Revised 4-12-90 SAN GABRIEL GROUND WATER BASIN—WHITE PAPER GROUND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL ISSUES o U. S. Environmental Protection Agency o State Water Resources Control Board o Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region April 1990 Sacramento, California ------- Revised 4-12-90 Comments concerning the contents of this White Paper should be addressed to: Fran Vitulli Office of Legislative and Public Affairs State Water Resources Control Board P. 0. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95801 Telephone: 916/322-3132 RAFT or David B. Cohen, Ph.D. Division of Water Quality State Water Resources Control Board P. 0. Box 944213 Sacramento, CA 94244-2130 Telephone: 916/322-8401 For further questions regarding the San Gabriel Project, please contact Barbara L. Evoy at 916/322-9858. ------- Revised 4-12-90 TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT Page I. Purpose 1 II. Background 1 III. Authorities Needed 2 IV. Institutional Requirements 4 V. Financial Requirements 7 VI. Short-Term Actions Required 11 VII. Proposed Schedule 16 -i- ------- Revised 4-12-90 DRAFT SAN GABRIEL GROUND WATER BASIN—WHITE PAPER GROUND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL ISSUES I. Purpose; The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared a draft San Gabriel Basinwide Technical Plan (BTP) and an accompanying Fact Sheet which describe a long-term technical strategy for addressing the ground water degradation in the San Gabriel ground water basin. These two documents also briefly outline the deficiencies of existing institutional authorities and financial resources to control and correct these problems. They do not, however, propose solutions to these institutional and financial issues. The purpose of this White Paper is to present and recommend in greater detail possible funding sources and institu- tional frameworks with the authority, responsibility, and commitment to carry out the following hierarchy of objectives: (1) prevent public exposure to contamination; (2) provide a safe, adequate drinking water supply; (3) protect natural resources; (4) control contamination migration; and (5) remove contamination. It may not be technically or financially feasible to fully implement all five objectives. The institutional and financial options ultimately chosen must, therefore, be fully integrated to ensure a cost-effective and expeditious solution. This White Paper was prepared by EPA, State Water Resources Control Board [State Board], and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region [Regional Board]), hereafter referred to as "the agencies". The White Paper outlines short-term actions (Phase I) to begin to manage the basin from a water quality perspective with existing institutions. In addition, the agencies are also proposing a process (Phases II and III) which involves the public in determining an appropriate long-term solution to these issues. The agencies are seeking public comment on these proposals in order to fully involve the affected communities while moving toward a viable solution to the problem. To this end, a series of actions, workshops, and hearings are being scheduled. II. Background; Based on the BTP, the agencies conclude that: (a) large areas of the basin have been contaminated by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrates, and (b) without -1- ------- Revised 4-12-90 measures to contain migrating VOCs, virtually all dri: water production wells will eventually become degraded and require treatment before potable use. Other major findings include: o About 80 percent of the annual outflow from the basin is due to ground water extraction. The location and rate of extraction are the most important factors in determining the migration of contaminants. o To ensure compliance with drinking water standards, water purveyors have removed wells from service, operated wells on an intermittent basis, blended -polluted water with waters from other sources, or installed treatment systems. While these prompt actions have been necessary for protection of the public, removal of wells from service has the effect of letting contaminants that would otherwise be extracted remain in the ground water and migrate to other areas. The current practice of replacing contaminated wells with new wells located in "clean" areas and of drilling wells to greater depths to avoid shallow contamination will spread contaminants. o In the absence of regulatory constraints or financial incentives, individual water purveyors may choose alternative actions involving lower individual short- term costs but potentially greater basinwide long-term costs. o To control the migration of contaminants, ground water extraction must shift back into contaminated areas of the basin. o The coordination of ground water recharge and extraction via large-scale conjunctive use, combined with the treatment of contaminated water, can provide one means to assist in controlling contaminant migration. III. Authorities