STATE OF CALIFORNIA I STATE WATER RESOURCES

f,’
I
STATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WATER RESOURCES
CONTROL
BOARD
0
In the Matter
of the Petitions
of
)
CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY,
SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY,
and CALIFORNIA
FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION
ORDER
1
)
NO. WQ
96-08
1
)
for Review of General Waste
Discharge
Requirements
Order
No. 95-140 and Resolution
No. 95-144 of the California
Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Central Valley Region.
Our Files Nos. A-977 and A-977(a).
;
;
1
)
1
BY THE BOARD:
The Ceritral Valley
(CVRWQCB)
considered
sludge
as a soil
CVRWQCB
adopted
requires
before
the project
waiver
resolution
sludge
that
Water
from
Agency,
request
0
"biosolids,"
The
Water
and the California
Farm
sludge,
has been
CVRWQCB
requested
(NOI)
adopted
adopted
negative
petitions
the South
of the orders.
now
frequently
were
Delta
a stay
BACKGROUND
a
quality
Federation
I.
to crops
of sewage
Bureau
by the Executive
applied
high
Timely
Agency,
The
meeting.
also
Board
of sewage
of intent
CVRWQCB
actions.
Delta
was denied
1995,
of exceptionally
of both
Petitioners
26,
The
Control
to the use
of a notice
no such NOI..
the Central
Sewage
1’
for the use
in support
(petitioners).
stay
the filing
Quality
for the application
may commence.
required
declarations
order
Water
relating
at its May
a general
that
received
two matters
amendment
sludge
Regional
Director.
referred
to as
in California
for some
The
years.
In 1993
(U.S. EPA)
the United
adopted
application
as well
declined
to pursue
granted
deal
proposed
requirements
circulated
public
comment
declarations
were
for CVRWQCB
parallel
in some
Sewage
I
transported
certain
that
EPA
from
industrial
and
sewer
also
by the waiver
as well
contribute
can persist
them.
1993
the
was
set
0
proposals
stringent
received
However,
it may
commercial
areas.
as corrosion
sludge
such
it is
are often
to the presence
in the
before
2.
Nor
contain
in sludge
Residential
supply
of heavy
high quality
treatment.)
still
found
of water
if it is not
_
negative
and the matter
set more
CVRWQCB
Significant
made,
metals
(The t'exceptionally
has
discharge
the CVRWQCB
treated
areas.
Heavy
products
destroy
is highly
elements.
of cleaning
lines
but
the
areas.
to agricultural
comes
Pathogens
In summary,
regulations
sludge
harmful
were
to apply
Valley,
comment.
and circulated,
consideration.
the U.S.
standards
prepared
revisions
to more
of requests
In late
for public
has
for such
In order
waste
Board
Board,
The CVRWQCB
in the Central
resolution.
received,
Control
Management
number
the general
its proposals
was
Resources
in the past.
operations
and the waiver
staff
Water
requirements
an increasing
Agency
the agricultural
Waste
discharge
to adopt
Protection
of that program.
of times
to agricultural
CVRWQCB
the State
Integrated
waste
with
Environmental
governing
delegation
a number
efficiently
but
as the
individual
operations
sludge
regulations
of sludge
(SWRCB),
States
use
and
metals.
fully
sludge"
treated
to
regulated
is the product
odor-free.
b
a
special
water
Both
care
to keep
bodies,
disputes
U.S.
the sludge
and drinking
the need
and use
EPA regulations
away
water
the CVRWQCB
orders
from.residential
wells.
to be cautious
of the sludge;
and
No one
areas,
seriously
in the transportation,
the issues
concern
what
take
level
storage,
is
of care
necessary.
The
CVRWQCB
were
the general
negative
large
strongly
order.
and raised
environmental
questioned
by these
pathogens
depth
people
concerns
about
odor
Quality
voted
and to approve
the size
a lengthy
the general
commenters
The
continued
of the buffer
flooding
with
instead
the
issues
raised
presence
zones,
of
the
of the area,
and
concerns.
hearing
of the order
unanimously
very
declaration
(CEQA).
on the
the potential
and nuisance
were
(EIR) to comply
focused
metals,
water,
of these
Act
and
important
a negative
report
by the
of the waiver
of comments
several
Some
of using
generally
and heavy
(most in favor
waiver
a number
impact
received
of the adoption
However,
Environmental
After
CVRWQCB
in favor
the propriety
to ground
general
of the comments
considerations.
of an environmental
California
majority
at which
and waiver,
to adopt
waste
3.
testified
a few against);
the two negative
discharge
resolution.
