HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-07; Municipal Water District; 689; Opposing the Gregory Canyon landfillCARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - AGENDA BILL 1 1
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE DEPT. HEAD
PROPOSED GREGORY CANYON LANDFILL AND Clpl ATpl. AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO
RECOMMENDED ACTKjN:
I DEPT. ' PW-M&o
Adopt Resolution No. 1364 opposing the proposed siting of solid waste disposal
operations at the Gregory Canyon Landfill site and authorize the Executive Manager to submit a letter
on behalf of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Board of Directors, expressing the Board's
opposition to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the July 12, 2009 deadline.
SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
ITEM EXPLANATION:
For nearly twenty years Gregory Canyon Ltd. has proposed the siting of a solid waste disposal
operation adjacent to the San Luis River and along the western slope of Gregory Mountain in Rural
San Diego County (see attached maps). The proposed landfill project is designed as a Class Ill
municipal solid waste landfill and will cover approximately 1,770 acres in Gregory Canyon. The
proposed landfill site is approximately 183 acres with a design capacity of approximately 45 million
cubic yards (or 30 million tons) of waste and an expected service life of approximately 30 years. The
proposed Class Ill landfill could accept municipal solid waste, and dewatered sewage sludge but
would not be allowed to accept hazardous waste.
The proposed landfill will be regulated pursuant to all State and Federal regulatory requirements. In
addition, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), San Diego Region, is
currently taking comments on a draft Waste Discharge Permit for the landfill site. Comments on the
draft permit are due before July 12 and the RWQCB Board will consider approving the permit at its
August 12 meeting.
The Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) is a water rights holder within the San Luis Rey river
basin. These water rights can be used for the production and eventual consumption of potable
drinking water in the CMWD service area. Although CMWD does not currently utilize this source as
part of the annual water supply, it is being considered as a future supply source and/or as a lease
revenue source. CMWD staff is discussing the possibility of leasing these water rights to a local San
Diego County water agency.
Whether CMWD utilizes this source for its water supply (now or in the future) or leases the rights to
another agency, District staff has concerns regarding the effect the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill
will have on the District's ability to use this water source or lease the rights because of contamination
from landfill leachate or improperly controlled surface run-off. The District staff is also concerned the
project may impact the District's ability to exercise its water rights.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Mark Stone, 760-438-2722 mark.stone@carlsbadca.nov
FOR CINCLERKS USE ONLY
BOARD ACTION: APPROVED CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC O
DENIED CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN
CONTINUED RETURNED TO STAFF
WITHDRAWN OTHER - SEE MINUTES
AMENDED
Page 2
Based on the concerns noted above, staff recommends that the CMWD Board adopt a resolution in
opposition to the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill project and authorize the CMWD Executive
Manager to submit a letter on behalf of the CMWD Board of Directors, expressing the Board's
opposition to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the July 12, 2009 deadline.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
CMWD is extremely concerned that the project has the potential to affect the availability and quality of
ground and surface water in the San Luis Rey river basin. The District also has concerns regarding
the effect the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill will have on the District's or the potential lessees
ability to meet existing or proposed drinking water standards due to contamination.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The potential effects of the Gregory Canyon Landfill are unknown at this time, but will be significant if
contamination occurs. Should the District decide to utilize this water source as a component of its
water supply, additional funding may be required to provide additional water treatment in the event of
contamination. The same is true for the local agencies who are considering the possibility of leasing
the District's water rights.
Furthermore, contamination to waters in the San Luis Rey River Basin would be significant to an'
important part of the region's water supply.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. 1 364
Exhibit 1
RESOLUTION NO. 1 364
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CMWD),
OPPOSING THE PROPOSED GREGORY CANYON LANDFILL
AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO SUBMIT
A LETTER TO THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD.
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District is a public water purveyor responsible
for providing potable drinking water to the municipal service area; and
WHEREAS, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), San Diego
Region, is considering the permitting of future sanitary landfill operations in certain sites within
the San Luis Rey River Watershed known as the Gregory Canyon Site; and
WHEREAS, the landfill operations under consideration is located on or closely adjacent to
underground water basins which contain substantial quantities of renewable, potable water, and
which also are potential sites for underground storage of imported water, such sites are deficient
in San Diego County; and
WHEREAS, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), San Diego
Region, is currently taking comments on a draft Waste Discharge Permit for the Gregory Canyon
landfill site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Board
of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Board of Directors adopts a position of
opposition to the proposed siting of solid waste disposal operations at the Gregory Canyon site
within the San Luis Rey River basin.
3. That the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Board of Directors authorizes the
Executive Manager to submit a letter on behalf of the Board of Directors, expressing the Board's
opposition to the permitting of the Gregory Canyon Landfill site to the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board prior to July 12, 2009. 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Board of
Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District of the City of Carlsbad on the 7th day
of July, 2009, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Board Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, Packard and Blackburn.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ATTEST:
AGENDA ITEM # Marilyn Strong I1
n:
From:
Sent:
To:
Hershell Price [htprice@roadrunner.com]
Monday, July 06, 2009 531 PM
Hershell Price
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
Subject: FW: Bureau of Indian Affairs comment letter on Gregory Canyon City Clerk
~ttachments: KMBT50B1 CB0907060921 O.pdf
Dear Chairman Lewis and Board of Directors,
Attached above is a comprehensive letter submitted by the United States Department of
Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs to the ~egional Water Quality Control Board regarding
their concerns with the planned Gregory Canyon Landfill. They have outlined extensive
specific deficiencies in the Waste Discharge Requirements. The letter is dated July 1,
2009.
This letter offers another powerful statement as to why this landfill should not be
approved. Please take a moment to review its contents when you have time.
Hershell
htprice@roadrunner.com
AGENDAITEM# I I
C: Mayor
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
broth@cox.net
Tuesday, July 07,2009 2:57 PM
Council Internet Email
CITY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT US
City Attorney
City Clerk
A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to
department, City Council.
FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ..............................................
Below, please find the information that was submitted:
Mayor Lewis and Council Members:
The Carlsbad Watershed Network is in favor of your Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Resolution 1364 (July 7, 2009 agenda item 1l)opposing the proposed Gregory Canyon landfill.
We have drafted and approved a letter to this effect to the San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
Brad Roth, Acting Chair
Carlsbad Watershed Network
(760) 436-2632
broth@cox.net
Brad Roth
1507 Rubenstein Avenue Cardiff by-the-Sea, CA 92007 brothPcox.net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible;
MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR
3.5.30729)
70.181.177.43
From: Pam Slaterprice [pcslater@mac.com] CM J CA~ CCL
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 2:25 PM
To: Kimberly Dillinger ~ste 7/6/04 Fm@M&Asst. CM-
Subject: Fwd: Bureau of Indian Affairs comment letter on Gregory Canyon
Attachments: KMBT50B1 CB0907060921O.pdf; ATT00001. htm
Kimberly here is a verycomplete document that should be part of the record and given to all CC members.
Thanks!
