City of Tracy v. CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD.

The City of Tracy (Tracy), and the Central Valley Clean Water Association (CVCWA), as an intervenor, argued that the Water Board did not meaningfully consider the factors set forth in Water Code section 13241 when it adopted the salinity objectives in the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan. In 2007, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) issued waste discharge requirements (WDR) and a national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit for Tracy’s wastewater treatment plant discharges to the San Joaquin River. The permit required Tracy to implement a salinity control plan and provided for the imposition of numeric effluent limitations if Tracy did not prepare a plan in a timely fashion. Ultimately, the permit was appealed to the Water Board, which decided that the permit should include final effluent limitations for EC. Tracy subsequently filed a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to have the court invalidate the southern Delta salinity objectives, arguing that the Water Board did not meaningfully consider the factors in Water Code section 13241 when it established the objectives. Tracy also sought to invalidate Water Board Order WQ 2009-0003 applying the southern Delta salinity objectives to Tracy’s wastewater treatment plant discharges. The court concluded that a writ of mandate should be issued directing the Water Board to reconsider the objectives after analyzing the section 13241 factors. The court issued a writ enjoining the Water Board from applying the objectives to Tracy’s and other municipal wastewater discharges pending reconsideration of the objectives and adoption of an adequate program of implementation consistent with the court’s ruling. he court, in its decision, noted that the 1978 Bay-Delta Plan only considered economic benefits to water users from establishing the requirements, and did not consider the costs of establishing the objectives, or the associated methods identified to meet the objectives, including factors related to wastewater discharges. The Superior Court also found that the socioeconomic analysis in the EIR was inadequate because it was only conducted to determine whether there would be significant environmental effects. The Superior Court ultimately held that the responsibility is on the Water Board to establish water quality objectives for the “reasonable” protection of beneficial uses by considering the economics of water pollution controls, the water quality conditions that could “reasonably” be achieved, and the costs associated with the methods identified to meet the objectives. he Court found that the significant responsibility the implementation plan contemplated placing on municipal dischargers to help meet salinity objectives warranted more than a general statement indicating that the CVRWQCB should place controls on municipal discharges of salts. The court held that when a program of implementation is revised to make previously-established water quality objectives applicable to new entities, the program of implementation must specifically address the change by describing the actions necessary to achieve the objectives, providing a reasonable time schedule, and including a monitoring program to measure compliance. Ultimately, the Superior Court did not invalidate the southern Delta salinity objectives pending the Water Board’s compliance with the writ of mandate. The Superior Court held that a writ shall be granted directing the Water Board to conduct the required section 13241 analysis and then reconsider the southern Delta salinity objectives. It also concluded that a writ shall be issued compelling the Water Board to adopt an adequate program of implementation.