Courage, Judgment, Steve Young for Mayor and Gilpin-Hayes and Macenski for City Council

Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

By Stephen Golub, first published in the Benicia Herald on October 13, 2024

When we think about courage, the kinds of things that come to mind are police taking on violent criminals or firefighters rushing into burning buildings. We don’t think of city officials poring over spreadsheets and budget documents.

But when it comes to this year’s mayoral and City Council elections, there’s an admirable element of courage at play. This is a central  reason I’m endorsing Mayor Steve Young for reelection, as well as Christina Gilpin-Hayes and (current Council Member) Trevor Macenski for City Council.

They all also merit support for additional reasons that go beyond our budget crisis, including the initiative and energy they’ll bring to these (largely uncompensated) jobs. But with respect to that crisis, they’ve earned respect by biting the bullet and backing the three revenue-enhancing measures on the Benicia ballot, involving a small sales tax increase for road repair and introduction of a modest real estate transfer tax for more general purposes.

Retiring Benicia Council Member Tom Campbell has endorsed Gilpin-Hayes for City Council, along with Mayor Steve Young, Vice Mayor Terry Scott, and Council Member Kari Birdseye. | City of Benicia.

Regrettably, as demonstrated by retiring Council Member Tom Cambell in his October 9 letter to the Herald, the responsibility shown by Young, Gilpin-Hayes and Macenski sharply contrasts with an erroneous budgetary approach taken by a twice-defeated (and once victorious) current Council candidate, Republican Lionel Largaespada. Not one to mince words, Campbell describes Largaespada’s number-juggling in terms of “voodoo math.”

As ably analyzed by Campbell, Largaespada’s misleading approach includes incorrectly claiming that he’s “found” enough existing City money to cover road repair and identifying supposedly excessive spending on outside contracting services – even though such services in fact are essential or even crucial to Benicia (and, I’d add, would most likely be more expensive if carried out by City personnel).

Campbell further explains that “Largaespada never talked to anyone in the [City’s] finance department or the City Manager’s department about his plan.” Finally, demonstrating some fine institutional memory, Campbell points to the video of a specific Council meeting to assert  that in 2019, while on the Council( before being defeated in 2022),  Largaespada backed a higher sales tax than the one candidate Largaespada now opposes. He was apparently for that kind of tax  before he was against it.

All this worries me in three ways.

First, with 44 percent of the City budget going to fire and police protection, there seems no way to adopt Largaespada’s apparent voodoo math without cutting that essential protection. It could  also mean deteriorating roads and other City services, as well as  a failure to repair City buildings and facilities, such as the Police headquarters, the Senior Center, the Swim Center, the library and a host of other structures.

Second, Campbell does not stand alone in his refutation of Largaespada’s math. His critique  is part of a broad consensus of criticism that I’ve heard from responsible Benicians across the political spectrum, ranging from business-centric to progressive circles.

Finally, if Largaespada brings this questionable  approach to the budget, one must wonder about his judgment in handling  other pressing issues Benicia faces – not least safety and health challenges presented by Texas-based Valero, who’s dangerous crude-by-rail “bomb train” plan he backed several years ago and which has massively, indirectly supported him through political action committee spending over the years – often through misleading ads that unfairly attack his opponents.

I don’t like criticizing Largaespada in these pages. He is a good, bright person. But I don’t like the possibility of gutting City services hanging over our heads either, especially when Campbell and many other experts refute his calculations.

Back to courage and judgment: It’s hard to tell people we need additional taxes. It’s harder still to put one’s political career on the line to do so. But Mayor Young has led the way in dedicating much of his campaign to that, in order to right the City’s fiscal ship for now and into the future.

The Benicia Save Our Streets Committee are fighting to pass Measure F to fix out streets.

Thus, he’s backing Ballot Measure F, the product of a citizen initiative that gathered over 2,000 signatures, which will increase the sales tax on non-grocery items by a small amount (to still less than a number of other Bay Area communities) in order to ensure that road repair is fully funded.

He’s similarly backing Measures G and H, which together will allow the City to raise funds to help close our looming budget deficits via a modest transfer tax on real estate sales – with key exceptions such as no tax in the case of inheritance or divorce.

