Laserfiche WebLink
Annctu Quill <br />nave nkcrs <br />Junc13,2000 <br />Page 14 <br />cconotnic bettcfit to l~~f of failing to promptly Croat the con-~minatcd water whitat was <br />being discharged to the Rito Scco. <br />1n sununar~, it is clear that when the proper assumptions are used, BM enjoyed an <br />economic btneGl front failing to correct its ~iolalions. The _cttlement fails to rcnalizc <br />BM so os to rccapwre the cconannc bcnctit of noncon:pliancc, in violation of the Civil <br />Papally Policy. <br />l9. SrP <br />The proposed credit for a Supplcmcnrd Lnvironmental Policy does not comply with the <br />penalty policy, Section [V.R, antl no information is given as to how the pruposrd SEl' <br />supposedly Calls within this provision. It apprus that the proposal is meant to i:omc <br />within the language in Section 1ILB, which provides : s follo::•s: <br />In esceptionul cases, where the violator has returned ro complianceL <br />ngraes w complete a special project, up to one hundred percent of the <br />penalty for cfilucnt violations may he waived. Such special projects shall <br />be outside of any improventcnt to be made ro the trcmment facility, cannot <br />directly bcnctit the violator, and must result in an identifiable benefit to <br />wtttcr qualify. <br />'fltcre is tto ittforntation to substantiate that the Bb41t1 donation of 330,000 to the Costilla <br />County Water and Sanitation District for capital improvcmcitts will have an identifiable <br />bcnctit to water quali~, as rcquircd by tltc civil penalty policy. Moreover, they: is no <br />n;lationsltip between water quality benefits at the waste water treahnent facility, which is <br />not on tltc Rito Seco drainage, and the water quality impacu associated with this <br />violation. <br />'There is no information to substantiate that this is an "exceptional case." Farther, as <br />disettsscd above, BM has not "returned to compliance" when it has not yet obtained a <br />petntit anti the discharge cotttinucs. rUso, as discussed bcloty, tltcrc are discharges which <br />violate Amendment 1 to the NUV. <br />Even if the proposed Supplcmcntal Environmental Project dies qualify under Sceiion <br />III.B of the civil p,:ttalty policy, the settlement fails to require that RM consistehtly <br />disclose to the public and third parties that its donation ofthc funds are a paym:nt in lieu <br />~ V'MI.W I~,u„~11~ N~~.f ~• Jul w1,41nw..,Y <br />