Tuesday, May 22, 2012

CCWD Director Dooley responds to Water Quality Control Board fine

On March 9, 2012 CCWD and Saddle Creek LP were issued a proposed civil liability in the amount of $48,000  by the Central Valley Water Board.



CCWD Director Dooley stated, with regards to the concerns of the sewer plant discharge, that  "it seems that the two regulatory agencies that oversee and permit the discharge of treated effluent have issued conflicting requirements that was not previously caught by CCWD or either of the two regulatory agencies.  Accordingly, CCWD cannot fulfill the requirement of one and not be in violation of the other.   The issue was supposed to be held in abeyance while we worked this issue out, but the Water Quality Control Board still went ahead and issued a fine.   We are working on getting a postponement while the three parties work this out satisfactorily to all parties."



 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY COMPLAINT R5-2012-0521
MANDATORY PENALTY
IN THE MATTER OF CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT AND
SADDLE CREEK GOLF COURSE, L.P.
COPPER COVE WASTEWATER RECLAMATION FACILITY CALAVERAS COUNTY


This Complaint is issued to the Calaveras County Water District and Saddle Creek Golf
Course, L.P. (hereafter Discharger) pursuant to California Water Code (CWC) section 13385,
which authorizes the imposition of Administrative Civil Liability, and CWC section 13323, which
authorizes the Executive Officer to issue this Complaint. This Complaint is based on findings
that the Discharger violated provisions of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order
R5-2006-0081 (NPDES No. CA0084620).


Click HERE to read full complaint document

1 comment:

  1. This issue sounds familiar, what I don't get is Dooley has a perfect answer (he always did, most were bovine excrement). So my question is if there is another agency with conflicting requirements, where is the paper they would have given CCWD? Beside the obvious, I don't see where one agency would require a standard that would contradict another agency's requirements. They may have slight differences, but don't they all ask for clean water?
    To my way of thinking one of the alleged agencies, is advocating that CCWD produce contaminated water and another wants to fine CCWD for the contaminates. Maybe I just don't get it. Or more than likely the rate payers are going to get it again.
    I didn't miss Dooley when he was gone, now I miss not missing him.
    Wicca Dave Lander
    Copperopolis

    ReplyDelete