Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sean Bothwell (Bar No. 272105)
CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE
268 Bush St., #4313
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (949) 291-3401
Facsimile: (415) 856-0443
Email: sbothwell@cacoastkeeper.org

George Torgun (Bar No. 222085)
SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER
785 Market Street, Suite 850
San Francisco, California 94103
Telephone: (415) 856-0444
Facsimile: (415) 856-0443
Email: george@baykeeper.org

Tatiana Gaur (Bar No. 247226)
LOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER
120 Broadway, Suite 105
Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone: (310) 394-6162, ext. 102
Facsimile: (310) 394-6178
Email: tgaur@lawaterkeeper.org





Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
California Coastkeeper Alliance (Coastkeeper or CCKA) hereby petitions this Court for a
Writ of Mandate pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 ordering the State
Water Resources Control State Board (State Board or SWRCB) to reopen Order No. 2014-0057-
DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000001, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (2014 Permit), to
include monitoring provisions necessary to determine compliance with Receiving Water Limitation
VI.A., and to incorporate effluent limitations that are consistent with the assumptions and requirements
of the wasteload allocations (WLAs) assigned to industrial storm water discharges in total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs).
I. Introduction
1. In California, the State Board is responsible for adopting NPDES permits and assuring
that all the requirements of the Clean Water Act are implemented through such permits.
2. On April 1, 2014, the State Board adopted the 2014 Permit, which is a reissuance of
Californias NPDES permit that authorizes discharges of pollutants in storm water associated with
industrial activity. A copy of the 2014 Permit is filed concurrently herewith as Exhibit A to the
Declaration of Drevet Hunt in support of Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (Hunt Dec.).
3. When issuing the 2014 Permit, the State Board must include monitoring program
requirements sufficient to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.
4. The State Board failed to include findings necessary to support a conclusion that the
2014 Permits monitoring program is sufficient to determine whether a discharger is in compliance with
Receiving Water Limitation VI.A., which requires that industrial storm water discharges do not cause
or contribute to an exceedence of any applicable water quality standards in any receiving water. When
CCKA submitted comments on the final draft of the 2014 Permit requesting confirmation that the
monitoring program is adequate to determine compliance with Receiving Water Limitations, the State
Board stated unequivocally that the 2014 Permits sampling program is insufficient to demonstrate
compliance with water quality standards. Accordingly, the State Board prejudicially abused its
discretion, failed to proceed in a manner required by law, and failed to support its findings and
conclusions with analysis and facts when adopting the 2014 Permit.


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. In addition, the State Board did not comply with the Clean Water Act requirement to
ensure that the 2014 Permits effluent limitations and conditions are consistent with available WLAs of
existing TMDLs. Accordingly, the State Board prejudicially abused its discretion, failed to proceed in
a manner required by law, and failed to support its findings and conclusions with analysis and facts
when adopting the 2014 Permit.
II. Beneficial Interest of CCKA and Capacity of State Board
6. California Coastkeeper Alliance is a non-profit public benefit corporation organized
under the laws of the State of California and headquartered in San Francisco, California.
7. Founded in 1999, CCKA represents twelve non-profit Waterkeeper member
organizations.
1
California Waterkeeper organizations work to protect and enhance the water quality
and overall health of coastal and inland waterways for the benefit of ecosystems and communities
throughout California. Collectively, CCKAs member organizations are dedicated to the preservation,
protection, and defense of the environment, and the natural resources of California watersheds and
surface waters. CCKAs member organizations work to protect the health of their local water bodies
and communities throughout California, as indicated by the geographic descriptors of each Waterkeeper
organizational name (e.g., Los Angeles Waterkeeper). CCKA defends and expands on local matters by
advocating before decision-makers on issues and programs with statewide impact and significance. To
further their goals, CCKA and CCKAs member groups actively seek Federal and State agency
implementation of Federal and State environmental laws and policies, and where necessary, directly
initiate administrative challenges and enforcement actions on behalf of themselves and their individual
members in State and Federal courts.
8. Members of the Waterkeeper organizations that comprise CCKA use and enjoy the
coastal and inland waters of the State to, among other activities, fish, sail, surf, paddle, boat, kayak,
swim, view wildlife, and engage in scientific study, including monitoring activities. The scenic and

1
The twelve non-profit organizations that CCKA represents include: Klamath Riverkeeper, Humboldt
Baykeeper, Russian Riverkeeper, San Francisco Baykeeper, Monterey Coastkeeper, San Luis Obispo
Coastkeeper, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, Ventura Coastkeeper, Los Angeles Waterkeeper, Orange County
Coastkeeper and Inland Empire Waterkeeper chapter, and San Diego Coastkeeper. Collectively, the foregoing
Waterkeeper organizations have thousands of members residing throughout California.