Pam Slater Price
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lenore Lamb <llamb@,,palatribe.com>
Date: July 6,2009 10:39:18 AM PDT
To: "'Rusinek, Walter E."' <wer@,procopio.com>, "'Griswold, Ted J."' <&&!jprocopio.com>,
'Pamela Slater-Price' <pcslater@,mac.com>, "'Kohatsu, Sachiko"'
<Sachiko.Kohatsu@,sdcounty.ca.nov>, everettdelano@yahoo.com, john@,surfridersd.org, 'Syndi
Smallwood' <ssmallwood@,~echang;a-nsn.gov>, s~aughen@palatribe.com, 'Rob Roy'
<la~olla~is@,~ahoo.com>, emuchmore@palatribe.com, hbrow@,~alatribe.com
Subject: Bureau of Indian Affairs comment letter on Gregory Canyon
Reply-To: llamb@,palatribe.com
Regards,
Lenore Lamb
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Director of Environmental Services
12 196 Pala Mission Rd.
Pala, CA 92059
Phone: (760) 89 1-35 15
Fax: (760) 742-3 189
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Sortthem California Agency
1451 Research Park Drive, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92507-2 154
Telephone (951) 276-6624 Telefax (951) 276-6641
San Diego Regional Water Quaiity Control Board
9174 Sky Park Ct. Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92123-4340
Attention: Mr. Richard Wright, Chairman
IN REPLY REFER'TO:
Water Resources
Subject: Comment Letter for Tentative Order No. R9-2009-0004, Waste Discharge
Requirements for the Gregory Canyon Landfill, San Diego County Califomia
Dear Mr. Wright,
This letter is provided by the U.S. Bureau of lndian Affairs Southern California Agency, (BIA), to
review and comment on Tentative Order No'. R9-2009-0004, Waste Discharge Requirements,
(WDR), for the Gregory Canyon Landfill, located in the County of San Diego, California. It is BIA
understanding that the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region,
(Regional Board), is considering adoption of waste discharge requirements, (WDR), for the
proposed Landfill. The following letter documents BIA's overall standpoint regarding this
proposed project. Selected comments on the WDR for the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill
are tabulated in Enclosure 1.
The BIA is the oldest bureau of the United States Department of the Interior. Established in 1824,
the BIA provides services to approximately 1.7 million American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Among the many duties of the BIA, as established by the United States Congress, is to senre as
an advocate for the sovereignty and rights of tribes in dealing with other governmental entities
and, to.fulfill and execute the Federal Government's trust responsibility to American lndian Tribes.
AN federal agencies share in this trust responsibility.
Gregory Canyon is south of the San Luis Rey River and State Highway 76, it is located in an area
of great natural beauty which is the entrance to the Pala lndian Reservation as well as six other
Native American tribal reserves located along this State Highway. It would be a shame to
approve a municipal landfill at the gateway to one of the last historical strongholds of Native
American Population in Southern California.
The portion of Gregory Canyon where the proposed Municipal Waste Landfill, (MWLF), Is
planned, is not part of the Pala lndian Reservation, it is however; located adjacent to sacred
lndian Cultural sites of great significance both to lndian and scientific communities in the region.
We share concern along with the Pala Band of Mission Indians that obvious issues regarding the
location of this MWLF are being masked by the land owner. By continuing to seek permit
approval to operate a MWLF from various federal, state and local authorities, the land owner is
avoiding the fact that the proposed location has cultural, biological, geological, hydrological,
environmental and sociological significance to the communities that reside in Northern San Diego
County. The issue of this landfill being proposed in Gregory Canyon is inappropriate for both
state and federally recognized governments. The BIA would like to clarify our position; we believe
that utilizing unrelated permit approval processes and ultimately submitting these permits as a
means to gain acceptance from the Regional Board, segments consideration for environmental
impacts. Furthermore; it avoids consideration of the cumulative impacts the proposed municipal
solid waste landfill will have on the environment and the local communities.
Gregory Canyon drains into the San Luis Rey River which is part of the San Luis Rey Watershed,
one of the major watershed river systems in San Diego County. The portion of the San Luis Rey
River that abuts the mouth of Gregory Canyon is owned by the Pala Band of Mission Indians.
Existing water ponds formed by previous sand mining operations are now present. It is the
contention of the BIA that these ponds as presently occurring are aiding in the replenishment of
the San Luis Rey Watershed and Pala Sub-Basin, as well as becoming a wetlands area providing
significant relief to the local wildlife and ecological habitat of northern San Diego County. The
close proximity of the proposed MWLF poses an imminent risk to the fragile ecological river
system which supports both human and environmental needs.
Historical events in the last 100 years have greatly altered the hydrology of the river, these
anthropogenic actions include 1) the building of Lake Henshaw Dam, 2) the Canal Diversion to
Escondido located ten miles below Lake Henshaw, 3) Imported Colorado River water, and 4)
Increased salt loads entering the groundwater from storm water and agricultural irrigation runoff.
Cumulative effects of these influences coupled with further industrial use by creating a MWLF will
disrupt an already fragile natural resource and will be another item hindering recovery efforts
being implemented by the San Luis Rey Resource Conservation District, the City of Oceanside,
and other local, state and federal agencies.
Briefly, The BIA objects to the following methodology presented in the WDR:
The Discharger being a Limited Liability Company.
The lack of financial assurances for the project outlined in this document.
The location of the proposed landfill.
Non-compliance with federal requirements.
No methodology regarding protecting significant cultural resources.
No mention for removal or replacement or protection of existing oak trees located in
Gregory Canyon.
Generic construction requirements rather than being site specific.
The containment structure in relation to site specific geology and topographic concern.
Topographic concern regarding storm water run-off.
The inadequately engineered proposed subdrain system.
Page 2 of 4
The lack of geotechnical recommendations for removal and replacement of existing
natural ground prior to artificial fill1 waste placement.
The lack of commenting on existing terrain and topography regarding recommendations
for engineering embankments.
No Mention of cut1 fill transition zones or benching requirements.
No Mention of blasting requirements.
No Mention of oversize rock disposal generated from initial grading andlor blasting.
No preliminary geotechnical information for either the proposed landfill or the borrow
areas.
Inadequate discussion on hydrology, the San Luis Rey River, or the drought crisis in San
Diego County.
The lack of information regarding the movement, chemistry and ultimate fate of
contaminant plumes that will migrate through the alluvial and fractured rock aquifer
systems beneath the landfill.
The replacement water contingency plan.
The lack of fill Material for the project
The lack of gradational fill cover and bedding requirements.
The lack of water for the project. .
Waste discharge requirements as relates to federal regulation.
The illusion that this project will have no significant impact to the community or to the
environment.
More explicit comments are detailed in Enclosure 1.
The BIA presents this letter not merely as comments to the Regional Boards WDR, but as a call
to consider the inherent rights of the Native American population that make Northern San Diego
County their home. These tribes are on par with the United States. That is, these tribes exercise
inherent sovereign authority over their members and territories. This authority is not a delegation
from the United States or any other government; rather it is founded by historical consequential
status as independent nations. Within this authority tribes hold federally reserved rights to trust
water, cultural, and natural resources. It is the responsibility, of all federal and state agencies to
protect these sovereign trust resources for future generations to come, to be good stewards to
the environment and to be good neighbors, not only for federal reserves but also for the state of
California.
