The San Benito County Water District threatened litigation
against the City of Hollister Wednesday that would hinder the
likelihood of the city meeting a construction deadline set by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The San Benito County Water District threatened litigation against the City of Hollister Wednesday that would hinder the likelihood of the city meeting a construction deadline set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
If the deadline is not met, taxpayers would be liable for an additional $150,000 in fines.
The possible lawsuit would use the California Environmental Quality Act to challenge the city’s motive for building a seasonal storage pond, City Manager George Lewis said. Construction on the pond construction was scheduled to begin this week.
“They (the county water district) contend this is not an emergency,” Lewis said.
If the water district pursues legal action and construction is delayed, the city will miss its Jan. 1 deadline for completion and subsequently pay $150,000 to the Sacramento Cleanup and Abatement Fund.
“If they stop this and are able to go to court… we will miss that deadline,” Lewis said.
The Administrative Civil Liabilities fine administered to the city by the RWQCB Nov. 1 states that Hollister must meet six construction deadlines in the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan or pay incremental fines of up to $300,000 for each missed deadline. The fine stems from the 15-million-gallon sewage spill at the city’s wastewater treatment plant May 4.
The seasonal storage pond is one of three supplemental environmental projects ordered by the RWQCB. It would serve to hold an additional 30 million gallons of effluent in emergencies, according to the project plan.
City officials said the pond would be especially valuable during a severe rainy season. The National Weather Service predicted El Nino conditions in California through April, which could include higher-than-normal winter rainfall.
County officials support the SBCWD’s intentions. The San Benito County Counsel sent a letter to City Attorney Elaine Cass Tuesday afternoon stating the county’s opposition to the Domestic Wastewater Seasonal Storage Pond.
The letter cited a CEQA code defining “emergency”: “Emergency means a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent danger…” according to the letter, which further stated that the seasonal storage pond does not meet such criteria.
Cass immediately relayed the news to city officials, who were wholly displeased.
“This project is the key. It’s part of our first milestone,” Mayor Tony LoBue said. “This is another common tactic by the county to disrupt city business… This is another form of the county trying to bully the city. It’s wrong.”
Lewis received a letter Wednesday morning from the SBCWD’s law firm stating four requests of the pending litigation. It included the following:
– That the city set aside its decision to approve the project;
– That the city comply with the CEQA before approving the project;
– That the city halt plans for construction on the pond;
– That the city pay the SBCWD’s attorney fees and court costs, should the issue go to court.
The letter requested a response by Nov. 25.
LoBue immediately called for a special closed-session City Council meeting tonight at 6 p.m. to discuss the matter with Cass and other Councilmembers.
Officials from the county and city met Wednesday night to discuss the dispute. This morning, Gregg said the two sides remained in disagreement over the pond’s legality. In all likelihood, the SBCWD will file pursue the litigation against the city, Gregg said.
“There was a wide-ranging discussion of the issue,” he said.
In recent weeks, a wave of confidence had spread among city officials for progress that has been made. At a City Council meeting Oct. 22, Councilmember Pauline Valdivia proudly said citizens should realize that city officials are moving forward on construction of the seasonal storage pond.
Valdivia’s optimism vanished Wednesday after she heard the news.
“I really don’t understand why this is happening,” she said. “We must proceed with what we have to do.”
Cass also expressed disappointment.
“I don’t see how this is a good use of taxpayers’ money,” she said, referring to the litigation and potential fine to the city.
Gregg at first had no comment in response to comments by city officials on taxpayers’ money, but then laid the blame on the city for the potential losses.
“The responsibility of waste of taxpayers dollars rests with city staff,” Gregg said.
Lewis contends that the seasonal storage pond does comply with CEQA. He called the possibility for no pond “potentially detrimental.”
In recent years, the city has failed to find an efficient method of percolating water coming into the plant, he said. The new pond is designed to hold that additional sewage instead of dumping it, Lewis said.
“We consider this to be an emergency,” he said.
The pond’s primary purpose was to temper this year’s rainy season and the predicted El Nino conditions. After that, the pond would have little use, Lewis said.
“This is not going to accomplish anything,” he said. “This is not working cooperatively toward a future goal.”
Gregg said Council approved the project without reasonable evidence for its necessity. Thus far, a lack of documentation on wet weather, flow management and storage issues has been provided, he said.
If city staff can demonstrate an “urgent need for these facilities,” the SBCWD would rescind its pursuit of litigation, Gregg said.
