HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-20 - AGENDA REPORTS - LACO WATER CIVIL COMPLAINT (2)Agenda Item
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
NEW BUSINESS City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by: Robert Newman
DATE: December 20, 2012
SUBJECT: REPORT FROM THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SANITATION
DISTRICT STAFF REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL
LIABILITY COMPLAINT FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND
POSSIBLE WRITTEN RESPONSE BY THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARITA
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council receive report from the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District staff regarding the
notice of administrative civil liability complaint issued by the Los Angeles County Regional
Water Quality Control Board, and direct staff to submit a letter on behalf of the City to the
Executive Officer of the Los Angeles County Regional Water Quality Control Board.
BACKGROUND
At the City Council meeting on December 11, 2012, Councilmember Boydston requested the
issue of the November 26, 2012, administrative civil liability complaint (see attachment) issued
by the Executive Officer of the Los Angeles County Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Regional Board) be agendized. This item is being presented at a special meeting as comments
from interested parties are due to the Regional Board by December 26, 2012.
At that same City Council meeting a question arose as to who among the Councilmembers
could participate in the discussion of such an agenda item, given that two of the
Councilmembers serve on and constitute a majority of the Sanitation District Board to whom
the civil liability complaint was directed. Further, an additional Councilmember serves as an
alternate to the Sanitation District Board.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54952.2(c)(4), the Brown Act allows a majority of one
legislative body (such as the Sanitation District) to attend the meeting of another legislative
body (such as the City Council) at an open and noticed meeting of the City Council, where the
subject matter jurisdiction of the two entities overlaps, where the discussion focuses on actions
to be considered by the City Council.
Here, the City Council would be considering whether or not to submit a comment letter to the
Regional Board in response to the administrative civil liability complaint's invitation to "the
public" to submit comments no later than December 26, 2012.
It is recommended a letter be submitted pursuant to the recommended action by the City on
behalf of the residents of the Santa Clarita Valley. The letter will include current concerns of
the community that the alternative ultimately approved by the Regional Board be the lowest
cost compliance option recognizing the Community's desire to protect the Santa Clara River,
downstream farming interests, taking into account the current plans for the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan and recognizing the source control measures undertaken. In addition, the
letter will express the City's desire that no fines be assesed against the community and should
any fines be imposed that they be applied to future compliance efforts and projects.
Staff from the Sanitation District will provide a report to City Council.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
None by this action.
ATTACHMENT
Administrative Civil Liability Complaint
M
e�
Water Boards
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
November 26, 2012
Ms. Grace Robinson Chan
Chief Engineer and General Manager
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, CA 90607-4998
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
7011 2970 0000 0645 2352
COMPLAINT NO, R4-2012-0160 AGAINST SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SANITATION
DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, VALENCIA WATER RECLAMATION. PLANT, 28185
THE OLD ROAD, VALENCIA, CA (ORDER NO. R4-2009-0074, NPDES PERMIT NO.
CA0054216, Cl 4993) AND SAUGUS' WATER RECLAMATION PLANT, 26200
SPRINGBROOK AVENUE, SANTA CLARITA, CA (ORDER NO. R4-2009-0075, NPDES
PERMIT NO. CA0054313, Cl 2960)
Dear Ms. Chan:
Enclosed is Complaint No. R4-2012-0160 for Administrative Civil Liability in the amount of
$280,250 against Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (hereinafter
Permittee) for violating requirements contained in Order Nos. R4-2009-0074 and R4-2009-0075.
Also enclosed is a copy of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles
Region (Regional Board) Notice of Public Hearing to Consider an Administrative Civil Liability
Complaint.
Unless waived, a hearing before the Regional Board or a Regional Board Hearing Panel
(Hearing Panel) will be held on this Complaint pursuant to California Water Code sections
13228.14 and 13323. Should the Permittee choose to waive its right to a hearing, authorized
representatives must sign the waiver form attached to Complaint No. R4-2012-0160 and return
it to the Regional Board by 5:00 pm on December 26, 2012. An agenda containing the date,
time, location, and specific procedures of the hearing will be mailed to you prior to the hearing
date.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Hugh Marley at (213) 620-
6375 or Ms. Jenny Newman at (213) 576-6691.
Sincerely,
Samuel Ungbr, P.E. ✓
Executive Officer
Enclosures: Complaint No. R4-2012-0160
Notice of Public Hearing
MARIA MEHR11I11, CMIA I SAM UNDER, CXCOIRIVL arWCFP
320 West 41h St., SWW 200, Lott A,t1W.1, CA 90043 I wwvcwal¢rboaztls.an.0ov/los¢np¢Ix¢
Eouuxo a. 9xewv Jn.
Mnaucw Pomuouex
6nvnH,xut uml
npmvcnox
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
7011 2970 0000 0645 2352
COMPLAINT NO, R4-2012-0160 AGAINST SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SANITATION
DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, VALENCIA WATER RECLAMATION. PLANT, 28185
THE OLD ROAD, VALENCIA, CA (ORDER NO. R4-2009-0074, NPDES PERMIT NO.
CA0054216, Cl 4993) AND SAUGUS' WATER RECLAMATION PLANT, 26200
SPRINGBROOK AVENUE, SANTA CLARITA, CA (ORDER NO. R4-2009-0075, NPDES
PERMIT NO. CA0054313, Cl 2960)
Dear Ms. Chan:
Enclosed is Complaint No. R4-2012-0160 for Administrative Civil Liability in the amount of
$280,250 against Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (hereinafter
Permittee) for violating requirements contained in Order Nos. R4-2009-0074 and R4-2009-0075.
Also enclosed is a copy of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles
Region (Regional Board) Notice of Public Hearing to Consider an Administrative Civil Liability
Complaint.
Unless waived, a hearing before the Regional Board or a Regional Board Hearing Panel
(Hearing Panel) will be held on this Complaint pursuant to California Water Code sections
13228.14 and 13323. Should the Permittee choose to waive its right to a hearing, authorized
representatives must sign the waiver form attached to Complaint No. R4-2012-0160 and return
it to the Regional Board by 5:00 pm on December 26, 2012. An agenda containing the date,
time, location, and specific procedures of the hearing will be mailed to you prior to the hearing
date.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Hugh Marley at (213) 620-
6375 or Ms. Jenny Newman at (213) 576-6691.
