My take on this is: A) there are documented instances of substantial lack of compliance, that potentially could be very costly to Discovery Bay taxpayers; and B) that the State Water Board would have in place a program with only 75% compliance is disturbing and raises the question of whether
or when it will actually fulfill its mission of protecting water standards for taxpayers. Contra Costa taxpayers can little afford another ineffective state agency that winks at flagrant abuse by municipalities like Discovery Bay or looks the other way folds under political pressure. Click the nearby link for
the full interview:

Q. Please confirm if DBCSD is in compliance of providing monthly reports per state water board general order for sewer overflows.


A. The following observations have been noted for Discovery Bay related to reporting compliance (including monthly SSO reporting deadlines and No Spill Certification requirements):

As required under the Order, initial Submit Draft report of an SSO report (Category 1) must be entered in California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) no later than 3 business days after the Enrollee is made aware of the Category 1 SSO, which would have been 7/22/08 at 9:17), since they were aware of the SSO according to the Certified CIWQS report on 7/18/08 at 9:17. Discovery Bay entered the “Initial Draft” on 8/11/08 at 8:07 and missed the compliance deadline for the “submit draft” report.

The SSO Certification Report was required 15 calendar days (8/2/08 at 12:30) after the conclusion of SSO response and remediation (completion is indicated as 7/18/08 at 12:30 according to CIWQS Certified Report). Discovery Bay entered the Certified report on 9/10/08 at 3:37 missing the Certification deadline, and failing to notify the public. Only Certified SSO reports are available to the public via the CIWQS website at the following link:

https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?reportAction=criteria&reportId=sso_overview

NO SPILL CERTIFICATIONS: For any month in which an enrollee does not have an SSO, a No Spill Certification is required. No data appears for Discovery Bay earlier than April 2008. They must still provide all data, either SSOs or No Spill Certifications back to September 2, 2007, when mandatory reporting began, under the General Order requirements.

Q. Please confirm if there is a $1,000 per day violation for each month not in compliance; so that thru August it would be (for e.g. May thru August out of compliance) $120+ 90+60+30= $300,000.

A. Significant enforcement penalties may result from non-compliance with the Statewide SSO General Permit. Full compliance includes reporting accurate and complete information submitted within the prescribed time frame. However, taken in the context of a new regulatory program with limited resources, we believe that compliance assurance will have to be done in phases. The first phase is for all Enrollees using the SSO database to report the required information. The next phase will address the timeliness and correctness of the submitted information. This issue is discussed further in later portions of this report.

To date, the State Water Resources Control Board has not taken individual enforcement action, since mandatory reporting under the SSO General Permit only began statewide a year ago (September 2, 2007). However, the State Water Board, in conjunction with its nine Regional Water Boards is beginning a statewide compliance effort targeted at local agencies such as Discovery Bay, who fail to comply with the SSO General Permit.

Not providing required information can result in penalties of $1000 per day. Depending on the circumstances of the violation, liability may be assessed for less or more than this amount.
How and when will your agency make the determination to actually  enforce this requirement you speak of and what considerations will be  
included in determining the penalty, and when. Staff has developed a plan for the Statewide SSO General Permit implementation to increase the monthly reporting compliance rate over the next year.

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sanitary_sewer_overflow/docs/sso_report_standalone.pdf

The plan involves the concept of progressive compliance, with the more serious steps being taken only as warranted by Enrollee non-compliance:

1. Continued outreach and training efforts Regular listserv e-mail updates, using CIWQS data, to all Enrollees regarding Statewide Sanitary Sewer Order implementation and other key program messages SSO reporting and Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) development training classes offered by California Water Environment Association (CWEA) SSO database enhancements with Enrollee input (via External Users Group)

2. Expand outreach, awareness and training efforts
- Monthly e-mail reminder to Enrollees not reporting any data
- Post on State Water Board’s website SSO technical data, and list all Enrollees not complying with specific Statewide Sanitary Sewer Order requirements
- Explore developing a DVD of CWEA training class available to Enrollees that may not be able to attend training. CWEA offering additional classes (e.g., public communication in response to a large SSO and focused training on specific SSMP elements) and publishing additional outreach flyers

3. Non-compliance advisory letter to Enrollees not complying

4. As resources allow, direct staff contact with Enrollees not complying

5. Notice of Violation sent to Enrollees not complying

6. As resources allow, direct staff contact with Enrollees not complying where possible

7. State Water Board enforcement action against Enrollees not complying

Q. Has DBCSD ever completed the required sewer system questionnaire; and if not, what penalties go with lack of compliance with this item

A. Collection System Questionnaire for Discovery Bay (required per Order within 30 days of them receiving their Username/Password) was required to have been completed in November 2006 (they were enrolled in Oct 2006). They completed the initial Questionnaire late on 9/10/08 at 14:42.

Q. You mention that “disco bay compliance was due May 2, 2008″ for submitting its SSMP and has it ever been certified in CIWQS online? Please advise if it has not been submitted and certified; and if not, what penalties or other enforcement action can/will your agency take?


A. SSMP Elements: Discovery Bay’s first three SSMP Task Elements (Development Plan/Schedule, Goal and Organization), according to the SSO General Order, were required to be certified in CIWQS by May 2, 2008. They are still missing the “Goal” element, Section D13(i).

Q. Finally, as a matter of course, why would the agency allow any  
municipality remain out of compliance for more than one month? Does your agency ever actually ever enforce any of the requirements? Example?

A. Yes. See above plan.

Q. Do agencies like DBCSD typically ignore agency requirements designed to protect residents and taxpayers?

A. Most agencies covered under the SSO General Permit (currently about 74 %) are now reporting the required monthly information in CIWQS (either an SSO or a No Spill Certification), however, we still have a long way to go (and a plan) to achieve a compliance rate representative of other Water Board regulatory programs. Again, this is a relatively new regulatory program.

Q. Could/does some person or entity possibly intervene in the enforcement process or your agency’s due diligence to forestall or mitigate CIWQS action? And how?


A. The State Water Board does not comment on proposed enforcement actions. Should it be determined that an enforcement response is warranted, it would be resolved according to the appropriate laws and regulations, and the public would be afforded the opportunity to provide comments.