State Water Board fires a loose cannon at an unfortunate staffer

By Boutris Wittfogel

At a recent regularly scheduled meeting the State Water Board considered a revision to the list of impaired water bodies. Known as the “303d List,” a citation to the section of the Clean Water Act that requires the list be updated every two years, the list identifies the who’s who of polluted waterways and what they are polluted for. A cascade of consequences results from placement on (and de-listing from) the 303d List including restrictions(known as a “total maximum daily load” or “TMDL”) on what can be dumped into the waterway. Identifying an appropriate TMDL for each waterway is a time consuming and costly process, one the State Water Board is woefully behind in completing. In at least one case, the absence of a TMDL for a 303d List impaired waterway requires an outright ban in dumping anything into the waterway. Clearly, the bi-annual 303d List generates significant scrutiny and attention.

But that’s not how it went at the State Water Board meeting. Apparently, internal documents used to prepare Board Members for meetings indicated that the 303d List item was “uncontroversial.” Oops.

Then the calls came in. Prior to the meeting, alarms were sounded, calls were made, letters were drafted, backdoor channels were employed – Board members were embarrassed. This set the stage for an appalling and shameful display of rhetorical outrage by some State Water Board Members. Board Member Baggett stormed off the dais whilst Member Doduc chastised staff, the brunt of which was absorbed by a highly respected staff scientist staring down the barrel of minimum wage. It was a public drubbing of the shallowest order.

The State Water Board should be embarrassed for the way they treated staff, especially the staff scientist. All State Water Board members have been around long enough to know the 303d List is pretty important and going to engender lots of interest; there was no cause for surprise no matter what box was checked on those forms. All State Water Board members had the opportunity to question the internal forms indicating the item was “non-controversial.” Each Board member had ample time to identify the responsible parties and mete out appropriate retribution behind closed doors. But that’s not how it went at the State Water Board meeting.

If they have any sense of shame, the State Water Board should atone for these antics by offering the staff scientist a public apology. If they insist on blaming staff for the “Great 2010 303d List Blunder”, rather than accepting their own culpability, they should seek out the actual middle manager responsible for checking the “non-controversial” box on the internal form for discipline. But that’s not how it goes at the State Water Board.