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recreational resources that these members use and enjoy depend on intact and healthy ecosystems in
streams and waterways throughout the State. Where elements of those ecosystems, such as water
quality, are reduced or eliminated by discharges of pollutants at levels that fail to meet the minimum
requirements of the Clean Water Act, CCKAs members recreational uses and aesthetic enjoyment of
Californias streams and watercourses are reduced.
9. Since its inception, CCKA has participated in the State Boards development of
Californias NPDES permits regulating the discharge of storm water associated with industrial activity.
During this time, CCKA has submitted comments on each draft permit, and participated in workshops
and hearings related to the adoption of each permit. At each step, CCKA has sought to ensure that the
State Board follows the requirements of the Clean Water Act when adopting NPDES permits. See Hunt
Dec., Exhibits B-E (CCKA comment letters).
10. Thus, the interests of CCKAs and its member organizations and its members have been,
are being, and will continue to be adversely affected by the State Boards failure to comply with the
requirements of Clean Water Act described herein. The relief sought herein will redress the harms to
CCKA caused by State Boards activities and failures to act. Continuing commission of the acts and
omissions alleged herein will irreparably harm CCKAs members, for which harm they have no plain,
speedy or adequate remedy at law.
11. The State Board is now, and at all times mentioned in this petition has been, a state
agency under the laws of the State of California, and is directly responsible for carrying out the NPDES
permitting program in California.
III. Jurisdiction and Venue
12. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
1094.5. See Cal. Water Code 13330.
13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 393, 395 and
401 because the State Water Resources Control Board is a state agency based in Sacramento County
and an office of the attorney general for the State of California is located in Oakland, California.
14. CCKA has exhausted all remedies available, including through active and consistent
participation in the State Board administrative process relating to the adoption of the 2014 Permit.


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15. The State Board served a copy of the 2014 Permit on April 8, 2014. Under Water Code
section 13330, this action is properly before the Court as it is filed not later than 30 days from the date
of service of the order subject to review.
IV. Authenticity of Exhibits Attached
16. The documents accompanying this petition are true and correct copies of the original
documents, and were obtained in the manner described in the Declaration of Drevet Hunt in support of
CCKAs Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate, which is filed concurrently herewith. The documents
are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth in this petition.
V. Regulatory Background
A. The Clean Water Act
17. The Clean Water Act was enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the United States. 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1).
18. The Clean Water Act establishes a goal of eliminating the discharge of pollutants to
waters of the United States. 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1).
19. To ensure the protection of water quality, the Clean Water Act created the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. See 33 U.S.C. 1342.
20. The NPDES program allows regulatory agencies responsible for protection of water
quality to issue permits, known as NPDES permits, which authorize the discharge of pollutants to
waters of the United States. 33 U.S.C. 1342(a).
21. The Clean Water Act allows State governments to seek delegation from the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement the NPDES permit program in their
state. 33 U.S.C. 1342(b).
22. Delegated State permitting agencies are required to implement the NPDES program
consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(1).
23. The State Board has been granted the authority to implement the NPDES permit
program in California. See Water Code 13370, 13377.
24. The State Board is required to comply with and implement all provisions of the Clean
Water Act. Water Code 13370, 13377.


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25. When issuing NPDES permits, the State Board must establish conditions to provide for
and assure compliance with all applicable requirements of [the Clean Water Act] and regulations. 40
C.F.R. 122.43(a).
26. NPDES permits authorize permittees to discharge pollutants to the nations waters,
provided the discharger complies with the terms and conditions of its NPDES permit. 33 U.S.C.
1311(a).

