This is a site mirroring the emails of California Water News emailed by the California Department of Water Resources

[Water_news] 4. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: WATER QUALITY - 8/13/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

August 13, 2007

 

4. Water Quality

 

PERCHOLRATE:

Rialto water case in stall; Legal wrangling holds city back - San Bernardino Sun

 

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT:

Mexican water agency backs bid to build Bajagua plant - San Diego Union Tribune

 

 

PERCHOLRATE:

Rialto water case in stall; Legal wrangling holds city back

San Bernardino Sun – 8/13/07

By Jason Pesick, staff writer

 

The long and winding road leading to cleanup of the drinking water around Rialto is getting more tortuous.

 

On July 31, Goodrich Corp. sued Rialto and other parties in San Bernardino Superior Court to try to force the city to require a local businessman to clean up perchlorate contamination.

 

Next week, Emhart Industries - a defunct company associated with Black & Decker - Goodrich and Rialto-based Pyro Spectaculars are expected to ask a Los Angeles Superior Court to stay state hearings on the perchlorate contamination.

 

The legal efforts are the latest action the three companies have taken to thwart the state regulatory bodies trying to get the perchlorate cleaned up.

 

Perchlorate, a substance used to produce rocket fuel, fireworks and other explosives, has been flowing from Rialto's north end through the city, and possibly into Colton and toward Fontana. Perchlorate can interfere with the thyroid gland, which is important in the development of unborn babies.

 

"What this is really about is Goodrich's attempt to deflect attention from its own responsibility for contaminating the groundwater," Cris Carrigan, one of Rialto's lawyers, said about the suit against the city.

 

The State Water Resources Control Board is scheduled to hold hearings on the contamination - which was discovered in 1997 - later this month. The hearings have been delayed numerous times because of procedural objections raised by the three parties.

 

In the lawsuit against Rialto, Goodrich claims Rialto is obligated to order Ken Thompson, who owns land where perchlorate has been discovered, to clean up the contamination. It also says Rialto needs to enforce its own 1987 declaration requiring Thompson to clean up the area known as the McLaughlin Pit.

 

Goodrich has also claimed that the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, whose staff will be arguing against the three companies at the hearings, has not lived up to its responsibility to close the pit properly.

 

Patrick Palmer, a Goodrich spokesman, said the parties responsible for the contamination should clean it up and that if the proper procedures had been followed in 1987, the perchlorate would have been discovered years earlier. By not pursuing Thompson at the state hearings, Rialto and the Santa Ana board staff are failing to go after one of the responsible parties, Goodrich claims.

 

"We're very disappointed in this matter, where only select responsible parties and very key facts are being ignored," Palmer said.

 

Carrigan and Kurt Berchtold, assistant executive officer of the Santa Ana water board, both said their agencies have done nothing wrong and that Thompson might still be pursued in the future.

 

Thompson hasn't been a focus of the cleanup investigations thus far because he did not discharge perchlorate into the ground; he merely bought property from a party that did, said Scott Sommer, Rialto's lead attorney in the perchlorate matters. So far, the state regulatory agencies have focused on pursuing the parties suspected of actually discharging perchlorate. Any perchlorate he did spread by operating on the site was spread unknowingly because the perchlorate hadn't even been discovered there yet, Sommer said.

 

Carrigan said it's not even clear what Goodrich wants the city to do and that the suit is just another attempt to outspend state agencies and Rialto by using clever legal tactics.

 

At last count, Rialto has spent about $15 million on its efforts to investigate the perchlorate and take legal action. As that number has risen, dissatisfaction with the city's legal strategy has mounted.

 

The three parties being pursued in the state hearings have been criticized for using a number of aggressive legal strategies. One of the environmental groups involved in the hearings, the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, dropped out after being overwhelmed by how difficult the process had become.