It is therefore; the intent of the BIA to be proactive with the Pala Band of Mission Indians, to stand
by their side to voice concerns regarding this MWLF as it relates to the above mentioned topics,
as well as; addressing federally reserved trust natural resources both from a quantitative and
qualitative perspective.
Page 3 of 4
If there are any questions or clarification needed regarding the content of this letter, please do not
hesitate to contact Ms. Christina Mokhtarzadeh, Hydrologist Southern California Agency at (951)
276-6624 ext. 257 or Mr. James Fletcher, Superintendent at (951) 276-6624.
Sincerely;
;"James J. Fletcher
Superintendent
Enclosure:
Cc: Chief of Division of Environmental, Cultural Resources Management & Safety, Pacific Region
Deputy Superintendent of Trust Services, Southern Califomia Agency, Pacific Region
Environmental Protection Specialist, Southern California Agency, Pacific Region
Regional Geo-Hydrologist, Pacific Region, Bureau of lndian Affairs
Regional Water Rights Specialist, Pacific Region, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Chairperson, Pala Band of Mission Indians
Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior
California Depsrbnent of Water Resources
U.S. E.P.A., Tribal Water Protection Enforcement Manager
Hydrologist, U.S.G.S., WR, SW, WRD
District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
Page 4 of 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Southern California Agency
1451 Research Park Drive, Suite 100
Riverside, Cdlifornia 92507-2154
Telephone (951) 276-6624 Telefax (951) 276-6641
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Water Resources
ENCLOSURE 1:
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
Tentative Order No. R9-2009-004, Waste Discharge Requirements for
Gregory Canyon Ltd., Gregory Canyon Landfill San Diego County
A. Page 1, item 1, Discharger:
Gregory Canyon Limited a California Limited Liability Company is the Discharger and
assumed to be the Property Owner of Gregory Canyon. Why is the land owner a limited
liability company? What limits does this company have regarding waste discharge
requirements for the proposed landfill and what assurances are being presented to
eliminate the obvious risk to the environment, particularly to the watershed?
H. Page 1, item 2, Facility Location:
This paragraph is misleading. Gregory Canyon borders the Pala Indian Reservation.
C. Page 1, item 2, Threat to Water Quality:
How can the Discharger being a limited liability company give any assurance to the
surrounding community that municipal solid wastes can be managed properly to protect
the water ways of the United States. More specifically how is the Discharger
addressing potential contamination of adjacent groundwater supply to current water
supply wells north and northeast of the project in the Pafa Sub-Basin. Principally,
the impacts produced by reversed groundwater flow gradients during times of drought.
D. Page 1, item 2, Legal Authority:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs does not believe that the Discharger complies with the Code
of Federal Regulation, Title 40, Part 258, (herieinafter, CFR Title 40, Part 258) as
follows:
1. 5 CFR Title 40, Part 258.13 Fault Areas- The Discharger has not demonstrated
that the the structural design of the proposed landfill will protect the environment
namely the San Luis Rey Watershed,
2. § CFR Title 40, Part 258.14 Seismic Impact Zones- design criteria of the MWLF
units do not take into consideration the topography of the terrain coupled with the
Elsinorel Laguna Salada fault system in relation to structural design.
Environmental protection controls and the potential stability of the liner system
have not been demonstrated.
5 CFR Title 40, Part 258.15 Unstable Areas- The design criteria of the MWLF
units does not demonstrate the stability of the project. Given the steep topography
and geomorphology of Gregory Canyon as well as the canyon out-letting to the lip
of the San Luis Rey River poses concern for the placement of nonstructural waqte
materials in the volumes presented for this project. The discharger has not
demonstrated structural stability of the proposed embankments. Based on these
factors, there is a high probability of differential settlement between the bedrock
contacts and artificial fill haste materials planned to be placed.
4. 5 CFR Title 40, Part 258.20 Procedures for Excluding the Receipt of
Hazardous Waste- Procedures for commercial waste, industrial wastes and
construction waste disposal are not adequate given the sensitivity of the
surrounding ecological system and San Luis River Watershed.
5. 5 CFR ~itle 40, Part 258.27 Surface Water Requirements- Gregory Canyon is a
tributary which is susceptible to flash, flooding. Given the close proximity to the
San Luis Rey River, discharge to the waters of the United States including
wetlands violates any requirement of an area-wide or State-wide water quality
management plan that has been approved under section 208 319 of the Clean
Water Act, as amended.
6. 5 CFR Title 40, Part 258.40:Design Criteria- The following factors have not been
considered adequately addressed.
The hydro-geological characteristics of surrounding lands;
The quantity, quality, and direction of flow of groundwater;
The proximity and withdrawal rate of the ground-water users;
The availability of alternative drinking water supplies, particularly for the
Pala Indian reservation who's sole source of potable water comes from the
Pala Sub-Basin.
The existing quality of the ground water, including other sources of
contamination and their cumulative impacts, and whether the ground water
is currently used or reasonably expected to be used for drinking water; It
should be noted the Pala Sub-Basin is the sole source of potable drinking
water for the Pala Indian Reservation. And;
Public Health Safety and Welfare effects.
7. 5 CFR Title 40, Part 258.50 Applicability- Resource values of the underlying and
down gradient aquifer system including proximity, groundwater quality and
quantity, as well as current and future use of the aquifer system has not been
considered.
E. Page 2, item 6 Local Hydrology:
The description of the existing hydrogeology is inadequate upon which to analyze the
project and address significant impacts.
Page 2 of 8
F. Page 2, item 7 Groundwater Use:
This paragraph is misleading. There is no mention of the Pala Sub-Basin which is the sole
source of potable water to the Pala Reservation.
G. Page 2, item 8, Compliance with Federal Siting Requirements:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs does not believe that the discharger complies with the Code
of Federal Regulation, Title 40, Part 258, Subparts 8, D, and E as follows:
§ CFR Title 40, Part 258.11 Flood Plains- The discharger has not demonstrated
washout risk of solid waste into the San Luis Rey Flood Plain which poses hazard
to human health and the environment.
5 CFR.12 Title 40, Part 258.q2 wetlands- No mention of section 404 of the Clean
Water act is presented regarding discharging into the Waterways of the United
States, namely the San Luis Rey River. The portion of the river at the lip of
Gregory Canyon is owned by the Pala Band of Mission Indians. Existing water
ponds formed by previous sand mining operations are now present. It is the
contention of the Bureau of Indian Affairs that these ponds as presently occurring
are aiding in the replenishment of the San Luis Rey Watershed and Pala Sub-
Basin as well as becoming a wetlands area providing significant relief to the local
wildlife and ecological habitat of northern San Diego County. The close proximity
of the proposed MWLF has.not demonstrated requirements set forth in this section
as relates to the San Luis Rey River or the Federal Reserve held in Trust by the
United States for the Pala Band of Mission Indians.