Sincerely,
Samuel Ungbr, P.E. ✓
Executive Officer
Enclosures: Complaint No. R4-2012-0160
Notice of Public Hearing
MARIA MEHR11I11, CMIA I SAM UNDER, CXCOIRIVL arWCFP
320 West 41h St., SWW 200, Lott A,t1W.1, CA 90043 I wwvcwal¢rboaztls.an.0ov/los¢np¢Ix¢
Ms. Grace Robinson Chan - 2 - November 26, 2012
SCVSD
Administrative Civil Liability Fact Sheet
cc: See mailing list
MAILING LIST
[via email only]
Samuel Unger, P.E., Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Jennifer Fordyce, Office of Chief Counsel, State Water Resources Control Board
Nicole Johnson, Office of Chief Counsel, State Water Resources Control Board
Julie Macedo, Office of Enforcement, State Water Resources Control Board
Michael Solomon, United Water Conservation District
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGION
In the matter of:
Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District of
Los Angeles County
Valencia Water Reclamation Plant
28185 The Old Road
Valencia, CA 91355 and
Saugus Water Reclamation Plant
26200 Springbrook Avenue
Santa Clarita, CA 91350
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE THAT:
Complaint No. R4-2012-0160
Administrative Civil Liability.for
Violation of California Water Code § 13385
And
Order Nos. R4-2009-0074
(NPDES Permit No. CA0054216) and R4-
2009-0075 (NPDES Permit No. CA0054313)
1. The Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (SCVSD or
Permittee) is alleged to have violated provisions of law for which the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Los Angeles Water Board) may
impose civil liability pursuant to Water Code section 13385.
2. Unless waived, a hearing on this matter will be held before the Los Angeles Water
Board, or a panel of Los Angeles Water Board members, within 90 days following
issuance of this Complaint. SCVSD or its representative (s) will have an opportunity to
address and contest the allegations in this Complaint and the proposed imposition of
administrative civil liability.
3. At the hearing, the Los Angeles Water Board will consider whether to affirm, reject, or
modify the proposed administrative civil liability, or whether to refer the matter to the
Attorney General for assessment of judicial civil liability.
_ :•
4. SCVSD owns and operates the Valencia Water Reclamation Plant (hereinafter Facility or
Valencia WRP), a tertiary wastewater treatment plant located at 28185 The Old Road,
Valencia, California. The facility has a design capacity of 21.6 million gallons per day
(mgd). The facility discharges tertiary -treated wastewater from Discharge Points 001 and
002 to the Santa Clara River, a water of the United States.
5. SCVSD also owns and operates the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant (hereinafter
Facility or Saugus WRP), a tertiary wastewater treatment plant located at 26200
S
Complaint No. R4-2012-0160
SCVSD
November 26, 2012
Springbrook Avenue, Santa Clarita, California. The facility has a design flow of 6.5
million gallons per day (mgd). The facility discharges tertiary -treated wastewater from.
Discharge Point 001 to the Santa Clara River, a water of the United States.
6. On May 6, 2004, the Los Angeles Water Board adopted Resolution No. 04-004, which
revised and adopted the Upper Santa Clara River Chloride Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL). This TMDL was approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (State
Water Board) on July 22, 2004; the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on November 15,
2004; and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on April 28,
2005. It became effective on May 4, 2005.
7. On December 11, 2008, the Los Angeles Water Board adopted Resolution No. R4-2008-
012, which adopted site specific chloride objectives and revised the Upper Santa Clara
River Chloride TMDL. This resolution was approved by the State Water Board on
October 20, 2009; the OAL on January 26, 2010; and the USEPA on April 6, 2010. It
became effective on April 6, 2010.
On June 4, 2009, the Los Angeles Water Board adopted Order No. R4-2009-0074
Waste Discharge Requirements for the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District of Los
Angeles County, Valencia Water Reclamation Plant Discharge to the Santa Clara River.
This Order became effective on July 24, 2009, and serves as National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0054216. Order No. R4-2009-
0074 incorporates the Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL Implementation Plan,
On June 4, 2009, the Los Angeles Water Board adopted Order No. R4-2009-0075
Waste Discharge Requirements for the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District of Los
Angeles County, Saugus Water Reclamation Plant Discharge to the Santa Clara River.
This Order became effective on July 24, 2009, and serves as National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0054313. Order No. R4-2009-
0075 incorporates the Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL Implementation Plan.
10. Order No. R4-2009-0074, Provision VI.C.8. (page 41) reads: "The discharger shall
comply with the applicable TMDL-related tasks, and future revisions thereto, in
Attachment K of this Order." Task No. 17(a) of Attachment K requires that by May 4,
2011, SCVSD complete a Wastewater Facilities Plan and Programmatic Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for facilities to comply with final effluent permit limits for chloride.
11. Order No. R4-2009-0075, Provision VI.C.S. (page 40) reads: "The discharger shall
comply with the applicable TMDL-related tasks, and future revisions thereto, in
Attachment K of this Order." Task No. 17(a) of Attachment K requires that by May 4,
2011, SCVSD complete a Wastewater Facilities Plan and Programmatic Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for facilities to comply with final effluent permit limits for chloride.
12. On May 2, 2011, SCVSD submitted a Wastewater Facilities Plan. The Wastewater
Facilities Plan was inadequate because it was not a plan for facilities to comply with final
effluent limits for chloride of 100 mg/L. Instead, the submitted Wastewater Facilities
Plan was intended to meet chloride .limits of 117 mg/L (when water supply
concentrations of chlorine are < 80 mg/L) and 130 mg/L (when water supply
concentrations of chlorine are z 80mg/L). However, according to the TMDL, chloride
limits of 117 mg/L and 130 mg/L only apply when chloride load reductions and/or
chloride export projects are in operation by the SCVSD. The submitted Wastewater
L
Complaint No, R4-2012-0160 3 November 26, 2012
SCVSD
Facilities Plan assumes application of chloride limits of 117 mg/L and 130 mg/L without
operation of chloride load reductions and/or chloride export projects. Additionally, the
Wastewater Facilities Plan assumes the TMDL will be revised to allow for chloride limits
of 117 mg/L and 130 mg/L without operation of chloride load reductions and/or chloride
export projects. Thus the submitted Wastewater Facilities Plan did not meet the
requirements of Task No. 17(a) of Attachment K of Order Nos. R4-2009-0074 and R4-
2009-0075.