A real value of G and H  is that with state-mandated additions of housing to Benicia, other possible housing developments on the horizon and the possibility of Valero selling its refinery down the line, large chunks of revenue could be generated by the transfer tax without imposing any costs on current Benicia residents.

I won’t delve into the pros and cons of these three measures beyond very briefly addressing certain frequently heard counter-arguments.

For instance, aren’t City employees overpaid or isn’t  the City overstaffed? No. In fact, sometimes Benicia does not even match the going rate for some jobs in other municipalities, which has  meant  losing valuable staff to them and the resulting expense of recruiting and hiring replacements. And Benicia has made staff consolidations to streamline its operations.

Or, why can’t we renegotiate employee pensions? Because we’re bound by law to honor them.

For these reasons and many more, all three measures have the support of Benicia’s public safety unions, the Solano County Association of Realtors, the County’s Democratic Party and many other organizations and individuals across the political spectrum.

The budget crisis isn’t at all the only reason I’m backing Steve Young for Mayor. He displays an even keel in leading the City, as evidenced by the calm stewardship he showed during the pandemic. He offers various sensible plans and projects to enhance our business climate and quality of life. Such initiatives  will yield additional revenues down the line without imposing additional taxes.

I have not addressed Macenski’s candidacy much because, as a popular incumbent, he does not seem to need the same level of discussion as newcomer Gilpin-Hayes, whom I’ve previously, enthusiastically endorsed. Suffice to say that he is a very sharp individual who brings great knowledge to consideration of many city issues.

Smoke from the Valero Benicia refinery during a 2017 incident. | Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

There is, however, one regard in which I wish Gilpin-Hayes, Macenski and especially Young were stronger: the proposed Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) that Vice Mayor Scott, Council Member Birdseye and several other individuals  have labored over for the past year. All three have cautiously endorsed aspects of it in principle, which is understandable. But as  a matter of leadership and legacy, and of safety and health, stronger and clearer support would be welcome in the lead-up to the election – especially  in contrast with the eventual unsupportive stance we might expect from Largaespada in view of his past backing by Texas-based Valero.

I have not addressed the candidacies of Kevin Kirby for Mayor and (former Valero and Exxon Mobil employee) Franz Rosenthal for City Council because, while they both came across as nice folks in a recent forum organized by the Benicia High School debate team, neither have matched the focus or knowledge of Young, Gilpin-Hayes, Macenski or Largaespada– whether at that forum or online – regarding  the crucial issues confronting Benicia. The one exception is former Valero and Exxon Mobil employee Rosenthal’s clear opposition to the ISO.

In addition, given Rosenthal’s apparent extremely late entry into the race, one wonders whether, as the other new face in the Council contest, he’ll counterproductively take votes away from the energetic and well-qualified newcomer Gilpin-Hayes.

To sum up: For their courage, judgement and many more reasons, I hope that Benicians will work for, donate to and above all vote for Young, Gilpin-Hayes and Macenski for Mayor and City Council Members. Benicia needs the sound, responsible, energetic approaches they bring to the table.

[Note: I have donated to the Young and Gilpin-Hayes campaigns.]


The BenIndy has also endorsed Christina Gilpin-Hayes for City Council. Learn more about her campaign by clicking the image below and visiting her website

 

Fiestas Primavera also Celebrates Diversity

By Sheri Leigh, October 14, 2024

For those of you who attended the premier Fiestas Primavera late March last year, you know what a tremendous success it was.  The opening ceremonial blessing of the land, followed by incredible and unique music and dance performances all day long, along with beautiful artwork contributed by local professional and student artists, poetry and essay readings, interactive exploration of one’s own heritage and what brought families or ancestors to the Bay Area, excellent authentic food and crafts, along with the spirit of inclusivity were key elements to the day.  Over 2000 people attended, despite the rain.  

The goal of honoring all of the people who contributed culturally, economically, and socially to making the Bay area what it is today was achieved.  People of all ages, ethnicities, genders and orientations, and socio-economic levels came together to celebrate the coming of spring, and everyone was welcomed.  It was truly a meaningful and spectacular event.  

The spirit of this event inspired the young people of our town, resulting in their annual self-led La Migra game taking a different form – one that is not based on trauma or racists practices.  One that does not involve hazing or any threats to public and personal safety.  Our students were involved in the creation and participation of Fiestas Primavera and took the message to heart – the emulation of a brutal and terrifying practice which targets and belittles a group of marginalized people is never an appropriate teen activity.  