24 people
the
declarations
requirements
and the
II.
CONTENTION
Contention:
adopted
the two negative
The
CVRWQCB
EIR
for each
should
prepared,
The
declarations
required
when
there
CVRWQCB
under
of serious
rl
its discretion
in compliance
when
with
it
CEQA.
and considered
EIRs
should
a potentially
effect.
have
In marginal
controversy
requires
should
not have
the circumstances.
public
of a project
§ 15064.)
abused
circulated,
is identified
environmental
existence
FINDING1
an
of the orders.
negative
unmitigated
CVRWQCB
declarations
have
Findinq:
effects
The
AND
over
the same
been
relied
'on
An EIR
is
significant,
cases,
the environmental
conclusion.
prepared
the
(14 CCR
and circulated
in this
case.
Even
controversy,
to adopt
there
was
a negative
§ 15070.)
CVRWQCB
voted
did not
the
individual
the record.
1
Of the
While
waste
reflect
Board
members
find
order
In
that
and
on the environment."
document
expressed
present
declaration,
must
the proposed
any unmitigated
Members
was
requirements.
the CVRWQCB
that
effect
public
declaration
discharge
the written
seven
the negative
a negative
evidence"
a significant
(14 CCR
of serious
declaration,
"no substantial
"may have
to approve
that
for the general
order
impacts,
the presence
it is clear
inappropriate
waiver
without
five
when
on which
the
environmental
contrary
the vote
expressed
views
was
concern
on
taken
about
Petitioners
have raised a number of issues concerning
the merits of
the CVRWQCB orders.
In light of our decision on the CEQA contention,
it would
be inappropriate
for us to consider those at this time.
I'
0
the
a
insufficiency
spreading
of the depth
Each
project.'
foot
separation
from
staff,
for greater
provide
for example,
indicated
that
that
it should
water
ground
water
below
a sludge
he or she saw the two-
but-, based
as a problem
indicated
to ground
on an earlier
be left
to local
explanation
agencies
One Board
protection.
to
Member,
said:
"And one other thing is that the 24-inch depth, I
It seems to
think--I had a lot of concern about,that.
me if the county or local areas can act independently
I'm for it."
on that, that that washes that out.
(Trans. p. 181.)
Plainly
in which
the environmental
solutions
0
no lead agency
are
left
County
of Mendocino
352.)
While
with
problems
for other
an identified
problem
in a later
Cal.App.3d
280 Cal.Rptr.
project
where
proponent
in a fairly
Some
of the written
project
lead
that
agency
the problem
but
the
v.
248 Cal.Rptr.
a decision
to deal
(see Sacramento
(1991)
approach
commits
229
has been
itself
at the
Old
later
and/or
date
a
and
manner.
The existence
many
296,
declaration
(Sundstrom
of Sacramento
478),
to deal with
specific
to our decision.
identified
law to support
Council
the same
a negative
to find.
case
v. City
only
agencies
is some
City Association
approved
are
(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d
there
1011,
can adopt
of serious
public
of the speakers
comments
raised
controversy
at the CVRWQCB
significant
adds
weight
hearing
and
environmental
2
Five speakers and several written comments discussed the depth to
ground water issue. Some of them made specific reference to a 1993 study done
at the University of Arizona that found viruses up to 60 feet below a site on
which sludge had been placed.
5.
-
concerns.
Some
questions
about
buffer
zones.
in approving
the
inquiry
the
size
Others
issue.
that
Whether
are enough
of the discussion
of ordinary
general
waste
requirements.
discharge
of serious
this
level
of evidence
forth
a case
(County
CEQA
when
discharge
that
the
Water
addressed
sludge
Quality
it adopted
by U.S.
comments
are
EPA
enough
the general
study
sludge
order
careful
pursuant
in the record
for exceptional
supported
to the
some
over
the
quality'
by the
it clearly
same
sets
of an EIR.
once
of the application
before.