Needed: Implementation of the proposed remediation program as outlined in the BTP will require a new comprehensive approach to basin water quality and quantity management. The actions proposed in the BTP to address the contamination problem must involve a basinwide ground water management agency or agencies with the authority, responsibility, resources, and commitment to take necessary actions. Most of these authorities already exist in various entities. However, no one entity has all the authorities listed below that a comprehensive ground water quality management agency should possess. RAF ikina -2- ------- Revised 4-12-90 1. Regulate basin usage for water quality pur Regulate well construction; location, depth, and rate of extraction; distribution of water produced at treatment facilities; and location and timing of intentional ground water recharge. 2. Construct and operate facilities for water cruality purposes. Use available funds to acquire land (including by eminent domain), construct, and operate facilities necessary to implement projects to maintain or improve basin water quality. 3. Obtain funding for water quality purposes and remediation. Obtain state and federal loans and grants, receive funds from other sources (local funding, responsible parties, etc.). Identify and other sources of funding that may be appropriate, as revenues from sale of treated water as well as or assessments on water users. 4. Manage available funds to implement Basinwide Technical Plan. Authority and ability to receive expend funds for investigation, planning, design, construction, and operation of projects. 5. Respond to public interests. Authority and responsibility to involve the public in the decision- making process and be accountable to the public. The local agency that assumes responsibility for large-scale remediation of degraded ground water should: (a) have public representatives among members of the decision-making body; (b) be required to conduct the public's business in accordance with the open meeting requirement of the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.); and (c) meet the requirements of the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). 6. Cost recovery. Authority to use legal means to recover remediation costs from potentially responsible parties. 7. Issue bonds to finance capital improvements for water quality purposes~ Authority to impose taxes, assessments, or other means of collecting money for bond debt service. 8. Identify and control sources of contamination. Investigate sources and require parties to take action to control or abate existing sources of contamination and prevent future sources of contamination. biaft use such fees : and -3- ------- Revised 4-12-90 DRAFT 9. Conduct continuing investigations and monitoring. Collect data through field investigations or from other parties to support further evaluation of the problem and potential solutions. 10. Review and revise the Basinwide Technical Plan. Revise at the end of each stage or as necessary, and prepare detailed feasibility studies for specific remedial action projects included in the BTP. 11. Coordinate efforts of involved federal, State, and local agencies. 12. Develop and coordinate conjunctive use. Authority to regulate the storage of water and the use of the basin's storage capacity, and the export of water from the basin. The existing Main San Gabriel Basin Judgment would have to be amended to allow the storage of water for export to another area. Existing Authorities: Figure 1 shows a matrix of the necessary authorities for ground water management compared to the existing authorities of involved agencies. The most critical authority currently lacking is for regulating the use of the basin to maintain or improve water guality. IV. Institutional Reguirements; The agencies are convinced that extensive changes are needed in the current basin management institutional structure to fully implement the multiple objectives in the BTP. The agencies agree that the institutional changes need to be pursued vigorously and in parallel with actions to secure sufficient financial resources for implementing Stage II of the BTP. The proposed Stage II funding , strategy assumes that local water users should not pay a disproportionate share of the remediation costs. The agencies recognize that there is an issue of equity in pursuing objectives which will benefit not only the overlying local water consumers, but also other regional and statewide interests associated with the potential for large-scale conjunctive use. During the State Board's June 28, 1988 public hearing, the Basin Water Quality Management Committee (BWQMC) of the Main San Gabriel Watermaster proposed a statutory San Gabriel Valley Ground Water Authority set up by special legislation. After reviewing a number of proposed alternative institutional structures, the agencies concur that the proposal of the BWQMC is an acceptable method of -4- ------- Existing Authorities Figure 1 Potentially Needed Authorities