Fiestas Primavera has marked an historic beginning in Benicia.  And for next year’s event, the host of Fiestas Primavera, Solano Aids Coalition, is in partnership with the Benicia Performing Arts Foundation, host of the Diversity Festival, to bring an even richer and more culturally diverse event to our community.  Fiestas Primavera and the Diversity Festival is now one big event!  Other collaborators include the Benicia School District, the Kyle Hyland Teen Center, the Benicia Public Library, Benicia Black Lives Matter, and many others. 

Benicia Fiestas Primavera Celebrates Diversity is to take place on Saturday, April 5th in the City (Gazebo) Park.  Like this year, there will be engaging performances and displays of all culturally artistic types, on two stages – not just one.  The art and educational tent will continue to be a prominent feature, and there will be children’s activities to keep the young engaged.  Culturally appropriate food and arts and craft vendors also make their appearance again.  And to add to the celebration of diversity, the Benicia LBTGQIA is hoping to unveil their new public mural which will face the park behind the downtown fire station that morning.  It will truly be an event not to miss.  

In order to raise the capital needed for this spectacular plan, there will be a series of fun public fundraisers.  The first one will be on Sunday, October 27 at Drift, 366 1st Street.  To bring the spirit of Fiestas Primavera to life, the owners of Drift are offering a Pasta “Primavera” dinner, including pasta, Caesar salad, a glass of wine, and dessert, all for $60 per plate.  Andy and Ruben Brunt (Uncommonwealth) and Sobrecuerdas will provide live dinner music.  There will be two seatings, 5:00 and 6:30pm.  Since this is a small venue, reservations are required.  To reserve a table, please contact Monica at Monica@DriftBenicia.com or leave a message at 707-750-6516.  Monica needs your name, number in your party, and preferred seating time.  If you’re able to join us, you must make your reservation no later than Tuesday, October 22nd, or you won’t have a table.  

And watch for more fun activities leading up to April 5, 2025!

Benicia Fiestas Primavera Celebrates Diversity is for all of us.  It is a way to honor the depth and breadth of our complete history and culture.  Please join us in making Benicia a fully inclusive and welcoming community through our educational and cultural celebration.  

Sun., Oct. 27: Pasta Primavera Fundraiser for Benicia Fiestas Primavera – Celebrating Diversity Event

Where: Drift, 366 First Street, Benicia, CA

When: Sunday, October 27, 2024 for 5pm and 6:30pm seatings

Details: The proceeds of this event go towards an excellent cause.  Benicia Fiestas Primavera Celebrating Diversity is an inclusive and interactive educational and cultural event celebrating the cultural and historical of all immigrants, past and present.  Our efforts are to unify and celebrate Benicia and the surrounding communities through dance, music, poetry, ritual, art displays and educational activities.     

The fundraiser at Drift is $60 per plate, which includes Pasta Primavera, Caesar Salad, Glass of Wine, and Dessert.   Live music will be performed by Sobrecuerdas, Andy Brunt, and Ruben Brunt.  

Due to limited seating, reservations are required by October 22. Please contact Monica at Monica@DriftBenicia.com or 707-750-6516. 

Sponsors:  Benicia Public Library, Benicia Unified School District, Kyle Hyland Foundation, Benicia Black Lives Matter

About us:  The Solano Aids Coalition (EIN 36-4639664) provides services, education, information and assistance to those in our community affected by the HIV virus. We build community support and awareness in the fight against HIV. 

The Benicia Performing Arts Foundation (EIN 45-0531250) is dedicated to promoting the performing arts and education to the community, especially the youth of the community. 

Baykeeper wins $2.38 million pollution settlement against Valero and Amports

[BenIndy: This win shows why Benicia residents are demanding local oversight through the enactment of an Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO). While we’re grateful to Baykeeper for taking a stand for our health and safety, we shouldn’t have to rely on nonprofits for protection. Nor should we accept City leaders’ seeming reluctance to rock the boat in a refinery town by supporting an ISO. The polluted waters this metaphorical boat now floats on demonstrate that inaction and waffling in our leadership is as risky as industrial pollution. It’s time for Benicia’s leaders to pick up their oars and navigate us all to safer, cleaner shores—even if it means making waves.]

Valero and Amports Agree to Clean up Their Acts

Baykeeper drone footage of a petcoke spill at the Port of Benicia. | Baykeeper.

Baykeeper’s 300th Legal Win: Hard Evidence Holds Polluters Accountable

Baykeeper, October 7, 2024

After four years of drone investigations, rigorous evidence collection, and court filings: We won! Valero and Amports—the two companies operating an export terminal at the Port of Benicia—have agreed to stop polluting the Bay and nearby neighborhoods. What’s more, this settlement officially marks Baykeeper’s 300th legal victory over 35 years, and it includes the largest Clean Water Act mitigation payment in our history.

It all started with a report to Baykeeper’s pollution hotline. The tipster let us know that the companies were spilling some dark material into the water while loading cargo ships at the port.

When our field team investigated, we documented long black plumes of petroleum coke drifting out into the Bay. We also recorded clouds of petcoke dust rising off the conveyor belts, fouling the air and threatening people in nearby neighborhoods.

Companies Commit to Cleaner Operations

Valero and Amports have agreed to make significant infrastructure upgrades and operational changes to improve activities at the site. These changes will include thorough cleaning and maintenance, installing state-of-the-art equipment to prevent spills and aerial drift, as well as monitoring and recording all petcoke loading operations. Baykeeper’s experts will be evaluating the companies’ compliance with the agreement over the next three years to ensure they are no longer polluting.

$2.38 Million for Local Nonprofits

The companies have also agreed to pay $2.38 million in environmental mitigation payments to help offset the harm of their past pollution. They will send the payment to our partners at the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment, which will re-grant it to non-profit organizations around the Bay Area to fund projects that benefit the health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed. None of these grants will go to Baykeeper.

With this latest pollution settlement, Baykeeper has directed more than $15 million to the community over our 35-year history. Those funds have supported hundreds of Bay-focused environmental initiatives.

“Baykeeper stood up to these two big companies and made them clean up their acts,” said Baykeeper executive director Sejal Choksi-Chugh. “It’s a big win for the Bay and the people around Benicia. It makes me proud to know that there will be less toxic pollution harming the community, and that lots of local grassroots nonprofits will get a big funding boost to support projects like creek cleanups, wetlands restoration, and environmental education programs because of our win.”

This victory was made possible because of our dedicated supporters. Thank you for enabling us to hold this major fossil fuel polluter accountable, defend local communities, and protect San Francisco Bay.

Make a gift today to keep Baykeeper’s team on the water and in the courtroom.

With your support, we’ll keep taking on the Bay’s biggest polluters – and winning!


Previous reporting by BenIndy:

By Roger Straw, October 6, 2021

[See also: Video and photos at Port of Benicia show fossil fuel polluter in the act; Marilyn Bardet – Petcoke pollution in Benicia, photos going back to 1995; Cracking Down on Refinery Emissions – all about “cat crackers”]

Summary and Details of the Pollution Lawsuit

Click image for full 20-page Notice of Intent

In a previous post, I shared the Baykeeper press release announcing the photo and video evidence of illegal polluting of the Carquinez Strait and San Francisco Bay by Benicia AMPORTS.

Here, I want to highlight the discoveries outlined in the 20-page legal notice issued by Baykeepers.

You may jump to the following sections below:

Summary and notice of 60 days to settle

Re: Notice of Ongoing Violations and Intent to File a “Citizen Suit” Under the Clean Water Act

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) regarding violations of the Clean Water Act1 (“CWA” or “Act”) at the Amports Port of Benicia Terminal, owned and operated by Amports, Inc. (“Amports”) at 1997 Elm Road, Benicia, CA 94510 (“Facility”) and 1007 Bayshore Road, Benicia, CA 94510. The purpose of this letter (“Notice Letter”) is to put Amports on notice that, at the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date the Notice Letter is served, Baykeeper intends to file a “citizen suit” action against Amports in U.S. Federal District Court. The civil action will allege significant, ongoing, and continuous violations of the Act and California’s General Industrial Storm Water Permit2 (“General Permit”) at the Facility, including but not limited to, the direct deposition of petroleum coke (“petcoke”) into the water from the conveyance system, equipment, and ship, aerial deposition of petcoke directly to the water from the deck of the ship, and the uncontrolled discharge of polluted storm water to the Carquinez Strait, a part of the San Francisco Bay.