13. On May 2, 2011, SCVSD submitted a copy of a Notice of Exemption from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. This Notice of Exemption did not meet the requirements
of Task 17(a) because it did not constitute a programmatic EIR for facilities to comply
with final effluent limits for chloride of 100 mg/L. Instead it was for facilities proposed in
the submitted Wastewater Facilities plan, which, as stated in Finding No. 12, does not
meet the requirements of Task No. 17(a) of Attachment K. Furthermore, the Notice of
Exemption is based on a determination by SCVSD that the submitted Wastewater
facilities Plan was a "planning study that describes possible actions that the agency has
not approved, adopted, or funded." The programmatic EIR was required to be prepared
for a Wastewater Facilities Plan that would meet final chloride effluent limits, not a study
of possible planning actions.
14. On May 27, 2011, the Los Angeles Water Board issued Notices of Violation (NOV) to
SCVSD for failure to complete Task 17(a) of Order No. R4-2009-0074 and R4-2009-
0075. The NOVs directed SCVSD to complete Task 17(a) for both of its facilities and
submit the Wastewater Facilities Plan and Programmatic EIR for its facilities to comply
with final permit effluent limits for chloride to the Regional Board. The NOVs further
directed SCVSD to submit a written response by June 27, 2011 that either: (1) confirms,
that SCVSD has corrected these violations with a brief description of how SCVSD had
corrected them, or (2) identifies when SCVSD will have completed correcting these
violations and a brief description of how SCVSD will correct them.
15. On June 27, 2011, SCVSD submitted a response to the NOVs stating that SCVSD staff
would recommend to its Board of Directors that staff prepare a Wastewater Facilities
Plan and EIR for facilities to comply with a final effluent chloride limit of 100 mg/L. The
response stated that, assuming the Board approved the staff recommendation, the
Wastewater Facilities Plan and EIR would be completed by December 31, 2012.
16. On July 19, 2012, SCVSD submitted a letter to the Los Angeles Water Board with a
compliance status update. According to the letter, at its July 26, 2011 meeting, the
SCVSD Board of Directors approved its staff's recommendation to prepare a
Wastewater Facilities Plan and EIR for facilities to comply with a final effluent chloride
limit of 100 mg/L. SCVSD released a Notice of Preparation on January 6, 2012, seeking
input on the scope for the Facilities Plan and EIR. According to the July 19, 2012 letter,
due to the volume and nature of comments received in response to. the Notice of
Preparation, SCVSD would not be able to complete the Wastewater Facilities Plan and
EIR by December 31, 2012. The letter stated that SCVSD would provide a new
projected schedule for the production of the documents at a later date.
17. As of the date of this complaint, SCVSD has not complied with Task 17(a) of Order Nos.
.R4-2009-0074 or R4-2009-0075.
Complaint No. R4-2012-0160 4 November 26, 2012
SCVSD
ALLEGATIONS
SCVSD has failed to comply with Task 17(a) of Order Nos. R4-2009-0074 and R4-2009-
0075.
1. Required Task 17(a) on page K-3 of Attachment K to Order Nos. R4-2009-0074 and R4-
2009-0075 requires SCVSD to complete a Wastewater Facilities Plan and Programmatic
EIR by May 4, 2011 for its facilities to comply with final effluent permit limits for chloride.
2. In the May 27, 2011, Notices of Violation, the Los Angeles Water Board notified SCVSD
of its failure to comply with Task 17(a) of the Orders, and warned of the potential for the
imposition of administrative civil liability. The Permittee has not yet complied with Task
17(a) of the Orders.
3. Pursuant to Water Code section 13385, subdivision (c), the Los Angeles Water Board
may impose liability up to $10,000 for each day of violation of the Orders.
4. Task 17(a) had a required due date of May 4, 2011. The Los Angeles Water Board has
elected to calculate administrative civil liability for failing to comply with the Orders based
on the number of days that the Permittee has failed to comply with Task 17(a) since this
due date.
5. To date, SCVSD has been in violation of Task 17(a) for 572 days (May 5, 2011 to
November 26, 2012) for each Order (Order Nos. R4-2009-0074 and R4-2009-0075).
6, Water Code sections 13327 and 13385(e) specify factors that the Los Angeles Water
Board shall consider in establishing the appropriate amount of civil liability under Water
Code. section 13385. The Water Quality Enforcement Policy (Enforcement Policy)
adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board on November 19, 2009, and
approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 20, 2010, establishes a
methodology for assessing administrative civil liability pursuant to the factors in Water
Code section 13327 and 13385(e).
Attachment A to this Complaint indicates the proposed civil liability for violating the
conditions of the Orders. The calculations used to derive this liability are based on the
penalty methodology in the Enforcement Policy. While the Board may ultimately choose
to increase, decrease, or accept the Prosecution Team's selected Enforcement Policy
factors, it must make findings based on the Enforcement Policy and presented evidence
to do so.
8. As described in Attachment A, the proposed liability for the violations described here is
$140,125 for violation of Order No. R4-2009-0074 and $140,125 for violation of Order
No. R4-2009-0075, for a total recommended penalty of $280,250.
MAXIMUM LIABILITY
9. Pursuant to Water Code section 13385, subdivision (c), the maximum administrative civil
liability which could be imposed by the Los Angeles Water Board for failing to comply
with requirements of Order Nos. R4-2009-0074 and R4-2009-0075 is ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) for each day in which the violation occurs. SCVSD has failed to
Complaint No, R4-2012-0160 5 November 26, 2012
SCVSD
provide the required groundwater report for 572 days for each Order (a total of 1,144
days). Thus, the maximum liability amount for 1,144 days of violation is $11,440,000.
MINIMUM LIABILITY
10. Pursuant to the Enforcement Policy, the minimum administrative civil liability that shall be
imposed by the Los Angeles Water Board is the amount of economic benefit derived from
the violations, plus 10 percent. Staff currently believes this to be a delayed cost and not an
avoided cost, as SCVSD has promised to prepare the reports. Therefore, the economic
benefit would be the Interest received by SCVSD by failing to produce the reports as
required in May 2011, and not the entre cost of producing the required technical reports
themselves. The proposed liability captures this economic benefit.
PROPOSED LIABILITY
11. As described in Attachment A, it is recommended that the Los Angeles Water Board
impose civil liability against the Permittee in the amount. of $280,250 for the violations
described in this Complaint. • If the Permittee elects to contest this matter, the
recommended liability may increase to recover additional necessary staff costs. -
Dated this 26th day of November, 2012.