EPA Regional Bd. State Bd. DHS/TSCD and ODW Water Master MWD SG Water Districts DWR 1. Regulate Basin Usage For Water Quality Purposes © © © © © © 2. Construct and Operate For Water Quality Purposes + + + © + + + 3. Obtain Funding For W.Q. Purposes & Remediation + + + © + + + 4. Manage Funds + + + + + + + 5. Respond to Public Interests + + + © + + + 6. Cost Recovery + + + + + + + 7. Issue Bonds For Water Quality Purposes © © © + + © 8. Indentlfy and Control Sources + + + © © © © 9. Conduct Investigations/Monitor + + + + + + + 10. Review and Revise Plan + + + + © + + 11. Coordinate Efforts + + + + + + 12. Develop and Coordinate Conjunctive Use © © © + + © + = YES CHA0052 H ,0052-" ------- Revised 4-12-90 achieving the needed institutional changes. The proposed entity should address all of the shortcomings in existing authorities listed in Figure 1. The new public agency should include representation by members of the public to ensure adequate public participation in all aspects of planning and implementation. Ideally, the new agency would combine in a single body both water quantity and quality authorities, including those listed in Figure 1. The agencies recognize that even if the necessary legislation is pursued on an urgency basis with consensus among all affected local, State, and federal entities, some time will elapse before a new agency is established and fully functional. The agencies, therefore, suggest a three-phased institutional approach as follows: Phase I_i The Main San Gabriel Watermaster has instructed i^ts-attorneys to seek amendment of the court judgment to broaden its water quality management powers. According to Watermaster staff, this could be accomplished in approximately three months. The State Board anticipates being involved in this process, either directly or indirectly, to ensure that all necessary water quality authorities for short- and long-term actions (White Paper Section III) are obtained from the court. The State Board will initiate proceedings for reconvening the June 28, 1988 public hearing on this subject. The hearings will, among other things, determine the extent to which the court's decision and subsequent Watermaster's actions have been fully responsive to the BTP objectives and proposed schedule of actions (Figure 2). The Regional Board will initiate proceedings revising the Basin Plan to incorporate appropriate objectives and an implementation schedule. Phase II: Following the reconvened proceedings, the State Board will determine what further actions should be pursued. The proceedings will be scheduled to occur after the court's response to the Watermaster's request for amendment of the decree, but no later than November 15, 1990. The State Board would consider direct intervention with the court, if necessary, to further amend the judgment to provide additional authority and/or local agency commitments to fully exercise all necessary authorities including compliance with the Regional Board's implementation schedule when adopted. Alternatively, the DRAFT -6- ------- Revised 4-12-90 State Board could work with the existing San Gabriel public water supply agencies to augment their current authorities or to develop a joint powers agreement to regulate basinwide ground water extraction. None of the existing agencies currently has that authority. Following the hearing and receipt of public comments, the State Board would be prepared to suspend indefinitely any further proceedings if during Phase I or II it is demonstrated to its satisfaction that good faith efforts were being made to implement the objectives of the BTP and this White Paper. If Phase II hearings resulted in a State . Board conclusion that legislation is necessary, the goal should be for passage of such legislation as early as possible during the 1991 session. Phase III: If actions undertaken in Phases I and/or II are insufficient, a local public entity should be empowered to carry on and complete the tasks previously undertaken. This new legislatively established authority should be fully responsive and accountable, i.e., conduct its affairs in accord with the open meeting requirements of a public agency. The new agency should enforce difficult decisions including ordering cessation of extraction or well modification or construction where necessary. The exact number and representation on the newly consti- tuted agency should be the subject of public discussion. The Regional Board would compare Basin Plan implementation schedule commitments and actual accomplishments to measure the success of actions taken by the new agency. The legislative approach allows for full public debate before enactment and will ensure ample representation of public interests. The major disadvantage to this approach is delay in implementation if there is significant local opposition. The proposed phased approach will allow basin management from a water quality perspective to begin while a long-term solution is developed. The ability to receive State and federal funds through