1. The Clean Water Acts Water Quality Based Protections Applicable to Industrial
Storm Water Discharges.
27. The Clean Water Act requires permitting authorities to issue NPDES permits for the
discharge of storm water associated with industrial activity that include technology-based effluent
limitations as well as effluent limitations necessary to ensure compliance with applicable water quality
standards. 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(a)-(c), 1342(a)(1)(A), 1342(b)(1)(A), 1342(p)(2)(B), and
1342(p)(3)(A).
28. Water quality standards consist of a water bodys beneficial uses and the water quality
criteria necessary to achieve those beneficial uses. 33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)(A); 40 C.F.R. 130.3.
29. In California, the various regional boards designate beneficial uses of water bodies
within their respective jurisdiction. Water Code 13241.
30. Water quality criteria, also known as water quality objectives in California, are
established by the various regional boards, the State Board, or, in the event the State does not act as
required, by EPA. 33 U.S.C. 1313(a)-(c); 40 C.F.R. 131.4-131.6.
31. The California Toxics Rule (CTR) sets forth numeric water quality criteria that apply
in all water bodies in California to protect aquatic life-based beneficial uses in those waters. 65 Fed.
Reg. 31,682, 31,701 (May 18, 2000).
32. Other water quality criteria are found in various the basin plans adopted by the various
regional boards throughout the State. These water quality criteria are expressed as numeric criteria,
narrative criteria, or both.
33. Strict compliance with water quality standards is required for dischargers of storm water
associated with industrial activity. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 191 F.3d 1159, 1165 (9th Cir.


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1999).
2. The Clean Water Act Requires NPDES Permits Include Monitoring Requirements
Sufficient to Determine Compliance with Permit Terms.
34. The Clean Water Act mandates that every NPDES permit contain requirements to ensure
permittees monitor their discharges to waters of the United States in a manner sufficient to determine
whether the permittee is in compliance with the terms of the permit. 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(2) (The
Administrator shall prescribe conditions for such permits to assure compliance with the requirements
of the statute) and 1318(a)(A); 40 C.F.R. 122.44(i)(1) (every permit shall include monitoring [t]o
assure compliance with permit limitations), 122.41(j)(1), and 122.48(b) (All permits shall specify
required monitoring including type, intervals, and frequency sufficient to yield data which are
representative of the monitored activity); see also Cal. Water Code 13383.5.
35. A critical element of the Clean Water Acts NPDES permitting program is self-
monitoring by dischargers. See Sierra Club v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 813 F.2d 1480, 1491 (9th Cir.
1987) ([t]he NPDES program fundamentally relies on self-monitoring.).
36. Congress purpose for requiring a sufficient self-monitoring program in all NPDES
permits was to promote straightforward enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Sierra Club v. Union Oil
Co. of Cal., 813 F.2d 1480, 1492 (9th Cir. 1987).
37. The Clean Water Act mandates that the permitting agency require[] the owner or
operator of any point source to monitor his own discharges accurately and to provide information to
show whether or not he is in compliance with effluent limitations and other requirements under [the
Clean Water Act]. H.R. Rep. N. 92-911, at 113-14 (1972) (discussing 33 U.S.C. 1318).
38. The Ninth Circuit recently reinforced the Clean Water Acts mandate when ruling, an
NPDES Permit is unlawful if a permittee is not required to effectively monitor its permit compliance.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. County of Los Angeles, 725 F.3d 1194, 1207 (9th Cir. 2013).
3. The Clean Water Acts Total Maximum Daily Loads Requirements.
39. When effluent limitations required under section 301(b)(1)(A) and 301(b)(1)(B) of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a)(1)(A)-(B), are insufficient to ensure compliance with the water
quality standards applicable to a specific water body, the State must place that water body on the list of


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
impaired waters and develop a TMDL for the pollutant(s) impairing the water body. 33 U.S.C.
1313(d)(1).
40. The State must submit its list of impaired water bodies, pollutants causing impairments,
and a priority ranking including water bodies targeted for TMDL development to the EPA for review
and approval every two years. 40 C.F.R. 130.7(d).
41. TMDLs can be developed by the EPA or the state. 33 U.S.C. 1313(d); 40 C.F.R. 130.7.
42. Each TMDL must be established at a level necessary to implement the applicable water
quality standards. 33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(C); 40 C.F.R. 130.2(i).
43. Each TMDL must include the individual WLAs for point sources discharging into the
water body, as well as load allocations for non-point sources and natural background sources. 33 U.S.C.
1313(d)(1)(C); 40 C.F.R. 130.2(i).
!!" WLAs are [t]he portion of a receiving water's loading capacity that is allocated to one
of its existing or future point sources of pollution. WLAs constitute a type of water quality-based
effluent limitation. 40 C.F.R. 130.2(h).
45. The agency establishing a TMDL may include an implementation plan as a formal
statement of how the level of that pollutant can and will be brought down to or be kept under the
TMDL. Sierra Club v. Meiburg, 296 F.3d 1021, 1029-30 (11th Cir. 2002).
46. WLAs and load allocations are set measures, or prescribed maximum quantities, of a
particular pollutant in a given water body that are effective once approved by EPA. See 40 C.F.R.
130.2(i); 40 C.F.R. 130.7(d)(2).
47. WLAs in TMDLs are incorporated in NPDES permits as water quality based effluent
limitations. See 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B).
48. Under California law, each regional board is required to formulate and adopt water
quality control plans, commonly known as Basin Plans, for all hydrologic areas within their region.
Water Code 13240. A water quality control plan consists of a designation or establishment for the
waters within a specified area of all of the following: (1) Beneficial uses to be protected; (2) Water
quality objectives; [and] (3) A program of implementation needed for achieving water quality
objectives. Water Code 13050(j). The program of implementation for achieving water quality


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
objectives must include a description of the nature of actions which are necessary to achieve the
objectives, including recommendations for appropriate action by any entity, public or private, a time
schedule for the actions to be taken, and a description of surveillance to be undertaken to determine
compliance with objectives. Water Code 13242. Since TMDLs interpret or refine existing water
quality objectives, they are required to include a program of implementation. See Memorandum from
William R. Attwater, Chief Counsel, State Water Resources Control Board, to Gerard J. Thibeault,
Executive Officer, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, March 1, 1999.

4. The Clean Water Act Requires Incorporation of WLAs in Existing TMDLs into
NPDES Permits.
49. Once a TMDL and WLAs have been developed for an impaired water body, NPDES
permits that authorize discharges to that impaired water body must contain effluent limitations that are
consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the available WLA for the discharge. 40 C.F.R.
122.44 (d)(1)(vii)(B) (when developing water quality-based effluent limits the permitting authority
shall ensure that effluent limits are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any
available wasteload allocation for the discharge) (emphasis added); see also Communities for a Better
Envt v. State Water Res. Control Bd. (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 1089, 1096.
50. This requirement applies in the storm water permitting context as in any other NPDES
permitting context. See Memorandum from James A. Hanlon and Denise Keehner, U.S. EPA, to Water
Management Division Directors, Regions 1 10, Revisions to the November 22, 2002 Memorandum
Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water
Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs, November 12, 2010, (EPA Hanlon
Memo) at 3 (the permitting authoritys duty to ensure an NPDES permit is consistent with existing
TMDLs arises whenever the State or EPA has established a TMDL for an impaired water that includes
WLAs for stormwater discharges.). The NPDES permitting authoritys duty is executed by
incorporating into the NPDES permit effluent limits and conditions consistent with the requirements
and assumptions of the WLAs in the TMDL. EPA Hanlon Memo at 3.
//
//



Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VI. Facts and Procedural Background
A. The State Boards Permitting of Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity.
51. The State Board adopted the first NPDES permit for the discharge of storm water
associated with industrial activity in 1991 (1991 Permit).
52. In 1997, the State Board re-issued the 1991 Permit (1997 Permit).
53. The State Water Board began the process for re-issuing the 1997 Permit in the early
2000s, circulating the first draft of a revised permit in 2005. Additional drafts of the revised permit
were circulated in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.
54. CCKA, or its member Waterkeeper organizations, submitted comments on each of the
draft permits circulated between 2005 and the 2014 adoption of the 2014 Permit.
55. On April 1, 2014 the State Board re-issued the 1997 Permit when it adopted the 2014
Permit.
56. The State Board notified the public of adoption of the 2014 Permit on April 8, 2014 by
serving a copy of the 2014 Permit via its Lyris notification system and by publishing a copy of the 2014
Permit on its website.
57. The 2014 Permit states that it becomes effective on July 1, 2015.

B. The 2014 Permit Does Not Include Monitoring Requirements Sufficient to Determine
Whether Discharges Are Causing or Contributing to an Exceedence of any Applicable
Water Quality Standard.
58. Receiving Water Limitation VI.A. of the 2014 Permit provides that [d]ischargers shall
ensure that industrial storm water discharges and authorized NSWDs do not cause or contribute to an
exceedence of any applicable water quality standards in any affected receiving water.
59. The 2014 Permit Fact Sheet at page 22 states that pursuant to CWA section
301(b)(1)(C) and Water Code section 13377, the General Permit requires compliance with receiving
water limitations based on water quality standards.
60. Finding 37 of the 2014 Permit states that [t]his General Permit requires compliance
with receiving water limitations based on water quality standards.
61. Finding 37 also provides that [w]ater quality standards apply to the quality of the


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
receiving water, not the quality of the industrial storm water discharge.
62. Finding 37 further provides that compliance with the receiving water limitations
generally cannot be determined solely by the effluent water quality characteristics.
63. The 2014 Permit defines Monitoring Requirements to include sampling and analysis
activities as well as visual observations, and sets forth specific Monitoring Requirements at Section
XI and Attachment H. 2014 Permit, Section XI, Attachment C, Attachment H.
64. According to the State Board, the Monitoring Requirements are not designed to
measure the effect of a discharge on a receiving water body. 2014 Permit, Fact Sheet at 24.
65. The 2014 Permit contains 3 findings specific to its Monitoring Requirements Findings
55, 56, and 57. None of these findings states or otherwise concludes that the Monitoring Requirements
are sufficient to determine compliance with Receiving Water Limitation VI.A..
66. The discussion in the Fact Sheet of the Monitoring Requirements in Section XI does not
state or otherwise conclude that the Monitoring Requirements are sufficient to determine compliance
with Receiving Water Limitation VI.A..
67. CCKA submitted comments related to the adequacy of the permits Monitoring
Requirements for determining compliance with the permit terms throughout the administrative process
leading to adoption of the 2014 Permit. See Hunt Dec., Exhibits B-E (CCKA comment letters).
68. Most recently, CCKA submitted a comment that:

[T]he law requires that the Permit contain monitoring that is effective in
determining compliance with the Permits provisions, including the Final
Draft Permits Receiving Water Limitations. We therefore ask the Board
to confirm that the existing monitoring requirements in the Final Draft
Permit are sufficient to determine compliance with Receiving Water
Limitations.
Hunt Dec., Exhibit E at 2-3.
69. In response to CCKAs comment requesting confirmation that the Monitoring
Requirements are sufficient to determine compliance with the Receiving Water Limitations, the State
Board responded:

This Permit does not require sampling to determine compliance with water
quality standards, only with compliance with the narrative effluent


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
limitations (reduce or remove pollutants using BAT/BCT). Additional
monitoring requirements can be required under Section XX.B Water
Quality Based Corrective Actions and when TMDL implementation
requirements are incorporated in this Permit. Additional surface water
monitoring that takes place under many other State Water Board programs
will also help to inform whether receiving water limitations are being
attained.
Hunt Dec., Exhibit F (response to comment 5.4).
70. The additional monitoring requirements that can be required pursuant to section
XX.B. are only applicable after a discharger or the Regional Board determines a discharge is not in
compliance with Receiving Water Limitation VI.A. 2014 Permit, Section XX. As these potential
additional measures are not triggered until after a violation of Receiving Water Limitation VI.A. has
occurred, they provide no data to ensure or evaluate, at the time of permit adoption, that discharges are
not causing or contributing to a violation of water quality standards.
71. The additional surface water monitoring referred to by the State Board is not
monitoring required by the 2014 Permit.

C. The 2014 Permit Does Not Include Effluent Limitations to Implement Any WLAs in
Existing TMDLs into the 2014 Permit.
72. There are 36 TMDLs adopted by EPA and/or the State of California that the State Board
has identified in the 2014 Permit as applicable to industrial storm water dischargers. See 2014 Permit,
Finding 38 and Attachment E.
73. Of the 36 TMDLs in Attachment E, 20 have both WLAs specific to industrial storm
water discharges and either are effectively immediately (i.e., provide no extension for industrial storm
water point sources to be required to comply with the WLAs), or have a compliance deadline that
passed prior to adoption of the 2014 Permit.
74. The 20 TMDLs from Attachment E referenced above are the TMDLs for: (1) Napa
River, (2) Sonoma Creek, (3) Santa Clara River (nutrients), (4) Los Angeles River (metals), (5) San
Gabriel River, (6) Harbor Beaches of Ventura, (7) Ballona Creek Estuary, (8) Los Angeles Harbor, (9)
Marina Del Rey Back Basins, (10) Santa Clara River (bacteria), (11) Walker Creek, (12) Oxnard Drain
No. 3, (13) Long Beach City Beaches and LA River Estuary, (14)Los Angeles Area Lakes, (15) Santa
Monica Bay (DDTs and PCBs), (16) Machado Lake, (17) Colorado Lagoon, (18) Calleguas Creek


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Watershed (salts), (19) Calleguas Creek Watershed (metals and selenium), and (20) Los Cerritos
Channel.
75. In the Fact Sheet, the State Board clarified, NPDES permits must contain effluent limits
and conditions consistent with the requirements and assumptions of the waste allocations in TMDLs.
2014 Permit, Fact Sheet at 23.
76. In Finding 39, the State Board stated, it is appropriate to develop TMDL-specific
permit requirements derived from each TMDLs waste load allocation and implementation
requirements.
77. The 2014 Permit does not include effluent limitations consistent with the assumptions
and requirements of the WLAs assigned to industrial storm water discharges, as required by law.
Rather, the State Board postponed incorporation of TMDL-specific requirements. 2014 Permit,
Findings 40-42 and Section VII.A.
78. Finding 42 of the 2014 Permit provides that the State Board will issue a public notice
and conduct a public comment period no later than July 1, 2016 for the reopening of the 2014 Permit to
incorporate TMDL-specific permit requirements.
79. The 2014 Permit provides no deadline for the State Board to complete the process to
incorporate TMDL-specific permit requirements in the 2014 Permit.
80. Moreover, the State Board specifically excused dischargers from having to comply with
the TMDLs requirements, stating that [u]nless directed to do so by the Regional Water Board,
dischargers are not required to take any additional actions to comply with the TMDLs listed in
Attachment E until the State Water Board reopens this General Permit and includes TMDL-specific
permit requirements. 2014 Permit, Fact Sheet at 25.
81. In its comments to the 2011 and 2012 drafts of the permit, the EPA supported the
immediate incorporation of existing applicable WLAs and specifically recommended that the State
Board incorporate existing WLAs as numeric effluent limits. Hunt Dec., Exhibit G at 2 (EPA 2011
Comment) and H at 1 (EPA 2012 Comment).
82. The EPA disapproved of the State Boards decision to postpone the adoption of
applicable WLAs into the Permit and disagreed with the State Boards approach allowing regional


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
boards to develop TMDL-specific Permit requirements more than two years after Permit adoption
because this approach would result in a significant delay in the implementation of these TMDLs.
Hunt Dec., Exhibit H at 1(EPA 2012 Comment).
83. The State Board made no findings to demonstrate that its decision to postpone the
incorporation of the TMDLs was consistent with the assumptions and the requirements of the WLAs.
84. The State Boards stated reason for failing to comply with its statutory duty to ensure the
2014 Permit contains effluent limitations that are consistent with the WLAs of existing TMDLs was
that the the development of TMDL-specific permit requirements for each TMDL will severely
delay the reissuance of this General Permit. 2014 Permit, Finding 39.
85. The Clean Water Act does not provide the State Water Board with discretion to decline
to include effluent limitations that implement the WLAs assigned to industrial storm water discharges
in existing TMDLs.
VII. Claims for Relief
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
The State Board Issued the 2014 Permit Without Monitoring Requirements Sufficient to
Demonstrate Whether a Permittee is Causing or Contributing to an Exceedence of Any
Applicable Water Quality Standard in Any Affected Receiving Water.
86. Petitioner incorporates each paragraph of this Petition, herein.
87. The State Board prejudicially abused its discretion, failed to proceed in a manner
required by law, and failed to support its findings and conclusions with analysis and facts by approving
the 2014 Permit without monitoring provisions sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Receiving
Water Limitation VI.A.s requirement that discharges not cause or contribute to an exceedence of any
applicable water quality standards in any affected receiving water.
88. The State Boards failure to fully comply with its obligations is ongoing, and continues
to this day. Unless compelled by this Court to do the acts required by law, the State Board will continue
to violate its obligations under the Clean Water Act.
89. No further administrative remedies are available to CCKA for the claims set forth in this
petition. CCKA has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law because, unless
the Court grants the requested writ(s) of mandate to require the State Board to comply with their legal


