Receiving Water Limits Language Workshop

  • 11/20/2012
  • 9:00 AM
  • Cal/EPA Headquarters, 1001 I Street - Coastal Hearing Room, Sacramento, CA 95814
The public workshop may additionally be viewed via webcast at:

1. State Water Board and Regional Water Board staff presentation
2. Presentations by panels
The following panels will be allotted 45 minutes each for a presentation to the Board. The panels are asked to address the questions outlined below under “Questions for Panels.”
a. California Stormwater Quality Association
b. Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations
3. Presentations by stakeholders
The following stakeholders will be allotted ten minutes each for a presentation. Stakeholders may choose to address some or all of the questions outlined below under “Questions for Panels.”
a. U.S. EPA
b. Caltrans
c. Statewide Stormwater Coalition
d. TECS Environmental Compliance Services
4. Policy Statements by participants
All other participants at the Workshop will be allotted five minutes to make policy statements. Participants may choose to address some or all of the questions outlined below under “Questions for Panels.”

Questions for Panels:
1. What changes need to be made to the iterative process to promote measurable water quality improvements? Consider this question in light of the parameters for the iterative process specified in Alternative 2 of the Issue Paper.
2. Should the receiving water limitations requirements be different for:
a. Storm water v. non-storm water discharges?
b. Discharges with pollutants subject to a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Waste Load Allocation and discharges not subject to a TMDL?
c. Phase 1 as opposed to Phase 2 permittees?
3. In the iterative process, should there be specified, enforceable time frames between iterations? Should there be an explicit compliance schedule or time limit for ultimate compliance with receiving water limitations?
4. What is the most appropriate alternative? Please discuss in light of the criteria listed below. The proposed alternative may be an alternative in the Issue Paper, a combination of those alternatives, or an alternative not identified in the Issue Paper. Please identify and discuss a second alternative that your organization(s) would regard as a second choice.
a. Water Quality Protection – Is the requirement protective of water quality?
b. Practicability/Cost-effectiveness – Is it practical and cost-effective to implement the requirement?
c. Clarity – Are the requirements clear and unambiguous?
d. Enforceability – Can the requirement be readily enforced for non-compliance?
e. Municipal Resources – What are the impacts of the requirement on municipal staff and financial resources?
f. Regulatory Resources – What are the impacts of the requirement on the staff and financial resources of the regulatory agencies?
g. Acceptability – To what degree does the requirement provide a path to compliance that is acceptable to all parties?
h. Other Criteria – What other criteria are appropriate for consideration?
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software