the proposed environmental trust fund (see explanation below) would be assured through this approach. Under State and federal law, institutions that are not political subdivisions cannot receive State and federal remediation funds. V. Financial Requirements: The BTP describes a variety of remedial actions and investigations and groups them into stages. Stage I includes actions undertaken by EPA to date: (1) Richwood Operable Unit (OU)—Construction completed; (2) Suburban OU—Currently under design; (3) Whittier Narrows OU— Remedial action plan proposed for public comment in summer -7- ------- Revised 4-12-90 jPeE ileElT of 1990. EPA Region 9 currently intends to r« Superfund money to fund 90 percent of the capital costs of both Suburban and Whittier Narrows OUs. The Department of Health Services (DHS) has committed the necessary 10 percent local match for the Suburban OU. Stage II actions are intended for implementation over the next five years. EPA's cost estimates associated with Stage II activities follow: Activity Estimated Median Capital Cost ($) Estimated Median Annual O&M ($) Operable Unit #1: Azusa/Baldwin Park Remediation Operable Unit #2; Contaminant Containment at Mouth of Puente Valley Additional Investigations Contingency for Imminent Threats 72,000,000 21,000,000 8,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 1,000,000 Total Cost of Stage II Activities 106,000,000 5,000,000 The cost estimates for the two operable units are based on potential implementation scenarios described in the BTP. The range in estimated cost for the alternative for Azusa/Baldwin Park operable unit is $52-$92 million. The cost of modifying the distribution system in the area is the largest component of the estimated operable unit cost. Before implementation of either operable unit, a detailed feasibility study that evaluates a range of remedial action alternatives (potentially including conjunctive use) would be required. One goal of the study should be to minimize to the extent possible costly investments in new distribution system modifications. Stage III-V Estimates The Stage II activities and their respective cost estimates do not describe the entirety of EPA's assessment of necessary actions. Because of uncertainties, however, additional actions recommended in the context of future stages (III through V) are described only in general terms -8- ------- Revised 4-12-90 DR and would likely be revised as new information becom available. As a rough idea of what resources may ultimately be necessary, cost estimates presented in the BTP total approximately $320 million (capital costs only) for Stages II through V. The Stage II actions should provide the information to more accurately define needed remedial efforts. San Gabriel Environmenta1 Trust Fund (SGETF)—The agencies believe that a "San Gabriel Environmental Trust Fund" incorporating many different sources of funding can be instrumental in the financial solution by providing "up- front money" to implement remedial actions until responsible parties are identified. The SGETF could be replenished through cost-recovery actions by the responsible agency. In the immediate future, however, no one federal, State, or local source is able to (or should) provide the total necessary monies. It appears, however, that when all potential sources are combined (Table 1), the target funding level for Stage II ($106 million in five years) can be achieved. Fiscal targets for the first year and years two through five are presented below for discussion purposes. Until a single agency is formed with the necessary authorities, an existing public agency, such as the State Board, should control disbursements from the SGETF. Once appropriate institutional arrangements are established at the local level, responsibility for the administration and disbursement of the account would be transferred. Short- and Long-Term Funding Possibilities—Several of the potential SGETF sources listed in Table 1 could possibly be augmented (e.g., by federal/State enforcement actions). These include: 1. Federal Superfund—Due to the limited availability of Superfund money and direction from Congress, EPA will initiate future remedial action projects as enforcement-lead projects. EPA is committed to pursuing aggressive enforcement actions against Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). EPA can take enforcement action to compel responsible parties to implement remedial actions. Additional funding from the Superfund can be provided only if Congress increases EPA's available budget for remedial action implementation, and if current policy to use enforcement authorities first is changed. PRP's contributions have been noted in Table 1 with an asterisk. While such actions would not contribute funds directly to the SGETF, if successful, investigation, design, construction and operation of -9- ------- Revised 4-12-90 Table 1 draft POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR SAN GABRIEL REMEDIATION ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST FUND Capital 1/ 5-Year Potential 1st Year Years 2-5 Cumulative Sources (millions) (millions/year) (millions) Federal 2^/ EPA/Potentially * * * Responsible Parties State DHS 1 2 3/ 9 SWRCB/BFI 2 2 10 /SRF (loan) 5 5 25 /C&A 11 5 Local Assessments 4 6 28 MWD * * * Industry _5 6_ 29 TOTAL 18 22 106 EPA/Potentially Responsible Parties = Federal Enforcement Actions; DHS = Department of Health Services; BFI = SWRCB funding for projects supplied by Browning Ferris Industries; SRF = State Revolving Fund; C&A = Cleanup and Abatement Account; Local = surcharge or fees; MWD = Metropolitan Water District (Seasonal Storage Program/ Conjunctive Use and/or Local Projects Income Redirection); Industry = Voluntary funding by industries in the basin above and beyond site- specific cleanup costs. 1/ Initial planning design and startup constraints will probably delay expenditure of the entire $20 million capital costs during the first year of Stage II. Interest on unexpended trust funds would augment these estimated amounts. 2/ EPA has $2 million available this fiscal year to conduct a portion of the additional investigations identified as necessary during Stage II. 3/ Legislation is being considered to augment the State Superfund by this amount specifically for San Gabriel remediation. * Funding for specific projects may be available as described on pages 9 and 11. • -10- ------- Revised 4-12-90 DR A F remedial facilities could be financed by PRPs. Legal means may be used to recover costs expended from the SGETF and/or Superfund from PRPs when they are identified. If the Superfund process is followed, there are mechanisms available under CERCLA for recovery of costs by the responsible agency. Such recovery could replenish the SGETF for implementation of future stages of the BTP. 2. State Superfund—DHS has committed all but $2 million of the remaining State Superfund authorization to other projects and is not planning to reallocate any additional funding to the San Gabriel Basin. Legislation would be required to increase this source of funding. 3. MWD and Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (USGVMWD)—MWD and USGVMWD are planning to conduct a feasibility study of large-scale conjunctive use projects involving export of treated ground water out of the "basin. These projects may be consistent with the BTP. If the projects prove to be a cost- effective supplemental source of water for the MWD system, MWD may be able to provide funding (estimated in the MWD Conjunctive Use Phase I report as up to $15 million per year) to implement these projects, which may be designed to serve as the operable units of the BTP. Other MWD programs such as "Seasonal Storage" and "Local Projects" can also fund projects consistent with the BTP. While such projects will not contribute funds directly to the SGETF, a significant portion of Stage II actions could be funded and implemented by these agencies. 4. Solvent Use or Hazardous Waste Tax—A potential statewide sales tax on solvents could be used to remediate basins that are contaminated with solvents. 5. Statewide Tax on Agricultural Industry—Part of the basin is degraded by nitrates above safe drinking water standards. A large portion of this degradation is evidently of agricultural origin (e.g., dairies and fertilization of citrus groves, etc.). It, therefore, may be appropriate to consider State legislation to tax agricultural activities to help pay for such cleanup. Short-Term Actions Required; The agencies have identified short-term actions necessary to address the San Gabriel Valley ground water degradation issues. -11- ------- Revised 4-12-90 Water Producers: Water producers are responsible for managing ground water extraction in a manner that will not cause degraded water to migrate to undegraded or less degraded areas. Watermaster: Watermaster passed a resolution (March 5, 1990) declaring its intention to prepare language for approval by the court overseeing the adjudication that would grant Watermaster additional authority to regulate basin usage. With expanded authority, efforts should begin immediately to implement the following elements of a comprehensive ground water quality management program: 1. Information Submittal; All San Gabriel ground water producers should be required to submit the following information to Watermaster: (1) all water quality data collected, (2) information regarding existing systems, and (3) modifications to existing well construction and/or distribution systems. This includes (a) the wells operated during the quarter, (b) the depths or zones from which water is taken from each well, (c) the quality of water extracted from each well, (d) the quantity of water extracted from each well, (e) well status (active/inactive), (f) modifications to existing well construction and pump systems, and (g) modifications to distribution systems. This information should be made available to the Regional Board and EPA on a quarterly basis for the purposes of updating the San Gabriel database and