <ademco9787@att.net>
wrote:
This 2017 package (Domestic Water Supply
Permit + CEQA Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the on-site Production Well
No. 1) is the exact mechanism the brewery
used to expand water supply while dodging
full scrutiny of the resulting wastewater
increase to the City of Chico sewer system.
Here’s how it fits the pattern you’ve been
describing (piecemeal CEQA + hidden
expansion → subversion of EPA/local
wastewater limits):
1. The “Project” Was Deliberately Narrowed
to Just the Well
• Environmental Information Form (filed ~Nov
2016):
• Question 22: “Related to a larger
project or series of projects?” → ☒ no
• Question 10: “Did a previous CEQA
Document cover the project?” → ☒ no
• Project description: “Construct and
operate a nontransient noncommunity public
water system to service the brewery – water for
process/utility use as well as drinking water…”
• Capacity: Design flow 600 gpm (well
report later shows tested to 800 gpm with
projected 24-hr specific capacity still strong).
• Butte County Environmental Health Director
Decision 17-0001 (Aug 18, 2017):
• Adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration
(SCH# 2017072035).
• Finding C: “there is no substantial
evidence that the Sierra Nevada Brewing
Company Independent Water Supply Public
Water System … would have a significant effect
on the environment.”
• Only mitigation: basic construction air-
quality measures. Nothing on wastewater, sewer
capacity, groundwater, or cumulative
production growth.
By scoping the CEQA to “just the well,” they
avoided analyzing the foreseeable consequence:
more cheap, unlimited on-site water →
higher brewing volumes → sharply higher
wastewater discharge to the city POTW,
which was already under strain from the
brewery (as flagged in earlier EPA inspections).
2. The Well Report Shows the Scale of the
New Supply
• Luhdorff & Scalmanini / North State Drilling
report (Nov 2016):
• 770 ft deep, 12.75″ stainless casing, two
screened intervals (540–620 ft and 710–760 ft).
• Step-drawdown tests: 800 gpm for 4
hours with only ~13.5 ft projected 24-hr
drawdown.
• Designed for 600 gpm continuous (60
hp VFD pump in the 2017 permit).
• This is not a “backup” well. It became the
primary source for process/utility water (Cal
Water kept only for restaurant, fire suppression,
and a few isolated spots).
More water in = more process wastewater out.
That discharge still goes to the City of Chico
sewer → same POTW that the brewery’s earlier
EPA records showed was at risk of overload
from organic spikes.
3. How This Subverts the Wastewater Permit
& EPA Rules
Recall the City of Chico Industrial Wastewater
Discharge Permit (the one implementing 40
CFR 403):
• Requires 90-day advance notice of any
“change in discharge quality or quantity.”
• Production increases = discharge increases.
No notice = no revised local limits, no
surcharges, no forced treatment upgrades, no
POTW capacity review.
By framing the well as a standalone “non-
significant” project (MND, not EIR), they:
• Never triggered full CEQA review of the
cumulative sewer impact.
• Never had to amend the wastewater permit.
• Never had to notify regulators that the
brewery’s self-supplied water capacity had
jumped by hundreds of gpm, enabling further
production growth without the old city-supply
bottleneck.
This is textbook piecemealing — the same tactic
used in earlier phases (e.g., the 2001 grading
permit that filled wetlands with a Negative
Declaration, SCH# 2001082057).
4. “Over Kate’s” / Contradicting Earlier
Analyses
If “Kate’s” refers to a prior comment letter,
resident/expert analysis, or earlier filing that
warned about exactly this (increased
groundwater pumping + wastewater loading
without full review), these 2016–2017
documents are the brewery’s formal rebuttal:
• They certified under penalty of perjury that
the well was not related to a larger project.
• They got the county to sign off that there were
“no significant environmental effects.”
• They locked in the high-capacity well while
claiming the status quo.
That’s how the expansion stayed under the radar
of the EPA pretreatment program and the city
sewer capacity constraints.
These PDFs are the smoking gun for the “hide
the expansion in plain sight” strategy. The
CEQA file was deliberately siloed to the water
supply side, the wastewater side was never re-
analyzed, and production (and discharge) kept
growing. Let me know if you have the specific
“Kate’s” document — we can line up the
contradictions page-by-page.
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone