A judge ruled against the county water district’s attempt
Wednesday to halt Hollister from building emergency storage ponds
for a potentially disastrous rainy season at the city’s wastewater
treatment plant.
A judge ruled against the county water district’s attempt Wednesday to halt Hollister from building emergency storage ponds for a potentially disastrous rainy season at the city’s wastewater treatment plant.
San Benito County Superior Court Judge Steve Sanders disagreed with the water district’s objection to the project’s disobeyance of the California Environmental Quality Act and rejected that restraining order.
Sanders, however, issued a restraining order against the city that prohibits filling the new ponds until further review can determine the project’s environmental effects. Another hearing was scheduled for Dec. 12.
Sanders expressed concerns for both sides of the argument and decided not to finalize anything until a more-detailed examination of the issues can be completed.
“I strongly suggest … an environmental review should proceed as rapidly as possible,” Sanders said.
City officials were pleased with the result and will begin an environmental impact review process immediately.
“The bottom line is that the health and safety of the community is going to be cherished and held by the construction of these ponds,” Mayor Tony LoBue said.
City Attorney Elaine Cass said the city was happy to again move forward.
John Gregg, executive director of the water district, declined comment on the legal action until completion of the Dec. 12 hearing. He repeated his sentiments on county officials looking out for best interests of the community.
“The district has no intention at placing the environment or community at risk,” Gregg said. “The people can take those words to the bank.”
The emergency seasonal storage pond project was designed to add 25 million gallons of security during an especially rainy winter. With predicted El Nino conditions through April, city officials felt a dire necessity to prevent an emergency.
Public Works Director Clint Quilter this week reported to City Council if winter precipitation reaches 1997-98 levels, the plant’s treated effluent capacity would be surpassed by 21.4 million gallons. That scenario would leave plant workers trudging through effluent in an attempt to prevent serious disaster, Quilter said.
The county’s argument centered around two points, one that the project is not an “emergency” according to CEQA. The other, that the city has not performed proper environmental review before construction.
The CEQA definition includes “immediate dangers” such as fires, floods and earthquakes, argued David Pipal, attorney for the water district.
“There must be an ‘occurrence,'” he said.
Lawyers for the county said the city is merely attempting to avoid an upcoming deadline from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
If the city cannot complete the emergency storage basins by Jan. 1, it must pay $150,000 to the state, the first deadline associated with an Administrative Civil Liabilities fine. The ACL stems from the 15-million gallon sewage spill May 4 at the city’s wastewater treatment plant.
Additionally, without an adequate environmental review for the project, the county expressed concern over water contamination in county reservoirs, including the San Juan Valley water basin.
“I’m concerned overall with the integrity of the process,” County Attorney Karen Forcum said.
Cass said the city’s immediacy is because of potential effects of the rainy season, rather than a shrinking timeline with the water board.
The RWQCB, a division of CEQA, recommended earlier this week the city commence construction. Community Development Director Bill Card filed a revised exemption Tuesday with CEQA, including the approval of the RWQCB. The exemption cited that the project would prevent an imminent emergency.
“It would be irresponsible not to construct the storage ponds,” Cass said.
City officials argue the storage ponds would not pose any environmental risk to the county.
“There’s no credible threat of groundwater contamination,” Cass said.
Additionally, Cass said the city would not use the ponds until a potential emergency caused current ponds to reach capacity.
Sanders decided against halting the project based on a “balancing of harms.”
“I think they are very great,” Sanders said, referring to potential environmental effects of a sewage capacity disaster.
However, in ordering the ponds not be filled, Sanders said the city still must prove environmental responsibility before using the ponds.
“I won’t, necessarily, be tremendously sympathetic,” Sanders said regarding further hearings after construction has commenced.
Until Dec. 12, the two sides can only prepare. The city will further examine potential environmental impacts of the project and make a case that the ponds are safe.
“The chance that an Environmental Impact Report will say the ponds are damaging is slim to none,” LoBue said.
Water District officials said they want documented proof of that.
“We believe the community is entitled to full disclosure on the impacts of projects that affect them,” Gregg said.