 

In a letter to one of Goodrich's lawyers, Jeffrey Dintzer, the executive officer of the Santa Ana board, Gerard Thibeault, said the parties' legal efforts cost the state $954,000 and 9,430 hours in staff and attorney time in the 2006-07 fiscal year, and the costs are still growing.

 

At a Rialto City Council meeting on Wednesday, a woman - who identified herself as Donna Worley and claimed to be a concerned citizen - caused quite a stir when she went before the council to complain about the same matters contained in the Goodrich lawsuit. Earlier, she had provided The Sun with information about Thompson, in a letter calling the situation "just another case of the city helping the rich." At the meeting, she mentioned a potential recall of members of the council, prompting a vigorous response from the dais, especially from Councilman Ed Scott, who noted she lives in Burbank and accused her of working for Goodrich.

 

In the other matter regarding potential court action in Los Angeles, on Tuesday, James Meeder, an attorney for Emhart, wrote a letter on behalf of all three companies saying that if the hearing officer of the state proceedings did not disqualify the state board and the regional board from the process, he would go to court to ask for a stay in the hearings.

 

The companies claim the Santa Ana board's staff and the state board have taken part in improper communications or are biased against them because the state board handed out grants to local agencies to treat perchlorate. They have also claimed bias on the grounds that the Santa Ana board's staff erred in its handling of the closing of the McLaughlin Pit and is itself therefore partially responsible. Palmer also said the state board has no right to try the matter at this point.

 

Hearing officer Tam Doduc ruled Saturday against the companies.

 

"I think their disqualification argument lacks merit, and it would be sad if the proceedings are stayed," Carrigan said.

 

Berchtold said allegations of bias or that the Santa Ana board tried to cover up its own actions are "just not the case."

 

If all else fails, a federal trial on the contamination is tentatively scheduled for October 2008. #

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_6609519

 

 

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT:

Mexican water agency backs bid to build Bajagua plant

San Diego Union Tribune – 8/11/07

By Mike Lee, staff writer

 

A San Marcos company that wants to build a major sewage-treatment plant in Tijuana took a step forward this week after enduring months of setbacks.

 

Bajagua LLC has long said the proposed facility would help reduce the amount of Mexican sewage that flows into the South Bay and fouls its beaches.

 

Thursday, the company released a translated copy of a letter from Mexico's National Water Commission. In it, the agency's officials granted the use of federal land for the controversial and delayed Bajagua project.

 

They also expressed “great interest” in seeing the $170 million construction plan move ahead, according to the translated letter.

The parcel – about 80 acres along the Alamar River in Tijuana – is large enough to house the sewage plant, Bajagua officials said.

 

Jim Simmons, the company's managing partner, hailed the news as a victory for clean water.

 

“There were those who have doubted Mexico's support for Bajagua and our ability to get permission to use federal land for this important, binational purpose. Those doubts should now be put to rest,” he said.

 

But it's still unclear whether Bajagua will get to build its facility.

 

The U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, which is charged with curtailing cross-border pollution, is developing an alternate plan. It seeks to improve treatment of Tijuana's sewage by expanding a wastewater plant in San Ysidro.

 

Sally Spener, a spokeswoman for the boundary commission, said her agency is evaluating Mexico's land-concession documents and would not comment on them.

 

In recent weeks, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board said they supported upgrading the San Ysidro plant over building a facility in Mexico.

 

Treatment upgrades are necessary because the boundary commission's plant in San Ysidro fails to meet Clean Water Act standards. A solution was supposed to be completed by September 2008, but the boundary commission recently said it can't meet that deadline.

 

Two federal court hearings will be held in coming weeks to sort out the debate about building the Bajagua plant or retrofitting the San Ysidro facility.

 

On Aug. 24, Bajagua's attorneys are expected to contend that the company should become an official party to the legal proceedings. At a Sept. 14 hearing, a central question will be which project – if any – should get the judge's blessing for a deadline extension.  #

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070811/news_1m11bajagua.html

####

 

 

No comments:

Blog Archive