H. Page 3, item 10, Containment Structure:
The Containment Structure is considered inadequate from the perspective of the above
mentioned comments. The design does not take into account the geotechnical
consideration for the local topography, the steep sloping terrain occurring on the sidewalls
of the canyon, the presence of the Elsinorel Laguna Salada Fault System, the potential for
structural failure of the MWLF due to differential settlement where the liner will be installed
and the cumulative impact these risks pose to the San Luis River Watershed system.
I. Page 4, item e, Sub-drain System:
The Sub-drain system for the proposed MWLF is considered inadequate from a
geotechnical perspective. There is no mention of back drains, or slope drains tying into
the sub-drain system. In the areas of bedrock and artificial waste fill contact, there is no
mention of water compromising the integrity of the containment structure by sub-surface
intrusion, or mitigation methods designed to prevent flow of water away from these
sensitive areas. Sub-drain foundation requirements are not specified. Filter material, filter
fabric and schedule pipe requirements for the drain system is not listed. There are no
standard details listed to understand how this drain system will be required to be installed
or what type of ground the system will be placed.
J. Page 5, item 12, BorrowlStockpiled Soils:
It is understood that Borrow1 Stockpile "A' will utilize materials to cap the MWLF at the end
of the life of the project. Furthermore, it is our understanding that approximately 1.3 million
cubic yards of material will be excavated, and stockpiled prior to use. The borrow site is
planned for excavations ranging from ten to sixty-five feet below existing ground surface.
Page 3 of 8
There is no preliminary geotechnical evaluation, boring logs, test pit logs or soil
sampling analysis presented to demonstrate that the planned materials are suitable for its
intended use.
There is no mention of excavation activity for Borrow/Stockpile "B. It is assumed that
imported soils will be stockpiled and no excavation will be used as capping material for the
MWLF.
K. Page 6, item 13, Alternative Cover:
This paragraph is ambiguous, it is not understood how the owner has come up with 8.4
million cubic yards of material to be generated on site. It is unclear why the site will be
short 4.3 million cubic yards and why is the project short of capping material if the facility
is stockpiling 1.3 million cubic yards as explained in item 12.
L. Page 6, item 14, Contingency Water Treatment System:
A permit under section 404 of the Clean Water act should be obtained to discharge
effluent into the San Luis Rey River. The disposal facility for brine disposal should be
listed.
All. Page 6, item 15, Industrial and Construction Storm Water Discharges:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs will comment on this section when the amendment becomes
available.
N. Page 6, item 16, Storm Water Conveyance System:
There is no mention of the quantity of surface water anticipated to be generated during
Storm events or the impact to down stream communities. It is unclear if the designed
surface water drainage system is adequate.
0. Page 7, item 19 Replacement Water Contingency Plan:
San Diego County has limited groundwater storage capacity. The San Luis Rey
Watershed is one of the major water bearing aquifer systems in the county. Only 16
percent of potable water comes from the region, leaving 84 percent of potable water being
imported from outside sources. The State of California is currently planning for
decreased water supply due to changing weather patterns and is seeking alternative
source solutions to the realization of decreased water availability. It is misleading to
assume that the Discharger will be able to supply private and public well owners and other
parties with a contingency water supply. It is also misleading to assume that an accurate
detection monitoring unit can be installed to identify leaks for a MWLF placed on a
fractured Igneous intrusive bedrock formation located in the ElsinoreILaguna Salada
Fault system.
P. Page 8, Item 22 California Environmental Quality Act:
A permit under section 404 of the Clean Water act should be obtained to discharge
effluent into the San Luis Rey River. The BIA Respectfully disagrees with the statement
the project will not have a significant impact on water quality.
Page 4 of 8
Q. Page 9, item 23 Financial Assurances, and item 24 Annual Fees:
There is no mention of posting Bonds, Letters of Credit or any other financial method to
assure proper remediation in case of landfill failure or closure and post closure
requirements being accomplished. The BIA respectively disagrees with waiving any
environmental code requiring financial assurance that the MWLF will be maintained and
closed to the highest standard for protecting the watershed.
R. Page 9 through 12, item 25, Water Quality Certification:
The BIA respectfully disagrees with the methodology presented in this section of the
Waste Discharge Requirements. Even though it has been interpreted that the MWLF is
physically outside the limit of Federal US Surface Waters, The MWLF will eventually have
to discharge into U.S. surface waters and therefore; should be required to comply with
federal law. Construction of a road across the San Luis River is just one facet of the total
construction as well as industrial operation for the MWLF. This section misleads the
reader into believing that all environmentai regulation has been complied with.
S. Page 12, Item 28, Water Resource Factors:
The BIA does not agree that all water resource factors have been considered and
respectively request the Regional Board to reconsider this order.
T. Pages 13 & 14, item A, Prohibitions, and Pages 14 & 15 item B, General Discharge
Specifications:
There is no mention of federal requirements.
U. Pages 15 through 21, Discharge requirements for Specific Types of Waste:
No mention of the location of discharge into the San Luis Rey River or the
cumulative effects this discharge will have with other concerns of the region. The federal
regulation of the Clean Water Act as defined in section 404 is not addressed for surface
water ways of the U.S.
V. Pages 21 through 24, Landfill Operation Specifications:
The content of this subsection is generic and not site specific. This section does not
address concerns of the region or the specific engineering requirements necessary to
construct artificial embankments that will protect the surrounding lands in north County.
This section should also be updated to reflect recent changes in state law.
Paragraph g. of this section does not address where the sediment will be transported for
disposal or standard testing methods to be conducted on desiltation materials for
assurance of non-hazardous classification once removed from the desiltation basins
constructed for the project. If Hazardous classification of these materials is determined,
the Discharger should list facilities these materials will be transported to and list standard
methods required for transporting such materials.
Item 7. Of this section the BIA will comment on when the amendment becomes available.
As discussed on page 6 item 15 section for- "Industrial and Construction Storm Water
Discharges".
Page 5 of 8
W. Pages 25 through 31, Landfill construction Specifications:
ltem 2 Subdrain- Please see itemn I". of BIA Comments and item "5" of this
section.
ltem 3, Liner Materials- No mention of specification of liners or how they will be
sealed to prevent leaks. Please note that these liners will be placed on a subdrain
system that is not defined. The Gregory Canyon is founded on a fractured
bedrock structure which local residence depends on for potable water.
ltem 4 Slope Stability-
A. Standards for slope stability should be listed as to what requirements will
be followed.
B. All interim CutIFill slopes should be designed, constructed and approved
by a registered Engineering Geologist and registered Civil engineer
certified in the State of California
C. All temporary Slopes. should be treated as in the above stated requirement -. for slopes.
D. Waters of the U.S. should also be included in this paragraph.
E. All interim CuVFill slopes should be designed, constructed and approved by
a registered Engineering Geologist and registered Civil engineer certified in
the State of California. Fill slopes should be designed not to exceed
horizontal-to- vertical ration of 2:1, without benching, maximum height
should not exceed 30 feet without benching and slope drains should be
designed by the proper authorities for the project. Cut slopes and
temporary cutbacks have not been addressed.