Detailed list of violations

As described in detail below, Amports is liable for ongoing violations of the Act as a consequence of the Facility’s: (1) direct discharge of petcoke into the Carquinez Strait, both through deck washing and direct aerial deposition; (2) inaccurate use of SIC code designations to avoid coverage for regulated industrial activities under the General Permit; (3) failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the General Permit resulting in unpermitted storm water discharges, including but not limited to the preparation and implementation of a proper Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan related to Amports’ petcoke loading operation, preparation and implementation of a Monitoring Implementation Plan, and compliance with technology-based Effluent Limitations.

60-day notice and offer of settlement

CWA section 505(b) requires that sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of a civil action under CWA section 505(a), a citizen must give notice of their intent to file suit. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b). Notice must be given to the alleged violator, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State in which the violations occur. As required by section 505(b), this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit provides notice to Amports of the violations that have occurred and which continue to occur at the Facility. After the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit, Baykeeper intends to file suit in federal court against Amports under CWA section 505(a) for the violations described more fully below.

During the 60-day notice period, Baykeeper would like to discuss effective remedies for the violations noticed in this letter. We suggest that you contact us as soon as possible so that these discussions may be completed by the conclusion of the 60-day notice period. Please note that it is our policy to file a complaint in federal court as soon as the notice period ends, even if discussions are in progress.

Background and photos

A. San Francisco Baykeeper

San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) is a non-profit public benefit corporation….

Members of Baykeeper reside in Benicia, California, as well as in many of the surrounding communities. Baykeeper’s members and supporters use and enjoy San Francisco Bay and other waters for various recreational, educational, and spiritual purposes. Baykeeper’s members’ use and enjoyment of these waters are negatively affected by the pollution caused by the Facility’s operations….

B. The Owner and/or Operator of the Facility

Amports, Inc. is a dba of APS West Coast Inc. and is identified as the owner and operator of the Benicia Port Terminal Company. All three entities have the same address, CEO, Secretary, CFO, and Controller.

C. The Facility’s Industrial Activities and Discharges of Petcoke and Other Pollutants

The Facility is a roughly 400-acre site which includes marine cargo loading equipment, the petcoke loading equipment and conveyor system, parking for cars, docking area and equipment for ships, silos to store petcoke, train car petcoke offloading area and equipment, vehicle maintenance, equipment cleaning, ship cleaning, ship maintenance, and other facilities. According to Amports’ 2015 Notice of Intent to comply with the General Permit under the Clean Water Act, at least 8 acres at the Facility consisted of areas that were exposed to storm water.

The Valero Benicia Refinery processes crude oil by separating it into a range of hydrocarbon components or fractions. Petroleum fractions include heavy oils and residual materials used to make asphalt or petcoke, mid-range materials such as diesel (heating oil), jet fuel, and gasoline, and lighter products, such as butane, propane, and fuel gases.

The petcoke is transported via rail to the Facility and is stored there in silos. Amports transfers the petcoke from the silos to a ship’s hold at the Facility’s dock by way of a covered conveyor system. During this process, the petcoke may escape in half a dozen or more ways.

First, petcoke spills off of the conveyor belt system and is deposited onto the wharf and directly into Carquinez Strait. This occurs while the crane boom is in the lowered position, and, as depicted below, continues as the boom is raised while the conveyor continues to operate.

March 2021

Second, petcoke is deposited onto the deck of the ship and into the water, potentially due to overspray from the loading mechanism or other operations, leaving visible plumes of petcoke that can be seen in the water.

February 2021

Third, at the conclusion of the loading, longshoremen hose off the deck of the ship, and the related loading equipment on and around the ship, cleaning the equipment and forcing contaminated runoff directly into the Carquinez Strait, again leaving visible plumes of petcoke that can be seen in the water.

February 2021

Fourth, as the ship is being loaded, large visible clouds of black particulate matter, presumably petcoke dust, drift through the air away from the ship before being directly deposited into the water and/or onto the nearby shoreline.

