Probe Urges Tougher Stance by Water Board

The state’s water pollution watchdog needs to get tougher with companies and government agencies that discharge waste into San Diego County waterways, according to a review of the performance of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The report released Wednesday by the state auditor general said the San Diego board’s self-described “cooperative approach” has stymied effective monitoring and enforcement of state and federal clean-water laws.

The report noted that the board had recently improved its performance by hiring more staff members and implementing a computerized system for tracking compliance with regulations under its control. And the board’s top staff member said in an interview that the board has stepped up inspections and enforcement since the audit was completed.

“They have made a lot of improvement but they have got a ways to go,” said Auditor General Thomas W. Hayes. “They’ve got to get a better handle on things.”

Paper Work Deficient

While the audit did not link the various paper work deficiencies it cited to any actual water quality problems in the field, Hayes said the pattern of lax enforcement places the region’s water quality “at risk.”

“All those rules and regulations and laws are put in place to provide the degree of protection that elected officials have said needs to be provided,” said Hayes, who works for the state Legislature. “If you don’t follow those things, you’re taking a risk that the water quality in the region will deteriorate.”

The auditors reviewed the board’s regulation of 99 of 425 companies and government agencies with permits to discharge waste in the region. They found:

- During the 1985-1986 fiscal year, the regional board failed to perform 25 of 160 inspections required on dischargers that pose the highest threat to water quality. Nine dischargers that pose less of a threat to water quality were not inspected at all during the period.

- As of Dec. 31, the regional board had gone five years without reviewing or revising requirements for 37 of 54 dischargers that have state permits in the region. Those plans are supposed to be updated every five years, the audit said.

- Of 80 dischargers that should have submitted reports on their own monitoring of the quality of water they send into the region’s waterways, 33 did not submit all of the reports required of them during 1985 and 1986. Of those 33, 16 did not submit any reports during that period.

- The regional board did not take enforcement action against 6 of 13 dischargers that repeatedly violated the requirements.

In general, the report criticized the board’s so-called “cooperative approach” to regulation, through which polluters were urged to comply with water quality standards rather than slapped with stiff fines for their noncompliance.

Dischargers Not Named

The report did not name the 99 dischargers chosen at random from the board’s permits. Kurt R. Sjoberg, chief deputy auditor general, said they included sewage treatment agencies, landfills and industries. He said they included large and small polluters.

In one of its few specific criticisms, the report cited the board’s oversight of dairies, which are regulated because runoff of manure and urine from corrals and filthy water from washing barns can flow into surface waterways or seep into the ground water.

Six of seven dairies included in the audit’s sampling had not submitted any of their required reports since 1976. But instead of fining the dairies, the board has formed a committee of one of its members and the dairymen to help the dairies determine what steps they need to take to comply with state laws.

Although those dairies still have not complied, Ladin Delaney, the water quality board’s executive officer, said the board began to “turn the corner” even before state auditors began their work and is now moving toward more aggressive enforcement of water quality laws.

Delaney said the board now uses a computer to monitor receipt of reports, and the computer automatically sends letters to dischargers that fail to comply. Those letters are followed by notices of violation and, if necessary, civil fines.

As a result, Delaney said, 90%of dischargers are now submitting their monitoring reports on time, compared to 50%less than a year ago.

“We’ve taken a stringent enforcement standpoint on this and they’ve turned around completely,” he said.

But Delaney said the board has neither the staff nor the budget to find and penalize everyone who violates a permit. He compared the board to the California Highway Patrol, which, he noted, does not catch every speeder.

Not All Get Citations

“Even of those they catch, they don’t issue citations to them all,” he said. “We’re the same way. We don’t catch all the violators, and even of those we catch, we don’t have the resources to go after each and every one of them. We look at the list of violators and decide which ones we should pursue for formal enforcement actions.”

But Assemblyman Larry Stirling (R-San Diego), who requested the audit, said the board should be seeking more funds from the Legislature if it can’t afford to enforce water quality laws elected officials have enacted.

“Never have I been lobbied by any of the board members on the budget,” Stirling said. “Not one of them has ever written and said ‘Our budget is coming up and we need an additional 30%to carry out the state mandates.’ That has simply never been done.”

Like tax laws, Stirling said, water quality statutes depend in large part on self-enforcement. Without regular sanctions against violators, the system will break down because others will see that they can escape punishment if they also fail to comply, he said.

“It’s a grievous disappointment the way it has been handled,” Stirling said. “I can only hope that the chastening of the auditor general’s findings will wake up board members who have previously relied on their professional staff to encourage, cajole and otherwise demand an improvement in their performance.”