In Order
we found
that
the Colorado
Control
Board
had failed
declaration
for sluqge
was
in the record
is, however,
on balance,
the issue
a negative
requirements
initial
taken
the more
There
is not
in the record,
of sewage
sewage
requirements
controversy
of Imperial),
Regional
raised
and vertical
and comments
controversy
for the preparation
We have
to the use
public
discharge
While
sludge.3
that
in an EIR.
all
of waste
these
to justify
the application
waiver
horizontal
of adopting
concern
indication
studies
the approach
in support
They
occurs
scientific
of the proposed
questioned
the evidence
Nearly
(
to serious
its regulations.
to overcome
is not
pointed
inadequate
3
No. WQ
River
That
89-7
Basin
to comply
in support
application.
of CEQA
with
of waste
order
found
and did not provide
Concerns over the exceptional quality sewage'sludge
(voiced by
individuals as well as public agencies) involve indications from studies that
pathogen levels can still be fairly high and that metals and other chemicals
The discussion of
are not removed by the process that reduces pathogens.
these issues was cursory and only one CVRWQCB member mentioned them in closing
comments.
6.
‘1
sufficient
0
evidence
declaration.
has done
an excellent
that
Because
matter
will
In the
interim,
the
lands
not
have
balancing
Inc. v:
and
1, 1996,
and may
by this
until
already
commenced
is discretionary
that
and,
Improvement
the magnitude
Association
that would
be visited
have
not
activities
factors
on a
such
as
of San Francisco,
(1988) 47
in the record
threat
to cause
upon
on
is CEQA
Representations
significant
to
who
may
of California
is unlikely
is not
date
NOIs
sludge
and depends
of the environmental
operations
therefore,
426.)
Those
enjoining
and other
of the University
253 Cal.Rptr.
inconvenience
threat
continue
there
that
of an EIR.
sewage
waiver.
this
or filed
may
discharge
request
authorizations
compliance,
waivers
it clear
424,
its
evidence
for preparation
law makes
few additional
problems
of CEQA
submitted
April
or waiver
Heights
to support
of contrary
Case
The Regents
indicate
the
who have
of the environmental
376,
of lack
by the NO1 or an approved
(Laurel
cost.
CVRWQCB
be ignored.
reports
these
The
different.
in the quantum
on or before
an NO1
the negative
evidence
to the CVRWQCB
farmers
under
compliance.
C.3d
cannot
pre-application
discharge
is somewhat
of the finding
CVRWQCB,
submitted
that
lies
be remanded
covered
to justify
job of providing
The problem
and controversy
submit
the issue
Here,
decision.
with
to the record
water
compared
posed
by
quality
to the cost
the individual
farmers.
The preparation
allocation
of.those
costs
of an EIR
can be expensive
is problematic
7.
in the case
and the
of a general
permit.
Legislation
Chapter
SWRCB
613,
was
Statutes
of 1995)
and the RWQCBs
requirements
adopted
to adopt
Fund.
The CVRWQCB
further
unless
such
It is clear
from
has been
done
on this
scholars
and researchers,
be understood
the
should
also
the lands
plains,
give
not proceed
the record
by the
that
federal
the results
for further
CEQA
only
if financing
outside
with
this
very
the
matter
deal
government,
any
by
efforts
Delta,
water
It
ought
to
The RWQCB
to the unique
ground
of work
of the RWQCB.
compliance.
Joaquin
high
a great
of those
consideration
in the Sacramento-San
with
discharge
but
and by the staff
special
and areas
sludge
the
can be obtained.
issue
that
foundation
waste
[Kelley]
requires
can be arranged
need
funding
(SB 205
specifically
general
documentation
General
form
that
for the use of sewage
for environmental
should
last year
areas
nature
of
within
flood
in its CEQA
document.
III.
The CEQA
are identified
requires
effects.
effects
in this
exist
controversy
proper
that
potentially
environmental
over
the
environmental
CONCLUSION
significant
From
case.
issue
document
waste
discharge
judging
there
adverse
that
of serious
it all the more
such
public
clear
that
a
is required.
ORDER
the merits
requirements
it is clear
The existence
makes
when
and unmitigated
the record,
IV.
Without
an EIR be prepared
of the proposed
or the waiver,
8.
general
it is the order
of
the SWRCB
further
that
the matter
proceedings
preparation
should
consistent
be remanded
with
CEQA,
to the CVRWQCB
in this
case,
for
the
of EIRs.
CERTIFICATION
Administrative
Assistant
to the Board, does
The undersigned,
hereby certify that the foregoing is a full and correct copy of
an order duly and regularly
adopted at a meeting of the State
Water Resources
Control Board held on April 18, 1996.
AYE:
John
John
James
Mary
Marc
NO:
None.
ABSENT:
None.
ABSTAIN
None.
P. Caffrey, Chairman
W. Brown, Vice Chair
Member
M. Stubchaer,
Jane Forster, Member
Del Piero, Member
Adminbtrative
9.
Assistant
to the Board