SAMUEL U ENO R, P.E
Executive Officer
0
Complaint No. R4-2012-0160 6 November 26, 2012
SCVSD
ATTACHMENT A
10 -STEP PENALTY CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
The State Water Resources Control Board's Water Quality Enforcement Policy (amended
November, 2009 and effective May 20, 2010)' establishes a methodology for assessing
administrative civil liability. Use of the methodology addresses the factors in CWC section
13327 and 13385. The liability methodology spreadsheet, Attachment B, is incorporated herein
and made a part of this ACL Complaint by this reference. It presents the administrative civil
liability derived from the use of the penalty methodology in the Enforcement Policy.
Step 1 — Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations
Not Applicable — This step does not apply since the violation of Order Nos. R4-2009-0074 and
R4-2009-0075 alleged in the Complaint are non -discharge violations.
Step 2 — Assessment for Discharge Violations
Not Applicable — This step does not apply since the violation of Order Nos. R4-2009-0074 and
R4-2009-0075 alleged in the Complaint are non -discharge violations.
Step 3 — Per Day Assessments for Non -Discharge Violations
Regional Board staff used the matrix set forth in Table 3 of the Enforcement Policy (page 16) to
calculate an initial liability factor for the violation of the Orders, considering the Potential for
Harm and the Deviation from Requirement.
a. Potential Harm
Staff determined that the Potential for Harm was Moderate because the violations of Task
17(a), which will lead to a delay in compliance with final effluent limits for chloride, will have
an impact on salt sensitive agriculture beneficial uses. Thus, "the characteristics of the
violation present a substantial threat to beneficial uses, and/or the circumstances of the
violation indicate a substantial potential for harm" as described in the Enforcement Policy.
b. Deviation from Requirement
Staff determined that the Deviation from Requirement was Moderate because SCVSD did
not submit the Wastewater Facilities Plan and Programmatic EIR by the required deadline,
but it has taken steps to do so in the future. Thus, "the intended effectiveness of 'the
requirement has been partially compromised (e.g., the requirement was not met, and the
effectiveness of the requirement is only partially achieved)" as described in the Enforcement
Policy.
c. Per Day Factor
From the range given in the matrix set forth in Table 3 of the -Enforcement Policy non -
discharge violations of this type, Staff selected a Per Day Factor of 0.35, which is the
average factor in the given range.
', The Enforcement Policy may be found at:
hltp, /www.wnterhonrds.ca.flov/water ispolicy finn1111709.df
O
Complaint No. R4-2012-0160
SCVSD
November 26, 2012
d. Maximum per Day Liability Amount
Pursuant to CWC section 13385, the Regional Board may assess a maximum administrative
civil liability of $10,000 for each day in which the Permittee fails to comply with requirements
of Order Nos. R4-2009-0074 and R4-2009-0075.
e. Days Subject to Liability
SCVSD has been in violation for 572 days for each Order, calculated from the May 5, 2011,
the day after the due date for the Wastewater Facilities Plan and Programmatic EIR, through
November 26, 2012, the date of the Complaint.
However, in accordance with the Enforcement Policy (page 18), an alternative approach to
penalty calculation for violations that last more than 30 days may be used if the Los Angeles
Water Board can make express findings that the violation(s):
a. Is (are) not causing daily detrimental impacts to the environment or the regulatory
program;
b. Result(s) in no economic benefit from the
daily basis; or
c.. Occurred without the knowledge or control
action to mitigate or eliminate the violation.
illegal conduct that can be measured on
of the violator, who therefore did not take
Los Angeles Water Board staff has determined that the alternative penalty calculation
approach is appropriate since the violations result in no economic benefit from the illegal
conduct that can be measured on a daily basis.
The alternative penalty calculation approach provides that for violations lasting more than 30
days, the liability shall not be less than an amount that is calculated based on an
assessment of the initial liability amount for the first day of the violation, plus an assessment
for each 5 day period of violation until the 30th day, plus an assessment for each 30 days of
violation thereafter.
Using the alternative penalty calculation approach, 25 days for the violation of each Order
are subject to liability, based on a per day assessment for day 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 60,
90, and so forth for every additional 30 days of violation within the 501 day total.
Using the above information, the Initial Liability assessed per day for each violation is calculated
to be $87,500:
(Per Day Factor) x (Days Subject to Liability) x (Maximum per Day Liability Amount)
_ (0.35) x (25 days) x ($10,000/day)
_ $87,500 for each violation
Step 4 — Adjustment Factors
Staff considered certain Permittee Conduct Factors to calculate assessment for the Violations:
a. Culpability.•
f/
Complaint No. R4-2012-0160
SCVSD
November 26, 2012
SCVSD is culpable for the violations. SCVSD.is subject to the waste discharge requirements
in their NPDES permits as set forth in Order Nos. R4-2009-0074 and R4-2009-0075. The
completion date for Task No. 17(a) is clearly listed in these Orders. In addition, SCVSD was
involved in the adoption of the Upper Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL, which is
incorporated into the NPDES permits. SCVSD was given notice to submit the required
documentation in letters from the Los Angeles Water Board dated September 29, 2010;
April 1, 2011; and'May 27, 2011. SCVSD therefore was fully aware of the requirement of
Order Nos. R4-2009-0074 and R4-2009-0075 and failed to comply. SCVSD's compliance
with the final effluent limitations that go into effect in 2015 as set forth in the TMDL and the
NPDES permits, while not at issue in this Complaint, is jeopardized by SCVSD's failure to
submit the initial documentation. In addition, extensive communications between the
Regional Board staff and SCVSD staff led the Regional Board staff to presume that the
technical documents would be submitted timely. Instead, the SCVSD has changed course
with As remedial and technical intentions, contrary to public statements made to Regional
Board staff and to the Regional Board in developing the TMDL. Upon receiving the first
notice, a reasonable and prudent person would have submitted the required technical
documents to come into compliance. For these reasons, staff selected a factor of 1.3. The
selection of this factor increases the base liability.
b. Cleanup and Cooperation:
SCVSD has voluntarily cooperated in returning to compliance, although is not currently in
compliance. As of the date of the Complaint, SCVSD has taken steps to come into
compliance with the Orders by approving the staff recommendation to prepare a
Wastewater Facilities Plan and EIR, and by releasing a Notice of Preparation. Therefore,
Staff selected a factor of 1.0. The selection of this factor neither increases nor decreases
the base liability.
c. History of Violations:
SCVSD has previously violated effluent limits under NPDES Permit Nos. CA0054216
(Valencia WRP) and CA0054313 (Saugus WRP). Therefore, staff selected a factor of 1.1,
which is the minimum multiplier for repeated violations. The selection of this factor
increases the base liability.
