Despite the fact that the Water Board admitted they had violated thier process, they stood by thier flawed decision. No surprise. This is what bureaucracy does. If they make a mistake, staff compiles a cover argument that will protect them and they stand by the decision rather than risk getting sued themselves. Now everyone in Humbodt County - and the State will be paying the price for Baykeeper's self-motivated ploy.
Harbor District Chief Executive Officer David Hull runs through a presentation to the State Water Board, Tuesday afternoon detailing why the state should reconsider its October 2006 decision to list Humboldt Bay as impaired for dioxin under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Nathan Rushton/The Eureka Reporter
Dioxin listing a done deal
by Nathan Rushton, 2/21/2007
Disappointment, but not surprise.
That is how an official from one of the primary agencies described the unsuccessful last-ditch effort by several area government agencies to pressure the state into reconsidering its decision to list Humboldt Bay as impaired for dioxin.
The listing matter was discussed during a State Water Resources Control Board meeting in Sacramento Tuesday.
Since Humboldt Bay was added to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s nationwide list of impaired waterways during the State Water Board Oct. 25, 2006, meeting, numerous agencies, including the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District, Humboldt County, the city of Arcata and several bay oyster producers, have been vocal and have lobbied the State Water Board to reconsider its decision on a variety of grounds.
Agencies have claimed the listing was a “failed process” that surprised nearly every bay stakeholder group and agency because the State Water Board approved its staff’s last-minute listing recommendation reversal following the review of 14 tissue samples of fish and shellfish that showed dioxin levels that exceeded state criteria, which had been submitted by the environmental advocate group Humboldt Baykeeper.
Improper procedures, inadequate solicitation of data and a lack of thorough review of too little data were also listed as reasons for reconsidering the listing the state and federal governments have called a done deal.
The four-member State Water Board patiently listened to the rehashing of arguments its staff had already rejected and addressed at length in an eight-page response letter to the environmental consultant Geomatrix, which was hired by the Harbor District earlier this month to petition the listing.
Geomatrix Principal Geologist Edward Conti told the board that removing Humboldt Bay from the list would allow a more “technically and procedurally acceptable” process, which he said would instill confidence in the public that it was inclusive and transparent.
State Water Board member Arthur Baggett said he could reconsider the listing if there were any major errors of law or fact.
“I don’t see that,” Baggett said.
An EPA representative confirmed for the State Water Board that the state had complied with the legal requirements for the listing and that the federal agency had already approved the state’s recommendation for the listing in November.
As well as not budging on reconsidering the listing, State Water Board staff told the board that delisting Humboldt Bay as impaired for dioxin would require “a higher level of proof.”
Although the combined 2004-06 listing cycle ended in October, the deadline for submitting data in support of delisting the bay or maintaining its current impaired status ends Feb. 28.
Harbor District legal counsel Russell Gans called the listing process “troubled” and added that the “indiscriminate” listing of the entire bay as impaired was similar to deeming a 16,000-room hotel as contaminated because a pollutant was detected on the shirt sleeve of a few patrons.
Another Geomatrix consultant read into the record a letter signed by 5th District Supervisor Jill Geist, who conveyed by proxy her frustration of the listing she said showed “significant shortcomings” and a “rush to judgment.”
Representatives from Humboldt Baykeeper, as well the California Coastkeeper Alliance, the organization representing several environmental “keeper” groups throughout the state, lined up in support of the listing.
While he commended State Water Board staff for their diligent work, Humboldt Baykeeper Program Director Pete Nichols called the Harbor District’s “show of force” at the meeting disconcerting and evidence of their willingness to waste taxpayer’s dollars on an already proven health issue.
Nichols said he will continue with the group’s efforts to characterize the contaminated sites around Humboldt Bay, but added he will look to work collaboratively with the Harbor District and other stakeholders in the future to get the clean up moving forward.
“We want to do both,” Nichols said. “But it would take a change of attitude on their part.”
At the conclusion of Tuesday’s meeting, Harbor District Chief Executive Officer David Hull said he was disappointed, but that he was shifting energy and directing Geomatrix to prepare for the 2008 listing cycle to meet next week’s deadline.
“I am pretty confident that we are going to have a lot of information in the record this time — something that they didn’t have when they made this decision,” Hull said.
Although he said it is odd to only have a three-month window to gather the necessary delisting data that the state will take two years to review, Hull said it is indicative of the effort that should have been done for their last decision.
State Water Board staff announced a workshop meeting has been scheduled for staff to discuss with the public the “lessons learned” during the 2004-06 303(d) listing process in preparation of finalizing the 2008 listing cycle.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment