County, water district and city settle differences, drop
lawsuits; environmental review underway
San Benito County and the City of Hollister have come to their
first truce.
On Friday San Benito County and the San Benito County Water
District agreed to drop their lawsuits against Hollister over the
city’s attempt to bypass environmental reviews before building two
new sewage storage ponds.
County, water district and city settle differences, drop lawsuits; environmental review underway
San Benito County and the City of Hollister have come to their first truce.
On Friday San Benito County and the San Benito County Water District agreed to drop their lawsuits against Hollister over the city’s attempt to bypass environmental reviews before building two new sewage storage ponds.
After approving a settlement offer made by the county and the water district, the city has agreed to come up with an environmental work plan concerning the ponds and future projects in 30 days. Both sides have agreed that the city can build the storage basins in the meantime, but not use them unless an emergency comes up.
It’s one of the first indications that the years-long war between the county and the city is starting to fizzle.
“I’m glad this was settled to everyone’s liking,” said newly appointed Hollister Mayor Brian Conroy. “I think it’s the beginning of a better working relationship between the city, the county and the water district. I want this coming year to be different from the last.”
Both sides are claiming victory.
City staff will prepare the environmental work plan and submit it to the county and the water district within 30 days. According to City Attorney Elaine Cass, the work plan is “merely an information document” that will include a timeline setting out how the new headworks, which measures and processes raw sewage for treatment, and other repair projects will be built.
“The county and water district can always challenge the findings (of the work plan),” said Cass, adding that the city will ultimately decide on what level of environmental mitigations are necessary for all aspects of the city’s wastewater facility project.
County Counsel Karen Forcum perceives the agreement differently, and said the work plan will indicate whether a full-blown Environmental Impact Report is necessary for certain stages of the city’s sewage fix.
Both attorneys agreed that the city will decide what level of environmental studies need to be done.
That doesn’t mean the county and the water district won’t continue to monitor the city’s work on the project. Forcum also said that as part of the settlement agreement, the city will start communicating all their plans and actions concerning water and wastewater matters to the county and the water district.
In the two years since the city decided to build a new sewage treatment facility, the county, its water districts and downstream agencies such as the City of San Juan Bautista and the Pajaro Water Management District have been left out of the decision-making process. The agreement means the agencies will be included in environmental reviews of the new sewage treatment system.
“We feel it was a good result because, concerning the entire Long Term Wastewater Facility, the county and the water district will be included in the environmental review process,” said Forcum.
Supervisor Richard Scagliotti wondered why it took a month’s time and two lawsuits to get to this point.
“The agreement was nothing more than what we asked for all along,” said Scagliotti, “and that was full public disclosure of what the environmental affects of this project will be.”
Scagliotti was pleased that the case didn’t end up in court at the taxpayers’ expense, but believes that for too long the city council has not been receiving pertinent information from Cass and other staff.
“It got settled probably because the city council was finally given a copy of what we were offering,” he said. “And it wasn’t being rejected by counsel or staff.”
Cass declined to respond to the remark, except to say, “I work for the council. I believe they are satisfied with my work. They are pleased with the outcome of this settlement.”
She reiterated that the city would be making the ultimate decisions on all wastewater treatment matters.
“These are city projects,” she said. “As you know, the county is all on septic. The bottom line is that the city is committed to involve the county and the water district and to consult with them.”
The city has almost completed the construction of the seasonal storage ponds, part of a series of environmental mitigations the city has agreed to in order to avoid part of a $1.2 million fine levied by the state Regional Water Quality Control Board for the 15 million gallon sewage spill in May. The city’s self-imposed deadline for the storage ponds, designed to hold wastewater during the rainy season when percolation slows, is Jan. 1.
According to Forcum, under the new agreement the city will not use the basins — unless there’s an emergency — until after an environmental study has been completed.
The term “emergency” has been a haggling point on the issue since the county and water board sought an injunction to stop construction last month. To avoid a $250,000 fine for missing the storage pond deadline, city engineers and officials decided to break ground without informing the county and waster district as to what would be stored in the ponds – treated wastewater or raw sewage – and without an EIR, saying it was an emergency.
The county and the water district said the city was stretching the definition of the word “emergency,” which they defined as being an earthquake, flood or fire – not poor planning by the city for its future sewage treatment needs.
Despite the lingering sense of skepticism from some, last week’s settlement has lifted the hopes of others.
“It hopefully means better cooperation,” said Forcum. “It can only benefit the public.”
Cass had the same thoughts.
“The real issue is that the city has made a commitment to working cooperatively,” she said.