F. This paragraph is ambiguous, it should be re-written to incorporate the
above comment.
ltem 5 Foundation Sub-grade- Foundation sub-grades should have cut/ fill and
blasting recommendations and requirements set forth by a registered Geotechnical
Engineer certified in the state of California. Perforated sub-drains should be
placed only on bedrock basement materials to prevent saturation of underlying
topsoill alluvium/ colluviums soils which should not be left in situ. This section
should be rewritten to address the specific requirements of the area. Greater
thought should be given for the protection of natural resources in the area.
Removal criteria should be presented in a three dimensional format. No mention
of benching back into the sidewalls of this extremely steep canyon or
recommendations to prevent slippage of the linear, waste and artificial fill which
will be used to construct the final embankment has been presented. There are no
Page 6 of 8
---.. .
general details to aid the reader and more importantly the Discharger to construct
the MWLF.
Item 6 Liner System-
There is no mention of how this liner system will be sealed. It is assumed that the
discharger intends to simply overlay the liner panels which the BIA feels is not
adequate for a MWLF being located in such an environmentally sensitive area.
ltem 7 Construction quality AssurancelQuality Control
The Waste Management Unit should be designed and constructed by both a
registered civil engineer -certified engineering geologist. It is felt that leak
detection surveys are inadequate for the intended use of this project. The liner
panels are not specified to be sealed and the MWLF will be constructed on a
fractured bedrock geologic structure. The potential for major subsurface
contamination is imminent.
ltem 8 Leachate collection and removal system
There are no standard or general details to aid the reader and more importantly
the Discharger to construct the collection and removal system.
ltem 10 Landfill Cover
There are no gradational or compaction requirements for land fill cover
presented. It is recommended that specific recommendation be included for this
project. It is also assumed that the discharger does not have enough cover to
complete this project, it is therefore requested that the discharger provide
alternative source location for suitable imported materials.
X. Pages 31 through 33, Filt Specification:
There is no mention of fill specification in this section. It is unclear why this section
is labeled "Fill Specifications".
Y. Pages 34,35, PROVISIONS:
This section seems grossly inadequate for the purpose of insuring this MWLF meets with
requirements to protect the environment. There is no mention of Bonding for this work.
Financial Assurance should be provided before the WDR is approved.
The costs lined out within this section seems small, there is no detailed cost analysis to
determine if these costs are relevant.
2. Page 35, item 6, Revision of Waste Discharge Requirements:
This section is written in afashion to give the discharger a way out of the WDR, it
appears the Regional Board is not protected.
AA. Page 36, item 9 Entry and Inspection:
The Regional Board should be allowed to enter inspect, the premises at anytime they
think fit or have reason to believe an inspection is necessary.
BB. Page 37, item 12, Replacement Water for Supply Wells:
The State of California is currently planning for decreased water supply due to
changing weather patterns and is seeking alternative source solutions to the
Page 7 of 8
realization of decreased water availability. It is misleading to assume that the
Discharger will be able to supply private and public well owners and other parties
with a contingency water supply.
CC. Pages 39 through 41, Section 401 Water Quality Certification:
No mention of section 404 of the Clean Water act is presented regarding discharging into
the Waterways of the United States, namely the San Luis Rey River. The Code of
Federal Regulations should be included in this section.
DD. Page 44, item 3, Preliminary Design:
The Preliminary design should be prepared and reviewed prior to the WDR being
approved.
Page 8 of 8
Buena VM Lagoon
Foundation
The Eseondido Creek
Canservancy
Rei~urm Consewation
Oisttict of Greater San .Diego.
&uW
Preserve Calavera
San El@ Lagoon
Con-ncy
Richan4 Wrtgha, Chairmen
California Regional Wer Qualily Contrwl8md
San Wego - Reglon 9
91 74 Sky Park Court. Sub t OO
San Dmo, CA 921234340
Re: Oppositiofi to approval of Tentdive Order No. R9-20090W forthe
dixhaqe of solid wastes to the proposed Gregory Canyon landfin
Dwir Chair WhgM and Board Mmbeps:
l"hese aomments are mads w behalf of the Carlsbad Watershed Metwork
{CWN). CWN is a coalion of organizations whose goat is 70 prated
restore and enhance the quality and bneficiai uses ofwater, habitats, and
other natural resources of the watersheds of the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit
(CHU) and the adjacent coastal sfweline." Although this prujsd is ouWb
our member watersheds, we feel the decision in this case will be p~acalent
Whg, ultimately affecting all watersheds in this region.
AM GWH mmbr organisations voted apprwal of this Mer except the
fdhlng, which have not been able to take a vote to date: Agua Hedmnda
Lagoon Foundation, The Esmndido Creek Conservancy, and the Rwum
Consewation Distrid of Greater San Dlego County. In addition, Friends of
Loma Atia Creek vat& approval.
On behalf our rnembr organizations, I respectfully request that the San
Diego Regimal Water Quali CMltroi Board (Regional Board) cantinue to
protect the watm of the State by fisapproving this Tentative Order. Located
close to the San Luis Rey River and Aquifer, the prqmed project wouM
pose or significant threat to water quality. These vulnerable water resources
prwide crudd bendclai uses to local residents and the munlciplitles
located in pdmity to the proposed pmjed.
There are numerous problems with this site, identified in the Regional
Board's own Technical Report ("W Technlcat Report, Order No. R9-2OOS
064, Proposed Gregory Canyon Landfiln. It ovedies a fradured Mmck
aquifer, hydmfogicslly connected to a larger aquifer, making flw regimes
and the movement of contaminants dim to predid. The risk of
contaminatron to the River and Aquifer from this source wiW greatly increase
during years of high rainfall.
Past IandilH projects such as the Las Pubas and Poway lendfills have shown
that so caled protective liners can and do fait. The degradation of tiners by
Mkbn: To pnt&, resfwe, and enhance the quid@ and bemkid uses d wdw, haM&, and dher
n8?rnralmmmesdthewet~ofthe CaMad- Ut?#aptdthe~~d~.
leamates fmn trash and ground movement from settlim or other wuses makes liner integrity
highly uncertain. Even though the dump may be open for 30 yes there is the potential Porthe
next f 00 years or so for the materiais to break down, the liner to break and the ruination of the
rker and aquifer.
Add to these unacceptable risks the already significant trapfic congesfion on State Route 76, and
that the proposed project would destroy a beautiful canyon and sacred Pata Band Natkre
American site.
This project has a documented history of mitical and public miations manipulation. Fmm the
County's initiation of a Nodh County land31 sle march in 1985 until 1992, the Gregory Canyon
site was not mentioned or msidemd viable. All the local permitling agencies had it,
and the site was at the bottom of the Ski. Please do not pave the way for this unneeded project,
sited in the wrong place.
The Regional Board's duty is to protect water quality. Approving a lamil in Southern California
next to a major rivet and valuable drinking water sources does not ssrve that mission. We urge
the Board to disapprove this Tentative Order.
