Our Rivers, Lakes And Streams Reports

Search • RSS Feed

Executive Summary

Perchlorate, the major ingredient in rocket fuel, pollutes the drinking water supplies of Rialto - a small working class, mostly minority community nestled beneath the San Bernardino Mountains.  Although officials discovered the contamination nearly ten years ago, comprehensive cleanup has not yet begun. As the delay continues, the pollution spreads; residents pay increased water rates to fund cleanup and legal action; and officials worry about future water shortages in the drought-prone region.  While local leaders have shut down or placed stop-gap treatment on wells polluted above California health warnings, out of date detection methods mean many residents may continue to drink pollution considered unsafe in other states.

In proposing order 2005-0053, the Santa Ana Regional Water Board aims to take the single largest step to-date toward cleaning up the perchlorate pollution that plagues the Rialto-Colton region. In more than 10,000 pages of submissions and exhibits, the dischargers named in the draft order present a host of legal and technical claims that argue against its adoption. This policy brief, however, rebuts the overarching notion presented in the submissions that the core issue before the State Water Board in these proceedings is technical or legal in nature. 

In fact, we strongly believe that the core issue before the board is to answer a single fundamental policy question -

Should California require that polluters who dump dangerous chemicals into drinking water clean up their mess?

Environment California and CCAEJ firmly believe that the public interest answer to this question is a resounding yes. Any other answer would be contrary to the California Water Code, which states that,

"The principles, guidelines and objectives [adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board] shall be consistent with the state goal of providing a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian." (CWC Section 13142)

Furthermore, we believe that the submissions of Goodrich, Emhart and Pyro Spectaculars are in large part based upon a series of depositions, discovery demands, procedural objections and legal maneuvers that have significantly hampered the ability of the public process to adequately address this question. As such, we urge the Board to give the answer to the fundamental policy question highlighted above the weight it deserves, even amidst the tens of thousands of pages of legal and technical arguments presented by the dischargers named in the proposed order. In addition, we urge the Board to ensure that the remediation requirements contained in a final draft order reflect its overriding public policy mandate to ensure that polluters that dump dangerous chemicals into drinking water are required to clean up their mess.