ground water flow/contaminant transport model. Initially, all current information regarding well construction and distribution systems should be submitted to confirm the existing database and fill data gaps. 2. Establish Operating Principles for Ground Water Quality Management: Watermaster should establish basic operating principles to guide future water supply decisions consistent with the BTP. The guiding principle would be that any new or increased extraction to meet water supply needs should include planned treatment in existing areas of high-level degradation or contamination. The additional treatment and distribution costs this would entail may be funded through the proposed SGETF. Major actions such as new extraction well installation, modification of existing well construction, and/or increases in extraction capacity should not be allowed unless such actions can be shown to the satisfaction of the Watermaster and Regional Board to have no potential adverse effects on water quality. Consideration should also be given to DRAFT -12- ------- Revised .A-12-9 0 draft potential cumulative effects of multiple actions by several parties. The principles should be considered by Watermaster during review of all plans submitted by producers as described in Items 3-7 below. 3. Emergency Exemption Approval Procedure: Where a producer's water supply or quality problem is so urgent that the only viable option for maintaining an adequate short-term supply that meets drinking water standards involves an action in conflict with the aforementioned operating principles, Watermaster may provide short- term approval for the action contingent on development of an acceptable mitigation plan that would involve future action allowing an expeditious return to operating principles. For example, Watermaster could approve the short-term use of a well modified to extract water from deeper zones of the aquifer, contingent on an agreement to develop a plan to shift production back to the shallower zones upon installation of a treatment facility. 4. Regulation of New Well Installation: Plans for installing new water supply wells must be submitted to Watermaster for approval prior to construction. 5. Regulation of Modifications to Existing Wells: No significant modifications to an existing well shall be made without the prior approval of Watermaster. Modifications include any actions that affect ground water extraction or distribution such as: sealing particular perforated intervals, extending well depth and increasing pump capacity, or improving the distribution system so that extraction capacity is increased. 6. Regulation of Ground Water Treatment: Plans for installation of ground water treatment facilities must be submitted to Watermaster for approval prior to construction. 7. Annual Plan: The Watermaster should, on the basis of information submitted by producers, prepare an annual plan for extracting ground water that will assure that pumpers, either individually or cumulatively, do not extract water in a manner that causes the pollutants to migrate to less degraded or undegraded areas. The plan should be submitted to EPA and the Los Angeles Regional Board and made available to the public for review and comment before implementation. The agencies will review the plan for consistency with recommendations in the BTP and the Regional Board Basin Plan. -13- ------- " '""WAFT 8. Development of Long-Term Water Supply/Water Quality Protection Plans: To rationally plan for future water supply and limit the potential for emergency situations that may occur as pollutants spread, each water producer should submit a five-year Water Supply/Water Quality Protection Plan to Watermaster for approval. The existing EPA San Gabriel ground water flow/ contaminant transport model will be used to provide five-year projections of contaminant migration in the basin. The Water Supply/Water Quality Protection Plan should be revised at appropriate periodic intervals such as after a major updating of model projections. Based on the information provided to each producer regarding the potential future contamination status of its existing wells, a five-year plan would address the following: o How the producer would meet its future water supply needs in the event that projected contaminant migration affects its existing wells. Any actions proposed to maintain an adequate water supply should be consistent with the established operating principles for ground water quality management and the BTP. o A monitoring plan designed to provide early warning of potential water quality problems that would require major actions to maintain an adequate water supply. State and Regional Board Actions: The State and Regional Boards will take appropriate actions to achieve, wherever possible, the objectives of the BTP. These include, but are not limited to: 1. Continue Source Investigations/Enforcement: The Regional Board will continue to carry out its primary responsibility to identify and control point and nonpoint sources of waste discharges to surface and ground waters of the State. 