Brad Roth, Acting Chair
CarlW Watershed Nehrvork
(760) 43&2632
1507 Rubenstein Avenue
Cardiff hy-the-Sea, CA 92007
Cc: CTamaka.wateFt>oards.ca.aov
RBSaaendaaaterboards.ca.nov
w.carlsbadwatershedn~arkwg
Page 2 of 2
PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
35008 Pala Temecula Rd. PMB 50
Pala, CA 92059
Ph (760) 89 1-3500
Fax: (760) 742-141 1
July 7,2009
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill
Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council members,
As Tribal Chairman for the Pala Band of Mission Indians I am writing to request
that the Carlsbad City Council oppose the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill.
For the past twenty years the Pala Band of Mission Indians has been fighting
along side local residents and concerned citizens to put an end to this ill-
conceived project. Currently the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board is considering adoption of waste discharge requirements for the proposed
landfill.
Gregory Canyon is a pristine undeveloped canyon considered scared to Native
Americans in Southern California and drains directly into the San Luis Rey River.
It would be wrong to place a garbage dump on the banks of a major river and if
approved this landfill will forever threaten valuable and decreasing water
resources. Taking into consideration California's ongoing drought it is
inconceivable that the Regional Water Quality Control Board would approve
construction of a landfill so close to the San Luis Rey River. Past landfill projects
such as Las Pulgas and Poway landfill have shown that so called protective
liners all fail eventually. Wildfires and earthquakes will threaten even the best
landfill liner.
As you well know this water source is much more valuable to southern California
residents and farmers then a trash dump with a 30 year life span. The San Luis
Rey Aquifer not only provides many existing citizens and local farmers in our
region with a dependable water supply but has great potential in the future for
Carlsbad City Council
July 7, 2009
Page 2
storing and providing additional water supplies. Its value has been recognized
not only by the San Diego County Water Authority, but also by the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, the State of California, the Federal
Government, and the City of Oceanside who has invested millions of doltars to
make it the success that it is today.
Another concern is that the proposed landfill project needs 73 million galtons of
water a year to start construction. Originally Olivenhain MWD had an agreement
to provide Gregory Canyon Ltd. with water, but has since re-considered this
decision and rescinded their agreement. Gregory Canyon Ltd. has not identified
another source for their water supply. It is inappropriate to use valuable water
resources to water a landfill that threatens the San Luis Rey River. As you well
know, in today's drought conditions which impact all cities, communities will
become more reliant on reclaimed water.
The relevant time frame for protecting water quality extends well beyond the life
of a permit or "closure plan" or a period of property ownership. The time frame
extends over many generations, and once these precious water resources are
gone, we can never get them back. The waste disposed at Gregory Canyon will
remain a threat to drinking water supplies in the Pala Basin and other down
gradient aquifers for hundreds of years. By that time, the operators of the facility
would be tong gone with their profits, leaving the water agencies the task of
addressing water contamination and finding alternative sources.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board's duty is to protect water quality.
Approving what would surely be the last landfill built in California next to a major
river providing valuable irrigation and drinking water would violate that duty.
Please join us and voice your opposition to the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board so that we protect California's valuable water resources for
future generations.
Robert H. SrnlaG
Tribal Chairman
June 29,2009
California Regiorral Water Quality Control Board
San Dio Region
81 74 Sky Park Court, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 921 23-4340
Am: Ms. Carol Tamakl
SUBJECT: Tentative Otder R9-2009004, Waste Discharge Requirements for the Gregory Cawn
Landfilt
Dear Ms. Tamaki:
lTe Rainbow Municipal Water District (Dis!rict) provib water and sewer service to a populatbn of
approximately 18,000 msidents in Northern San Dio County. We are actively pursuitq proj- that would
allow us to withdraw abut 3,600 acmfeet of water annually from the San Luis kver Watershed. If we are
smmsful that would account for almost 15% of our annual water demand.
The Oii is opposed to the development of the Gregory Canyon Landfill (GCL) and urges the San Diego
Regional Water Qualii Coml Board to deny Issuance of Waste Wscharge Requlmnts (WDR) or
OpeMIng Permit for ttm GCL Tb District's -Won Is bad on information mlmd within the
Regional 8wrd staff's own 2009 Techniil Report for the GCL, the Tentative Waste Di-e
Requiments for the GCL, the Tentatbe Monitoring and Reporting Program for the GCL, and dbr science-
based docwnentatiin that shows the prom Gregory Canytul Landfill poses a significant and irreparable
threat to the water qualm in the San Luis Rey Riuer. groundwater basin and watershed.
It is Impoftant to note that the determination whether or not to issue a Final WDR for tb GCL Is a
discrwtiomry act for the Regional Board. fhe Regional hrd is not mandated to lssue a WDR; In fact, If
itmy hofd tw to the mission statement of the State Board, '...to prescwe, enhame and restare &e quality
of Cbdtkmdab waterremmes, and emwe fhek dsllocafion and emt use Ibr the bm.# of
present and Www ~er~w, my must deny apprwal of a fiml WDR far the GCL It Is a virtual ~ertainty
that at s~ne point in the fuhm the GCL wlll contaminate the water supply; therefore, to prokt that supply
now and Into tk future, the Regbnaf Board must not allow this proposed project to move forward.
fn the Tentative Order the Regional bard finds tM "mun-l solid waste and hir degradation produds
contain a wide variety of inorganic and organic constituents in comntratins that pmnt a signifmnt thmat
to water qmlii in the San Luis River Watershed if tbse wastes are not properly managed*.
3 707 Old Highway 395, Fallbrook, CA 92028 760-728-11 78
As indicated in the Tentative Order and Draft Technical Report the geology and hydrology of ttm Gregory
Canyon site is less than ideal for the proposed w. There is a lack of natural pmtecthre cover for the
groundwater and the aquifer is in fracbred bedrock that makes flwv unpredlctak and more dikdt to
monkr for contaminants. These issws and others raised in the Tehtiie Order and Dmft Technical Report
pose a significant threat to water quality.
Finding Numbr 19 supports the devebpment of a contingency plan to provide replacement water to public
and private well owners who might be affected by relea- of contaminants frwn Gregory Canyon. -on
H (12) of the Order requires the discharger to provide tb Regional Board with a Water Replacement
Contingency Plan Whin one yiear of cornpletiw phase 1 of the WMU.
What gaud does it do to allow the operatom of tfw GCL to be in full operation and then figure out how to
secure rephcement water--that seems counter-intuitiie. We are in the midst of a water supply shortage
and sources of replment water are marly nomisterit. The only local supply would be desali-d
seawater and we know fm experience with the Carlsbad project that desalination plants can take a very
bng tlme to a-ln permits and environmental approvals. Wellhead treatment my not solve all
conhmlnation problems, and In me cases treatment technologies, such as sir-stripping, may involve other
mguftory agencies that would bg down the permit pms and result in s&sbntlal delays. Certainly
almost any water replacement method that involved construction of irrfrastnrcture, such as well head
treatment, gmundwater purification or groundwakr gxtraction or injection would necessitate environmental
dcmmentatiin end would delay any replacement water projects.
