Public forum highlights: complaint about section 13287 guidance, lab accreditation delay and Santa Monica Bay correspondence

Public commenters at the State Water Resources Control Board's Aug. 5 meeting pressed the board on three distinct topics: questions about the legal validity of a disclosure model tied to section 13287, a complaint by an applicant about slow certification by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP), and requests for records about staff guidance to the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission.

Ray Tahir argued that the division's disclosure model interpreting section 13287 is defective and inconsistent with the statute as signed into law, and urged the board to amend the model or provide documents showing communications with legislative staff. Board chair Joaquin Esquivel replied that the board had offered Mr. Tahir meetings with chief counsel and suggested legislative remedies if Mr. Tahir believed staff had erred.

Attorney JC Dean spoke on behalf of Analytical Environmental Labs, which submitted an initial ELAP accreditation application in January, paid a fee and underwent an onsite audit on July 1 with no significant findings but reported no certification or timeline. Chief counsel and ELAP staff told the board they expected a letter to the applicant within about a week following the meeting.

Walter Lam of the Vienna Wetlands Land Trust asked for factual documentation and a timeline describing how State Water Board staff guided the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, saying delays in a staff reply reduce the value of any response. Chair Esquivel said staff would respond as soon as possible.

The board did not take action in public forum but accepted the comments for the record.