Revised Assessment for Each Violation
The initial assessment for the Violation is multiplied by the above factors to give a revised
assessment of $125,125:
(initial Assessment) x (Culpability) x (Cleanup and Cooperation) x (History)
= ($87,500) x (1. 3) x (1. 0) x (1. 1)
_ $125,125 for each violation
Step 5 – Determination of Total Base Liability Amount
Since there are two violations being assessed liability, the Total Base Liability Amount is
$250;250—i.e. $125,125 (Valencia, Order No. R4-2009-0074) + $125,125 (Saugus, Order No.
R4-2009-0075).
(Revised Assessment for Violation 1) + (Revised Assessment for Violation 2)
/.2.
Complaint No. R4-2012-0160 9 November 26, 2012
SCVSD
_ ($125,125) + ($125,125)
_ $250,250
Step 6 — Ability to Pay and Ability to Continue in Business
SCVSD is a large public agency that has the ability to increase rates. The Total Base Liability
Amount will not affect the Permittee's ability to continue in business. Accordingly, the Total Base
Liability Amount was not adjusted. The burden of proof is on SCVSD to indicate if it has the
inability to pay the recommended liability.
Step 7 — Other Factors as Justice May Require
If the amount determined using the above factors is inappropriate, the amount may be adjusted
under the provision for "other factors as justice may require," but only if express findings are
made to justify this adjustment. In addition, the costs of investigation and enforcement are
'$other factors as justice may require," and should be added to the liability amount.
Staff costs incurred by the Los Angeles Water Board to date are $30,000. This amount was
added to the Total Base Liability Amount, bringing the adjusted Total Base Liability Amount
to $250,250:
(Adjusted Total Base Liability) _ (Total Base Liability) + (Staff Costs)
_ ($250,250) + ($30,000)
_ $280,250
Step 8 — Economic Benefit
The Economic Benefit Amount is any savings or monetary gain derived from the act or omission
that constitutes the violation. The Enforcement Policy states that the adjusted Total Base
Liability Amount shall be at least 10 percent higher than the Economic Benefit Amount'so that
liabilities are not construed as the cost of doing business and that the assessed liability provides
a meaningful deterrent to future violations.
Staff estimates the benefit of non-compliance to be approximately $8,925 which is an estimate
based on the interest able to be generated by SCVSD between May 5, 2011, when the EIR and
Wastewater Facilities Plan was due, and December 31, 2012, the date by which SCVSD has
promised to come into compliance. This figure was generated using the BEN model developed
by the EPA. Staff is currently treating this cost as a delayed cost rather than an avoided cost.
/3
Complaint No. R4-2012-0160 10 November 26, 2012
SCVSD
Step 9 — Maximum and Minimum Liability Amounts
The Minimum Liability Amount is equivalent to 110 percent of the Economic Benefit
derived from the violation. Using the economic benefit estimated in Step 8, the minimum liability
amount is $9,817.50 (economic benefit plus 10%).
The Maximum Liability Amount is $11,440,000, which is calculated by multiplying the
maximum $10,000 per day rate under Water Code Section 13385, subdivision (c), and 1,144
days, the total number of days SCVSD has been in violation.
Step 10 — Final Liability Amount
In accordance with the above methodology, Staff recommends a Final Liability Amount of
$280,250. This Final Liability Amount is within the statutory minimum and maximum amounts.
Complaint No. R4-2012-0160 11 November 26, 2012
SCVSD
WAIVER FORM
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY COMPLAINT NO. R4-2012-0160
By signing this waiver, I affirm and acknowledge the following:
I am duly authori2ed to represent SCVSD in connection with Administrative Civil Liability
Complaint No. R4-2012-0160 (hereinafter the "Complaint"). I am informed that California Water
Code section 13323, subdivision (b), states that, "a hearing before the regional board shall be
conducted within 90 days after the party has been served [with the complaint]. The person who
has been issued a complaint may waive the right to a hearing."
a. I hereby waive any right the Permittee may have to a hearing before the Regional Water
Board.
b. I certify that the Permittee will remit payment for the civil liability imposed in the amount of
$280,250 by check that references "ACL Complaint No. R4-2012-0160" made payable to
the "Cleanup and Abatement Account". Payment must be received by the Regional Water
Board by December 26, 2012 or this matter will be placed on the Regional Board's
agenda for a hearing as initially proposed in the Complaint.
c. I understand the payment of the above amount constitutes a proposed settlement of the
Complaint, and that any settlement will not become final until after the 30 -day public notice
and comment period expires. Should the Regional Water Board receive significant new
information or comments from any source (excluding the Water Board's Prosecution
Team) during this comment period, the Regional Water Board's Executive Officer may
withdraw the complaint, return payment, and 'issue a new complaint. I understand that this
proposed settlement is subject to approval by the Regional Water Board, and that the
Regional Water Board may consider this proposed settlement in a public meeting or
'hearing. I also understand that approval of the settlement will result in SCVSD having
waived the right to contest the allegations in the Complaint and the imposition of civil
liability.
d. I understand that payment of the above amount is not a substitute for compliance with
applicable laws and that continuing violations of the type alleged in the Complaint may
subject SCVSD to further enforcement, including additional civil liability.
(Print Name and Title) (Print Name and Title)
For
For
Signature Signature
Date
/5
to
o
n n
N
N
h
�
y
..Y4
3
*
'
x i.l
•
i
I
I
N
I
m
W
(
t'
-a
rc
r
s
c
K
N
•SIN
Ojol
k
.
wNwwNNwNwN
N
>
o
N
o
o
W
0
N
1.
V!