Any requirement b prepare a Water Replament CoMngency Plan should ocwr prior to mceMng a
d&sckp parmH1 not a year alter construction. Also, that plan should madata a contractual obligation to
guarantee delivery of the mplacement water if it is needed. Keep in mind we might be talki~g about the
need for went water in a decade-or century-frrrm now. What assurance dm ths Regional Board
have th& a guaranteed replacement water supply can be obtained? None; thare are no sou- of
replaoement water; the San Luis Rey Watershed is irreplaceable.
Although the -led water supply for the opedim of tb proposed GCL is in qmn the tentatiie WDR
assumed the water wwld b re- water provided fm the Olivenhain Water District. The Regional
bard typically requires the water supplier to provide oversight, supewbbn and reporting tequiments for
the use of recycled water by end users. Additionally, the presiding water district typjcally prepares and
adom water Festfidions and regulations for end users such as GCL. tf the GCL w recycled
watsr as planned, who will provide oversight? If it is a third-party water provlder with no jurlsdiiion or
regulatory control over the GCL site who will be responsible to regulate the use of recycled water?
As a result of these and many o#er significant issues relating to water quality, the Regional Board should
deny issuance of a W OR
Rainbow Municipal Water District
Geneml Manager
Kimberly Dillinger FW tn- d
From: Kaye, Adam [Adam. Kaye@sdcounty.ca.gov] THE CIM CC" MI""
Sent: Monday, July 06,2009 11 :27 AM
To: Kimberly Dillinger
Cc: Pamela Slater-Price; Kohatsu, Sachiko; Weil, John
Subject: information submital from Supervisor Slater-Price
Attachments: Final-fact-sheet-RWQCB-GCL.pdt GCL.map.bmp; RWQCBletter.060209
Kimberly,
I enjoyed speaking with you and appreciate your help.
As I mentioned, Supervisor Pam Slater-Price would like to present information to members of Carlsbad Municipal Water
District's board prior to tomorrow night's hearing. We also would like to fonvard the information to the City Clerk for entry
into the official record.
The attached information includes: - A fact sheet;
- An aerial photograph; and - A June 2, 2009, letter from Supervisor Slater-Price to the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Thanks again, and please call with any questions.
Adam
Adam Kaye
Policy Aide, District 3 Supervisor Pam Slater-Price
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335
San Oiego CA 921 01
Adam.Kave@sdcountv.ca.nov
(61 9) 531 -5533
June 2,2009
Senins the Dr. Richard Wright, Chair communities
of ... California Regional Water Quality Control Board
cadi# Sm Diego - Fkgion 9
Canncl 9 174 Sky Park Gust; Suite 100
Mountain Sm Diego, CA 92 123-4340
Camel WL?y
D~I Mar RE: Gregory Canyon Landfill Draft Tentative Order for Waste Discharge Permit
Vei Mar Heights
Del Mar Mesa Dear Chair Wight and Board Members,
Eminitas I am writing to request that you delay the August 1 2,2009 hearing concerning the issuance of
EpCoddo B Gregofy Canyon Landf~ll Waste Discharge Permit for the reasons outlined below:
La Jok
La4
Mim Mesa
Nd
olivem~t
Rancho
Pd~rdtO~
Subre Springs
. Sancarlos
Scripps Runch
Soha Beach
Eemto
Torrey Hills
I, Gregory Canyon Landfill no long& has a guaranteed source for the water necessary to
construct and operate the landfill. Without water, the proponents cannot move foxward
with construction.
Once a new s~urce of water is identified, the proponents must revise their environmental
documents to reflect the changes in the project.
Until the water source is idenad and the environmental documents updated, it is
premature to consider issuance of a Waste Discharge Permit.
2: Gregory Canyon Landfill has not met its mitigation requirements. In partidat, Gregory
Canyon -11 has not entd in negotiations with the San Diego County Water
Authority (SDCWA> to discuss the potential relocation of the SDCWA First Aqueduct.
Yet, nurnen,us,kferexlces in the multiple EIRs state that Gregory Canyon Lana11 Is in
n~goth&hs with SDCWA, and dso state that the applicant is responsible for relocation
of the pipelines, as noted in the following references:
. The. Recirculated Revised Draft'Envkonrnental Impact Report (EIXC), dated
December 1 999, states: The apPZkaab'hpres* negotMizg m agreement with
the SDCWA to rebcate Pipdinar 1 and 2. The relocaBon would avoid any
hpac& to pbelirtes 1 and 2. (page 4.1-32).
The Final EIR for Gregory Canyon Landfill, dated December 2002, states on page
ES-6: lXepropoaent has irodkafed a wiUhgness to reloeate the pipelines artd ir
present& aego-g un agreement with SDCWA for ihe rehaliula The
putenthl relocativp~ is malyzed in each sectiopo of Chapter 4.0 of this EIR
County Amlnistration Cenbr 1000 Pacific Highway, Room 335 San Dlego, CA 821 Of -2470
(61 9) 539-5533 .* Tdl FM (800) 8%-7334
Email: ~rn.slate@sdc~un~.ca.gov
@ ~rinted on recyc~ paper
Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 in the Final EIR states: Bgore co~cing with any
coiisfruc~it work related Be lapod!& the appkkmd shallpmde the Local
E~sfurcmmtt Agency wzYb a copy of the aecuzkd ugrecmrof between Gregory
Cmpn, L&L and the Sun Dkgu Cow Waiw AuthoriJI prding for
rdocaibn andpru&#un of &e Sslr Dikgo Aqueduct pjpdiites. (page 4.140).
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 in the Final EIR states: Ifr&cufwn of the Fimt San
Diego Aqueduct p@&ar i~ implcme&d, the app&anf shall design and
engineer the &c&a so that now ded imp& to fhe pipeha would
occur, ha accodmce with SDCWA appmvnl. -iy, &e rebc&n skallbe
.- -. --. .... .. djusted to wid pIace~ of the pee- within t%e IO&ymr @dphin.
@age 4-4-17].
3. However, in its separate application to the Air Pollution Control District dated May
2008, &gory Canyon, Ltd. states the following: At tkh W, the M and zbhg of
ony r&&a are not known. The on& kn~ pro&dw meamre &a& wuuM be
un&nhkn a part of ifhe Gregory Cmyon project is bo strengthen the road surface
where the access road crossar over the aqwde This activity would occur ih Year -2,
andSDCWA wouls un&ake anypipehe relocaiion md wosrld obrain alCwquired
prmh ad ~~, and it wiU not be perf of the Gregory Cunyon project. Thus,
the aqueduct rek&n is loof included asp& of &is projed (Section 1.2.7.1, page
1 9).
This statement does not reflect the Mitigation Measures or statements from the Final
EIR It appears that more time may be needed for Gregory Canyon Landfill to
c011l~ence and then complete negotiations with SDCWA, and for a RWQCB review of
the Final EIR for Mitigation Measures required for compliance with the California
Fmvironmental Quality Act (CEQA),
There me a number of di~es/~uracies and mitigation measures that must be
addressed before this project should be granted a Waste Dkhqe Permit Hearing. It will take
time to rectify these issues. Clearly, it is premature to consider granting a Waste Discharge
Permit for Gregory Canyon LdIl, particularly in light of the fact that Gregory Canyon
Laadiill has no' water and has not begun negotiations with SDCWA regarding the First
Aqueduct, Pipelines 1 and 2.