2. Amend Basin Plan: The Regional Board will amend its Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) to incorporate applicable portions of the BTP as an implementation plan option. This plan will be subject to a demonstration of alternative means to accomplish the Basin Plan objectives and will establish an -14- ------- Revised 4-12-90 implementation element (Water Code Section 13240) based on the proposed actions and schedule in Figure 2. Require Technical and Monitoring Reports; The Regional Board may require local or private entities to prepare appropriate technical and monitoring reports (Water Code Sections 13225 and 13261). The State Board may also require these entities to prepare appropriate technical and monitoring reports (Water Code Section 13165). Issue Clean Up and Abatement Orders: To the extent that undesirable pumping operations continue, the Regional Board may issue cleanup and abatement orders under the authority of Water Code Section 13304. Such action would be appropriate where the entity responsible for the pumping is causing or permitting a discharge of waste to occur. Cleanup and abatement orders can require any necessary remedial action including prohibition of extraction. Hold Hearings: To assure adequate progress, the State Board will hold public hearings to determine whether good faith efforts are being made to implement the objectives of the BTP and this White Paper and whether legislation is necessary. The hearing may be conducted pursuant to Water Code Sections 100, 104, 105, 183, 186, 275, 1051, 1075- 1106, 2100, 13163, 13165, and Article X, Section 2 of California's Constitution. In addition, the State Board has the powers conferred upon heads of departments of the State by Article 2 (commencing with Section 11180), Chapter 2, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code. Establish San Gabriel Environmental Trust Fund: The State Board shall inaugurate the establishment of the SGETF by taking formal State Board actions at publicly noticed meetings to dedicate the funds available to the State Board as listed in Table 1. Other state and local agencies and industries will be encouraged to voluntarily contribute "up-front" money to this fund. -15- ------- Revised 4-12-90 DHS Actions: The Office of Drinking Water (ODW) shall provide technical assistance to the Watermaster in developing plans, policies and requirements for domestic drinking water and treatment. The Toxic Substance Control Division will provide $100,000 for database development and modeling. EPA Actions: 1. Technical Assistance: EPA will continue to provide technical assistance. This includes updating the database and the ground water flow/contaminant transport model, and providing projections of future degradation for use by the other agencies. 2. Pursue Enforcement Activities: EPA, in cooperation with the Regional Board, will continue its efforts to identify responsible parties, require source cleanup, and recover costs. EPA's current budget provides approximately $1 million/year to supplement Regional Board source investigation activities, $500,000 for EPA enforcement activities, and $2 million to fund remedial investigations that will help support development of enforcement cases. 3. Initiate Stage II Remedial Investigation Activities: EPA will begin to implement remedial investigation activities outlined in Stage II of the BTP. VII. Proposed Schedule: Figure 2 shows the proposed schedule of short-term actions at the federal, State, and local levels which correlate to the actions described above. Combined, they represent an action plan for the achievement of short-term (Stage II) goals, as well as the basis for coordinated long-term solutions. -16- ------- Figure 2 SAN GABRIEL GROUND WATER - "WHITE PAPER- PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF SHORT TERM ACTION'S I Phase I 1990 -> Phase [ Phase III ] 1991 Agency/Actions Federal Technical assistance database/model update Enforcement follow-up BTP comment period Release of final draft BTP Congressional/press briefings on BTP/White Paper Congressman Torres' groundwater "summit" meeting State/Regional Boards SWRCB Involement in amending WM decree SWRCB hearing process RB incorp. W.Q. Objective In Basin/Imp. Plan RB workshop on Basin/Imp. Plan RB adopts Basin/Imp. Plan SWRCB initate Env. Trust Fund Local WM/Upper District approval of Phase II conj. use study WM seeks add. authorities through court WM information submittal to RB and EPA WM develop operating principles WM annual plan WM technical, financial and institutional plans Regulation of new well install Regulation of modif to existing wells Regulation of ground water treatment Emergency approval plan Develop of long-term plans Public EPA/SWnCB/RB public workshops April May June July x- X- x- x- Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan Feb. March ongoing April ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing May June ->¦ ->¦ TO CHA0052 ------- |