HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.12.26 Board Correspondence - FW_ Go Fuck Your Face.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:Soderstrom, Monica; Loeser, Kamie; Nuzum, Danielle; Mutony, Heather
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Go Fuck Your Face
Date:Thursday, February 12, 2026 5:03:09 PM
Please see Board Correspondence -
From: Andrew Merkel <ademco9787@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 9:22 AM
To: Pickett, Andy <APickett@buttecounty.net>; District Attorney
<District_Attorney@buttecounty.net>; Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Re: Go Fuck Your Face
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California (Shasta County), where bail was revoked and other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 unhealthful
conditions, which I reasonably believe 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