Additionally, petcoke may escape and be deposited onto the Facility or into the water during: (a) the offload from trains, (b) the movement of petcoke around the Facility, (c) storage at the Facility, (d) from equipment and vehicle cleaning, (e) from equipment and vehicle maintenance or repair, and (f) each time a sufficient rain event occurs due to the Facility’s discharge of pollutants from industrial activity in storm water, through direct discharges of industrial pollutants.

The deposition of petcoke and other pollutants into San Francisco Bay is harmful and deleterious to the Bay’s wildlife and communities. Petcoke is a petroleum byproduct and is known to contain pollutants including heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, arsenic, mercury, and vanadium, all of which are harmful to aquatic life, including fish and birds.

Additionally, people exposed to petcoke pollutants can experience severe health problems like asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease.

Detailed harmful effects of Petcoke

The deposition of petcoke and other pollutants into San Francisco Bay is harmful and deleterious to the Bay’s wildlife and communities. Petcoke is a petroleum byproduct and is known to contain pollutants including heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, arsenic, mercury, and vanadium, all of which are harmful to aquatic life, including fish and birds. Additionally, people exposed to petcoke pollutants can experience severe health problems like asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease.

Amports is permitted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to process and load 2 million tons of petcoke onto export ships over a 12-month period. Amports does not have any permits from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”). Amports is not permitted to discharge petcoke directly into the Carquinez Strait. And Amports is also not permitted to discharge any storm water, directly or indirectly, that is the result of industrial activity, including water that is commingled with industrial discharges.

Baykeeper’s suit will allege that petcoke is deposited on the site with every instance of: petcoke being transported by rail to the site, petcoke offloading from a train at the Facility, and petcoke being handled and transported on the Facility’s premises. Additionally, Baykeeper will allege that petcoke enters the Carquinez Strait with every instance of: petcoke being loaded and/or oversprayed onto a ship docked at the Facility, petcoke-related equipment, including the conveyor systems, cranes, and ships, being maintained and/or cleaned, and each storm event at the Facility in excess of 0.1” of precipitation.

The discharge of pollutants from industrial facilities contributes to the impairment of surface waters and aquatic-dependent wildlife. These contaminated discharges can and must be controlled for ecosystems to regain their health and to protect public health. As part of its investigation of the Facility, Baykeeper observed and documented by video numerous instances of illegal discharges during Amports’ various activities and handling of marine cargo (specifically petcoke) at the Facility between November 2020 and March 2021.

Additionally, with every significant rainfall event, millions of gallons of polluted storm water originating from industrial operations such as the Facility pour into storm drains and local waterways. The consensus among agencies and water quality specialists is that storm water pollution accounts for more than half of the total pollution entering surface waters each year. Such discharges of pollutants from industrial facilities contribute to the impairment of downstream waters and aquatic dependent wildlife. These contaminated discharges can and must be controlled for the ecosystem to regain its health.


Click image for full 20-page notice

THE REMAINDER OF THE DOCUMENT is organized into the following sections, which you can study at length here.

II. THE CLEAN WATER ACT (p. 7)
A. The NPDES Permit Program (p. 7)
B. California’s General Industrial Storm Water Permit (p. 8)
C. The Facility’s Permit Enrollment Status (p. 12)
III. NAME AND ADDRESS OF NOTICING PARTY (p. 13)
IV. COUNSEL (p. 13)
V. VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND GENERAL PERMIT (p. 13)
A. Amports’ Direct, Non-Storm Water Discharges Without an
NPDES Permit (p. 14)
B. Amports’ Illegal Indirect Discharges Without An NPDES
Permit (p. 15)
C. Amports’ Illegal Storm Water Discharges (p. 15)
D. Violations of the Act and General Permit Reporting and
Monitoring Rules (p. 16)
E. Violations of the General Permit’s SWPPP Requirements (p.
17)
VI. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER
ACT (p. 17)
VII. CONCLUSION (p. 18)
ATTACHMENT 1: DATES OF ALLEGED EXCEEDANCES BY
AMPORTS FROM OCTOBER 4, 2016 TO OCTOBER 4, 2021
(p. 19)
ATTACHMENT 2: SERVICE LIST (p. 20)

For safe and healthy communities…