`�"•
N
N
N
N
DE1
�
N
U
w m
N
q5�
Q
G
N
O
J
C°
QN
Nn
s IS
U
C g
R
J
U1
d
d Ci N h d h
d 0 to H_
A
U U S
ID
Q
O 0
W�
F
.c
A
C
a
o
n
n
n
n
n
n
a
n
�
5
P!
m
N
A
AN
N
N
N
N
W
N
06,;
N
c
sV0lM1lolA
ONUV�sIa
sooll
m
o6n4os10'mN
njo
IIPPV
LPPtl
O
HEARING PANEL OF THE
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGION
320 W. 4°i Street, Suite 200 ACLC No. R4 -2012-0160-M
Los Angeles, California 90013
(213)576-6600
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND HEARING PROCEDURES
TO CONSIDER AN ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY COMPLAINT AND
PROPOSE RECOMMENDATIONS
DISCI -LARGER DISCHARGE LOCATIONS RECEIVING WATER
Santa Clarity Valley Sanitation Valencia Water Reclamation Plant Santa Clara River
District of Los Angeles County 28185 The Old Road
Valencia, CA 91355
Saugus Water Reclamation Plant
26200 Springbrook Avenue
Santa Clarita, CA 91350
Administrative Civil Liability Complaint (ACLC) No. R4 -2012-0160-M alleges that the Santa
Clarita Valley Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (SCVSD) violated Order Nos. R4-
2009-0074 and R4-2009-0075 by failing to comply with TMDL-related tasks set forth in the
permit. As stated in the ACLC, Regional Board staff, represented by the Regional Board Staff
Prosecution Team (Prosecution Team), recommends that a penalty of $280,250 be assessed
against the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District of Los Angeles County.for these violations.
Pursuant to Water Code section 13228.14, a Hearing Panel consisting of three or more members.of
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Regional Board) will
convene a hearing to hear evidence, determine facts, and to propose a recommendation to the
Regional Board about resolution of the ACLC.
This notice sets forth procedures and outlines the process to be used at this hearing.
1. HEARING DATE AND LOCATION
Date: February 21, 2013
Time: 9:00 A.M.
Placc: TBD -
17
11. AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS
The ACLC and other documents concerning the subject of the ACLC are available for inspection
and copying between the hours of 8`.00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the following address:
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Los Angeles Region
320 West 4"' Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Arrangements for file review and/or obtaining copies of the documents may be made by contacting
the Case Manager of the Prosecution Team (identified in Section V below). Comments received,
the Prosecution Team's proposed I -Tearing Panel Report and Order, and other subsequent relevant
documents will be available as they are received or generated.
The entire file will become a part of the administrative record of this proceeding, irrespective of
whether individual documents are specifically referenced during the hearing or contained in the
Hearing Panel binder. However, the entire file might not be present at the hearing. Should any
parties or interested persons desire that the Prosecution Team bring to the hearing any particular
documents that are not included in the Hearing Panel binder, they must submit a written or
electronic request to the Case Manager of the Prosecution Team (identified in Section V below) so
that it is received by 5:00 pm on February 1, 2013. The request must identify the documents with
enough specificity for the Prosecution Team to locate them. (Documents in the Hearing Panel
binder will be present at the hearing.)
III. NATURE OF IIEARING
This will be a formal adjudicative hearing pursuant to section 648 et seq. of Title 23 of the
California Code of Regulations. Chapter 5 of the California Administrative Procedure Act
(commencing with section 11500 of the Government Code) relating to formal adjudicative
hearings does not apply to adjudicative hearings before the Regional Board, except as otherwise
specified in the above -referenced regulations.
IV. PARTIES TO THE HEARING
The following are the parties to this proceeding:
1. Santa Ciarita Valley Sanitation District of Los Angeles County
2. Regional Board Staff Prosecution Team
All other persons who wish to participate in the hearing as a designated party shall request party
status by submitting a written or electronic request to the Legal Advisor to the Hearing Panel
identified in Section VIII below so that it is received by 5:00 pm on January 10, 2011 All
requests for designation as a party shall include the name, phone number, and email address of the
person who is designated to receive notices about this proceeding. The request shall also include a
statement explaining the reasons for their request (e.g., how the issues to be addressed in the
/g
hearing and the potential actions by the Regional Board affect the person), and a statement
explaining why the parties designated above do not adequately represent the person's interest. The
requesting party will be notified before the hearing whether the request is granted. All parties will
be notified if other persons are so designated.
V. COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PROSECUTION TEAM
The California Administrative Procedure Act requires the Regional Board to separate
prosecutorial and adjudicative functions in matters that are prosecutorial in nature. A Prosecution
Team, comprised of Regional Board enforcement and other staff, will serve as the complainant
in the proceedings and is a designated party. The Case Manager over this matter, who will
coordinate the efforts of the Prosecution Team, is Jenny Newman, Senior Environmental
Scientist. Julie Macedo, Staff Counsel III from the State Water Resources Control Board's
Office of Enforcement will advise the Prosecution Team prior to and at the panel hearing.
Neither Ms. Macedo nor the members of the Prosecution Team will be advising the Regional
Board in this matter or have engaged in any substantive conversations regarding the issues
involved in this proceeding with any of the Board Members or the advisors to the hearing panel
(identified below).
Any communication with the Prosecution Team prior to the hearing should be directed to the Case
Manager:
Jenny -Newman
320 W. 4°i Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013
(213) 576-6691
j newman@waterboards.ca. you
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND SUBMITTAL OF EVIDENCE
A. Submittals By Parties.
Not later than January .4, 2013, the Prosecution Team will send the parties a preliminary
Hearing Panel binder containing the most pertinent documents related to this proceeding and a
PowerPoint presentation, which summarizes the evidence and testimony that the Prosecution
Team will present and rely upon at the hearing.
Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District of Los Angeles County is required to submit:
1) Any additional documents or evidence the Party wants the Hearing Panel to consider,
2) A summary of any legal and technical arguments and testimony the Party intends to
present,
3) The name of each witness, if any, whom the Party intends to call at the hearing, and
4) A statement regarding how much time the Party needs to present the case
to the attention of the Case Manager of the Prosecution Team (as identified above) and other
designated parties so that it is received by 5:00 pm on January 25, 2013. All documentation
listed above must be received by the deadline, or it may be excluded from consideration by the
Hearing Panel. The Prosecution Team shall have the right to present additional evidence in
rebuttal of matters submitted by any other party.
The Prosecution Team will send to the Hearing Panel and the parties a final Hearing Panel binder
no later than February 11, 2013.
B. Submittals By Interested Persons.
Persons who are not designated as parties, above, that wish to comment upon or object to the
proposed mandatory minimum penalty, or submit evidence for the Hearing Panel to consider, are
invited to submit them in writing to the Prosecution Team (as identified above). To be evaluated
and responded to by the Prosecution Team, included in tine final Hearing Panel binder, and fully
considered by the Hearing Panel in advance of the hearing, any such written materials must be
received by 5:00 pm on December 26, 2012. If possible, please submit written comments in Word
Format electronically to jnewman@waterboards.ca.gov. Interested persons should be aware the
Regional Board is entitled to settle this matter without further notice, and therefore a timely
submittal by this date may be the only opportunity to comment upon the subject of this ACLC. If
the hearing proceeds as scheduled, the Hearing Panel will also receive oral comments from any
person during the hearing (see below).