Thank you for considering my comments on this item.
'vfce Chairwoman Pam ~l&-~rice
Supmhr Third District
San Diego County Representative to SDCWA
Pplsk
Cc: John Rob, Executive OfEcer, RWQCB, Region 9
Carol. Tannaki, Water Resource Control Engineer, RWQCB, Region 9
John Odennatt, Senior Engineering Geologist, RWQCB, Region 9
Maureen Stagleton, General Maaager, SDCWA
Propoqed Gregory Canvcrn Landfill Fact Sheet
Gregory Canyon is a pristine undeveloped canyon on the banks of the San Luis Rey Rimr in
rural San Diego County (see attached maps). Approximately 20 years ago, the County of San
Diego wnducted several public landfill site selection processes to determine the best location
for a new landfill in San Digo County. In each process, Gregory Canyon was proposed by its
property owner, and rejected as a landfill site. In 1994, Gregory Canyon Ltd.. the landfill
proponents, abandoned fhe County's site selection process and used a deceptive countywide
ballot initiative to authorize a landfill on the site if all permits were obtained for the project.
Because this is an inappropriate site far a landfill, after 15 years, the proposed Gregory Canyon
LancffilI has not obtained any of its permits. It is time to pull the plug on the proposed project as
an inappropriate site for a landfnl:
Groundwater Impacts. The prop~sed Gregory Canyon Landfiil would be located on a
fradud bedrock aquifer and threatens existing and Mure water supplies.
Municipalities, including the City of Oceanside, rely on the same water sour& that runs
pi and beneath the landfill site when the landfill liner leaks, it will contaminate drinking
water for all downstream users.
a Surface Water Impacts: Construction of the lanmll would impact at least two blue-lined
streams causing the bss d a tributary to the San Luis Rey River, and place the San Luis
Rey River at risk of impacts from landslides, leachate spills from trucks, contaminated
stwm runoff and leaking liners.
imported Water Endangerment. The landfill is near two major San Diego County
Water Authority pipelines which provide imported water to the San Diego area. Gregory
Canyon Ltd. is obligated to relocate these pipelines but has not agreed to do so.
Cultural and Sacred Sites The landfill would be built on 'Chokla" and near Medicine
Rock, sites that are both sacred to Native Americans in Southern Cabfornia. 'Chokla" is
one of the homes and resting places of Takwiic, an important spiritual figure to at1
Luisefio people. Medicine Rock is also the site of ceremonies and religious gatherings
for people. Building a landfill at Gregory Canyon would destroy and desecrate "Chokla"
and Medicine Rock, forever destroying a place of spiritual significance.
Fails Nearly AH Siting Criteria. The proposed Gregory Canyon landfill site failed 7 out
of the 8 landfill siting criteria when reviewed by the County of San Diego: It is located
partly in a floodplain, it is 6 miles from the Lake Elsinore earthquake fault, it is an
incompatible land use, there are at least 3 endangered species on the site, it is within
1,000 f4 of an important archeological site, it overlies a significant groundwater basin
which is the sole source of water to the Pala Indian Reservation and the San Luis Rey
Municipal Water Distrkt, and two aqueducts are within 200 fl of the proposed lanmll.
There is a reason these sitincl criteria were develooed-tkv should not be isnored bv
anv agencies.
No Water Suppb for Project. The proposed project needs 73 million sallons of water a
to start construction. Gregory Canyon Ltcl. has not identified a source for that water
supply.
Endangered Species Habitat Impacts. The site includes and is adjacent to occupied
critical habitat for the least Bell's vireo, arroyo toad, southwest willow flymtcher, and
California gnatcatcher--all federafly EsM endangered speci~nd is designated as an
important wildlife movement area in the County Multiple Species Conservation Program.
These same concerns were raised bv public officials durina the landfill sitina ~mcess twenty
yy Each ofthem
is important to all permitting decisions regarding the lan$fill.
YOUR ASSISTANCE IS NEEDED.
Water Quality Permitting. Gregory Canyon Ltd. now is trying to obtain permits for waste
discharge requirements from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. It is
imperative that all of the very precious existing and future local water supply be protected from
any potential leakage from the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill. If a leak occurred at Giqary
Canyon it would endanger public drinking water for hundreds af thousands of San Diego County
residents. The RWQCB has already indicated that there is no manner to effectively monitor
impacts to the fractured bedrock aquifer beneath the proposed site.
The mission statement of RWQCB is deueIoping and emrcing wafer
quality obJecWes and implementing plans that will best protect the area's
wafe~~ while recogniu'ng our local mnces in clrinate, topography,
geology and hydrology.
Issuance of waste discharge requirements allwing the operation of the Gregory Canyon
Landfill would fly in the face of this mission statement. Do you want this to be our legacy? We
are asking for your support to get the RWQCB to protect San Diego County's existing and MUE
water supply by denying the waste discharge permit for the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill.
Provide your opposition to:
Richard Wright, Chair
San Diego Regional Water Qualify Control Board
9174 Sky Park Ct # 100
San Diego, CA 92123
PJ4QTOS OF WE PROPOSED GREGORY CANTON LANDFILL
The Qregory Canym landfill is shown in red
The Sm Luis Rey River is shorn down- from the lanfidi cmyon
a The mountain on the left hand side is of the Canyon is called "Chokla" and is sacred to
the Luiseiio Indians
Landfill Footprint
San Diego Aqued
San Luis Rey River
4..
I. r /
The proposed Gregory Cmyen Landfill (red Me) and bmw pits (yeIlow) an the banks of the
San Luis Rey River. The red line shows the CWA aqueducts' Idon running through the
canyon and the river.
uct
GREGORY CANYON LANDFILL
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Board of Directors
July 7, 2009
BACKGROUND
November 1994:
San Diego County voters approve
Proposition C
1995 to Present:
2 court challenges upheld
County-wide Waste Management Plan
adopted
San Marcos Landfill closed
North County cities export waste to Landfill in-
and out-of-county
BACKGROUND (continued)
April 2009:
RWQCB Workshop on Gregory Canyon
Waste Discharge Permit
July 12, 2009:
Comments on Gregory Canyon Waste
Discharge Permit due to RWQCB
August 12, 2009:
RWQCB Public Hearing on Waste
Discharge Permit
4
Gregory Canyon
4
5 5
SAN LUIS REY RIVER BASIN
CMWD has water rights in the
Basin
3,650 acre feet of water
Future water supply
Potential revenue source
AREAS OF CONCERN
Contamination of groundwater
Protection of water supply
Preservation of Water Rights
Water monitoring
Loss of future use
Loss of potential lease revenue
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No.1364 opposing the
proposed siting of solid waste disposal
operations at the Gregory Canyon Landfill site
and authorize the Executive Manager to submit a
letter on behalf of the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District Board of Directors,expressing the
Board’s opposition to the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board prior to the July 12,
2009 deadline.
QUESTIONS?