City of Vacaville v. State Water Resources Control Bd

Filed 3/27/06 City of Vacaville v. State Water Resources Control Bd. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

California Coastkeeper Alliance and Waterkeepers Northern California (collectively the Keepers) appeal after the trial court denied their motion to intervene in litigation concerning effluent discharge limits in a permit for the City of Vacaville's wastewater treatment plant. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The City of Vacaville ( Vacaville) owns and operates the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant. Treated municipal wastewater is discharged into Old Alamo Creek, which is a tributary in turn to New Alamo Creek, Ulatis Creek, and Cache Slough, and ultimately the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (the Delta). In 1998, Vacaville applied for a permit for the existing discharge of waste, an increase in discharge quantity, and an enlargement of the existing facility under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (the Regional Board), issued a permit (Order No. 5-01-044, NPDES No. CA0077691) on March 15, 2001. Vacaville objected to some of the provisions of the permit, and petitioned the State Water Resources Control Board (the State Board) to review the permit. On October 3, 2002, the State Board issued Order WQO 2002‑0015, which remanded Order No. 5-01-044 to the Regional Board for certain modifications and directed the Regional Board to initiate amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin.

Vacaville filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive relief against the Regional Board and the State Board in the Solano County Superior Court on November 4, 2002, challenging the State Board's adoption of Order WQO 2002-0015 and, to the extent applicable, the Regional Board's Order No. 5-01-044. Vacaville alleged, among other things, that the State Board had erroneously found certain beneficial uses for Old Alamo Creek and downstream channels, resulting in exorbitant permit requirements and compliance costs; that the State Board had improperly upheld the permit's prohibition on blending effluents from different treatment units; and that the State Board had failed to set aside limitations on effluents that the Regional Board had adopted in violation of state law. The California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) filed a petition for writ of mandate against the State Board and the Regional Board in November 2002, challenging the State Board's adoption of Order WQO 2002‑0015. According to the petition, CASA is a statewide association of publicly-owned treatment works, of which Vacaville is a member. The two actions were consolidated on June 20, 2003, and the consolidated cases were transferred to Contra Costa County.

The Keepers moved for leave to intervene in the Contra Costa County action in April 2004, both challenging the State and Regional Boards' actions and joining the State and Regional Boards in resisting the claims of Vacaville and CASA. The Keepers's proposed petition for writ of mandate and complaint in intervention alleged that Waterkeepers Northern California was an umbrella organization formed to serve the interests of three projects (San Francisco Baykeeper, Deltakeeper, and Petaluma Riverkeeper), and that its mission was to â€