Vll. HEARING PROCEDURES
Adjudicative proceedings before the Hearing Panel generally will be conducted in the following
order:
Opening statement by Hearing Panel Chair
Administration of oath to persons who intend to testify
Prosecution Team presentation
Discharger presentation
Designated parties' presentation (if applicable)
Interested persons' comments
Prosecution Team rebuttal
Questions from Hearing Panel
Deliberations (in open or closed session)
Announcement of recommendation to the Regional Board
While this is a formal administrative proceeding, the Hearing Panel does not generally require the
cross examination of witnesses, or other procedures not specified in this notice, that might typically
be expected of parties in a courtroom.
Parties will be advised by the Hearing Panel after the receipt of public comments, blit prior to the
date of the hearing, of the amount of time each party will be allocated for presentations. That
decision will be based upon the complexity and the number of issues under consideration, tile,
me
extent to which the parties have coordinated, the number of parties and interested persons
anticipated, and the time available for the hearing. The parties should contact the Case Manager by
5:00 pan on January 25, 2013 to state how much time they believe is necessary for their
presentations (see Section VLA above). It is the Regional Board's intent that reasonable requests
be accommodated,
Interested persons are invited to attend the hearing and present oral comments. Interested persons
may be limited to approximately five (5) minutes each, for their presentations; in the discretion of
the Chair, depending on the number of persons wishing to be heard. Persons with similar concerns
or opinions are encouraged to choose one representative to speak.
For accuracy of the record, all important testimony should be in writing, and delivered as set forth
above. All written materials most be received by the deadlines identified in Section W.A. and
IV.B:, above, or it may be excluded from consideration by the Hearing Panel. The Hearing Panel
will include in the administrative record written transcriptions of oral testimony or comments made
at the hearing.
VIII. COMMUNICATIONS WITH T11E HEARING PANEL
A. Ex Parte Communications Prohibited
As an adjudicative proceeding, Regional Board members and their advisors may not discuss the
subject of this hearing with any person, except during the public hearing itself, except in the
limited circumstances and manner described in this notice. Any communications to the Regional
Board, Hearing Panel, or Hearing Panel Advisors before the hearing must also be copied to
the Prosecution Team and other Party(ies), as identified above.
B. Hearine Panel Advisors
The Hearing Panel will be advised before and during the hearing by Ms. Deborah Smith, and
Legal Advisors, Ms. Jennifer Fordyce and Ms. Nicole Johnson, Staff Counsels for the Regional
Board. Ms. Smith, Ms. Fordyce, nor Ms. Johnson have exercised any authority or-diseretion over
the Prosecution Team, or advised them with respect to this matter.
C. Objections to manner of hearing and resolution of any other issues.
1. Parties or interested persons with procedural requests different from or outside of the scope of
this notice should contact the Case Manager at any time, who will try to accommodate the
requests. Agreements between a party and the Prosecution Team will generally be accepted by the
Hearing Panel as stipulations.
2. Objections to (a) any procedure to be used or not used during this hearing, (b) any documents or
other evidence submitted by the Prosecution Team, or (c) any other matter set forth in this notice,
must be submitted in writing and received by the Legal Advisor to the Hearing Panel (identified
below) by 5:00 pm on January 25, 2013.
5
Nicole Johnson
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 1 Street, 22nd floor
Sacr,unento, CA 95814
(916)322-4142
njohnson@waterboards.ca.gov
Untimely objections will be deemed waived. Procedural objections about the 'matters
contained in this notice will not be entertained at the.hearing. Further, except as otherwise
stipulated, any procedure not specified in this hearing notice will be deemed waived pursuant
to section 648(d) of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, unless a timely objection is .
tiled.
3. Any issues outside the scope of those described in Section C.2, above, that cannot be resolved
by stipulation shall be brought to the attention of the Legal Advisor to the Hearing Pancl, as set .
forth in Section C.2, by 5:00 pm on January 25, 2013 if possible, and if not possible, then at the
earliest possible time with an explanation about why the issue could not have been raised sooner.
IX. QUESTIONS
If you have any questions about this notice, please contact as appropriate, the Case Manager of the
Prosecution Team, or the Legal Advisor to the Hearing Panel as described above.
Date: November 26, 2012
Administrative Civil Liability
Fact Sheet
The California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) have the
authority to impose administrative civil liabilities for a variety of violations under
California Water Code section 13323. This document generally describes the process
that the Regional Water Boards follow in imposing administrative civil liabilities.
The first step is the issuance of an administrative civil liability complaint (complaint) by
the authorized Regional Water Board's Executive Officer or Assistant Executive Officer.
The complaint describes the violations that alleged to have been committed, the Water
Code provisions authorizing the imposition of liability, and the evidence that supports the
allegations. Any person who receives a complaint must respond timely as directed,
or risk the Regional Water Board imposing the administrative civil liability by
default. The complaint is accompanied by a letter of transmittal, a Waiver Form and a
Hearing Procedure. Each document contains important information and deadlines. You
should read each document carefully. A person issued a complaint is allowed to represent
him or herself. However, legal advice may be desirable to assist in responding to the
complaint.
Parties
The parties to a complaint proceeding are the Regional Water Board Prosecution Team
and the person/s named in the complaint, referred to as the "Discharger." The Prosecution
Team is comprised of Regional Water Board staff and management. Other interested
persons may become involved and may become "designated parties." Only designated
parties are allowed to submit evidence and participate fully in the proceeding. Other
interested persons may play a more limited role in the proceeding and are allowed to
submit non -evidentiary policy statements. If the matter proceeds to hearing, the hearing
will be held before the full membership of the Regional Water Board (composed of up to
nine board members appointed by the Governor) or before a panel of three board
members. 'file board members who will hear the evidence and rule on the matter act as
judges. They are assisted by an Advisory Team, which provides advice on technical and
legal issues, Both the Prosecution Team and the Advisory Team have their own attorney.
Neither the Prosecution 'Pearn nor the Discharger or his/her representatives are permitted
to communicate with the board members or the .Advisory Team about the complaint
without the presence or knowledge of the other. This is explained in more detail in the
Hearing Procedure.
Complaint Resolution options
Once issued, a complaint can lead to (1) withdrawal of the complaint; (2) withdrawal and
reissuance; (3) payment and waiver; (4) settlement; (5) hearing. Each of these options is
described below.