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
duties, the State Board will proceed with its actions and inactions in violation of the applicable statutes.
90. The State Boards failure to perform its statutory duty has and will cause CCKA, its
members, and the general public to suffer substantial, clear, and certain irreparable injury. Unless and
until the State Board follows the requirements of the Clean Water Act and incorporates monitoring
requirements sufficient to determine a permittees compliance with Receiving Water Limitation VI.A.,
the 2014 Permit cannot ensure that the pollutant reductions required by the Clean Water Act are
achieved in California. As a result, CCKA, its members, and the general public will not be assured of
their rights to clean water afforded by the Clean Water Act.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
The State Board Issued the 2014 Permit Without Incorporating Effluent Limitations that
Implement Applicable WLAs of Existing TMDLs into the 2014 Permit.
91. Petitioner incorporates each paragraph of this Petition, herein.
92. The State Board prejudicially abused its discretion, failed to proceed in a manner
required by law, and failed to support its findings and conclusions with analysis and facts in its failure
to incorporate effluent limitations that implement applicable WLAs in the 2014 Permit.
93. In adopting the 2014 Permit, the State Board did not comply with the Clean Water Acts
requirement to ensure that the 2014 Permits effluent limitations and conditions are consistent with the
assumptions and requirements of available WLAs of existing TMDLs.
94. In adopting the 2014 Permit, the State Board did not develop water quality-based
effluent limitations consistent with the assumptions and requirements of WLAs in existing TMDLs.
95. The State Boards decision to delay any potential incorporation of TMDL-specific
effluent limitations into the 2014 Permit by more than two years from the date of 2014 Permit adoption
does not constitute compliance with the Clean Water Acts requirements.
96. The State Boards failure to fully comply with its obligations is ongoing, and continues
to this day. Unless compelled by this Court to do the acts required by law, the State Board will continue
to violate its obligations under the Clean Water Act.
97. No further administrative remedies are available to CCKA for the claims set forth in this
petition. CCKA has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law because, unless


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Court grants the requested writ(s) of mandate to require the State Board to comply with their legal
duties, the State Board will proceed with its actions and inactions in violation of the applicable statues.
98. The State Boards failure to perform its statutory duty has and will cause CCKA, its
members, and the general public to suffer substantial, clear, and certain irreparable injury. Unless and
until the State Board follows the requirements of the Clean Water Act and incorporates into the Permit
effluent limitations that are consistent with the WLAs of existing TMDLs, the 2014 Permit cannot
ensure that the pollutant reductions required by the Clean Water Act are achieved in California. As a
result, CCKA, its members, and the general public will not be assured of their rights to clean water
afforded by the Clean Water Act.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
99. California Coastkeeper Alliance therefore prays that this Court:
a. Issue a writ of mandate directing the State Board to immediately reopen the 2014
Permit to include monitoring requirements sufficient to determine that discharges do not cause or
contribute to an exceedence of any applicable water quality standard as required by Receiving Water
Limitation VI.A.
b. Issue an writ of mandate directing the State Board to reopen the 2014 Permit to
include effluent limitations that are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the 20 TMDLs
with WLAs specific to industrial storm water discharges as follows:
i. For any TMDLs that have concentration-based WLAs, zero discharge
WLAs, and any WLAs that require no translation to become effluent limitations, hold a hearing to
consider adoption the required effluent limitations into the 2014 Permit no later than July 1, 2015; and
ii. For any TMDLs not described in subparagraph (i) above, present TMDL-
specific effluent limitations no later than January 1, 2016, and hold a hearing to consider adoption of
these required effluent limitations into the 2014 Permit no later than July 1, 2016.
c. Award CCKA its costs and fees for bringing suit for State Boards violations of
the Clean Water Act and State law as provided under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
//
//


Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: May 8, 2014 Respectfully Submitted,

Drevet Hunt
LAWYERS FOR CLEAN WATER, INC.
Attorneys for Petitioner



Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, declare:
I am the Executive Director of California Coastkeeper Alliance, the Petitioner in this action. I
have read the foregoing petition and know its contents. The facts alleged in the above petition are
within my own knowledge and I know these facts to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. This declaration was
executed on May 8, 2014, in San Francisco, California.



Sara Aminzadeh
Executive Director
California Coastkeeper Alliance