In a recent meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board, a significant legal dispute emerged regarding the city of Norwalk's administrative petition. The board faced scrutiny for its handling of Norwalk's challenge to the July 23, 2021 MS4 permit, which was submitted on August 23, 2023. The board's office of chief counsel deemed the petition rejected based on a specific provision in the California Administrative Code, which states that if the board does not notify the petitioner within a 90-day period, the petition is automatically dismissed.

However, the timeline of events raised concerns. Norwalk was not informed that it had 30 days to respond to the petition, nor did it receive any advance notice regarding the dismissal until the 91st day, November 22, 2021. This lack of communication has been interpreted as a violation of due process, leading to questions about the board's adherence to legal protocols.

Further complicating the matter, the board failed to provide a written explanation for its refusal to review the petition, which is required when substantial issues are raised. The discussion referenced a precedent case, Water Quality Control Board versus Berry, where the board had previously denied a petition but provided a detailed rationale for its decision. In Norwalk's case, several substantial issues were identified, including concerns about the permit's adoption process and its implications for stormwater management.

In light of these findings, the board announced plans to issue a memorandum aimed at clarifying the criteria for petition rejection. This resolution seeks to ensure that future dismissals are justified in writing and that the criteria for what constitutes a substantial issue are clearly defined. The board also indicated that ex parte communications regarding conditions would be permissible, provided they comply with existing regulations.

As the board moves forward, the implications of this case could reshape how administrative petitions are handled, emphasizing the need for transparency and due process in regulatory decisions.