Withdrawal: may result if the Discharger provides information to the Prosecution Team
that clearly demonstrates, that a fundamental error exists in the information set forth in the
complaint.
Withdrawal and reissuance: may result if the Prosecution Team becomes aware of
information contained in the complaint that can be corrected.
Payment and waiver: may result when the Discharger elects to pay the amount of the
complaint rather than to contest it. The Discharger makes a payment for the till amount
and the matter is ended, subject to public comment.
Settlement: results when the parties negotiate a resolution of the complaint. A settlement
can include such things as a payment schedule, or a partial payment and suspension of the
remainder pending implementation by the Discharger of identified activities, such as
making improvements beyond those already required that will reduce the likelihood of a
further violation or the implementation or funding of a Supplemental Environmental
Project (SEP) or a Compliance Project. Qualifying criteria for Compliance Projects and
SEPs are contained in the State Water Resources Control Board's (State Water Board)
Enforcement Policy, which is available at the State Water Board's website at:
hltp://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plans policies/. Settlements are generally subject to
public notice and comment, and are conditioned upon approval by the Regional Water
Board or its authorized staff management. Settlements are typically memorialized by the
adoption of an uncontested Administrative Civil Liability Order.
Rearing: if the matter proceeds to hearing, the parties will be allowed time td present
evidence and testimony in support of their respective positions. The hearing nnust.be held
within 90 days of the issuance of the complaint, unless the Discharger waives that
requirement by signing and submitting the Waiver Form included in this package, The
hearing will be conducted under rules set forth in the Hearing Procedure. The Prosecution
Team has the burden of proving the allegations and must present competent evidence to
the Regional Water Board regarding the allegations. Following the Prosecution Team's
presentation, the Discharger and other parties are given an opportunity to present
evidence, testimony and argument challenging the allegations. The parties may cross-
examine each others' witnesses. Interested persons may provide non -evidentiary policy
statements, but may generally not submit evidence or testimony. At the end of the
presentations by the parties, the board members will deliberate to decide the outcome.
The Regional Water Board may issue an order requiring payment of the full amount
recommended in the complaint, it may issue an order requiring payment of a reduced
amount, it may order the payment of a higher amount, decide not to impose an
assessment or it may refer the matter to the Attorney General's Office.
4
■
Factors that must be considered by the Regional Water Board
Except for Mandatory Minimum Penalties under Water Code section 13385 (h) and (i),
the Regional Water Board is required to consider several factors specified in the Water
Code, including nature, circumstance, extent, and gravity of the violation or violations,
whether the discharge is susceptible to cleanup or abatement, the degree of toxicity of.the
discharge, and, with respect to the violator, the ability to pay, the effect on ability to
continue in business, any voluntary cleanup efforts undertaken, any prior history of
violations, the degree of culpability, economic benefit or savings, if any resulting from
the violations, and other matters as justice may require (Cal. Water Code §§ 13327,
13385(e) & 13399). During the period provided to submit evidence (set forth in the.
Hearing Procedure) and at the hearing, the Discharger may submit information that it
believes supports its position regarding the complaint. If the Discharger intends to
present arguments about its ability to pay it must provide reliable documentation to
establish that ability or inability. The kinds of information that may be used for this
purpose include:
For an individual:
L Last three years of signed federal income tax returns (IRS Form 1040)
including schedules;
2. Members of household, including relationship, age, employment and income;
3. Current living expenses;
4. Bank account statements;
5. Investment statements;
6. Retirement account statements;
7. Life insurance policies;
8. Vehicle ownership documentation;
9. Real property ownership documentation;
10. Credit card and line of credit statements;
11. Mortgage loan statements;
12. Other debt documentation.
For a business:
1. Copies of last three years of company IRS tax returns, signed and dated,
2. Copies of last three years of company financial audits
3. Copies of last three yens of IRS tax returns of business principals, signed
and dated.
4. Any documentation that explains special circumstances regarding past,
current, or future financial conditions.
2-5
For larger firms:
1. Federal income tax returns for the last three years, specifically:
• IRS Form 1 120 for C Corporations
• IRS Form 1120 S for S Corporations
• IRS Form 1065 for partnerships
2.. A completed and signed IRS Form 8821. This allows IRS to provide the
Regional Water Board with a summary of the firm's tax returns that will be
compared to the submitted income tax returns. This prevents the submission
of fraudulent tax returns;
3. The following information can be substituted if income tax returns cannot be
made available:
• Audited Financial Statements for last three years;
• A list of major accounts receivable with names and amounts;
• A list of major accounts payable with names and amounts;
• A list of equipment acquisition cost and year purchased;
• Ownership in other companies and percent of ownership for the
last three years;
• Income from other companies and amounts for the last three years.
For.a municipality, county, or district:
I. Typeofentity:
City/Town/Village;
• County;
• Municipality with enterprise fund;
• Independent or publicly owned utility;
2. The following 1990 and 2000 US Census data:
• Population;
• Number of persons age 18 and above;
• Number of persons age 65 and above;
• Number of Individual below 125% of poverty level;
• Median home value; .
• Median household income.
3. Current or most recent estimates of:
• Population;.
• Median home value;
• Median household income;
• Market value of taxable property;
• Property tax collection rate.
4. Unreserved general fund ending balance;
5. Total principal and interest payments for all governmental funds;
6. 'Total revenues for all governmental funds;
7. Direct net debt;
8. Overall net debt;
E
). General obligation debt rating;
10. General obligation debt level.
11. Next year's budgeted/anticipated general fund expenditures plus net transfers
out.
This list is provided for information only. The Discharger remains responsible .for
providing all relevant and reliable information regarding its financial situation, which
may include items in the above lists, but could include other documents not listed. Please
note that all evidence regarding this case, including financial information, will be made
public.
Petitions
If the Regional Water Board issues an order requiring payment, the Discharger may
challenge that order by filing a petition for review with the State Water Board pursuant to
Water Code section 13320. More information on the petition process is available at:
http://www.watei,boards.ca.gov/public notices/petitions/water quality/index.shtml
An order of the State Water Board resolving the petition for review of the Regional
Water Board's Administrative Civil Liability Order can be challenged by filing a petition
for writ of mandate in the superior court pursuant to Water Code section 13330.
Once an Administrative Civil Liability Order becomes final, the Regional Water Board or
State Water Board may seek a judgment of the superior court tinder Water Code section
13328, if necessary, in order to collect payment of the administrative civil liability
amount.
5
a