Aquifer agency grants 90‑day extensions for facilities missing stormwater plans, outlines enforcement path

The Aquifer Protection Agency on Aug. 20 voted to give multiple facility operators 90‑day extensions to complete required stormwater management and certified material‑management plans and to complete physical site improvements, after staff reported the applications remain incomplete.

Agency staff member Alexis said the state regulates large underground storage tanks and “the state gets involved” for spills and remediation, and explained that the local agency’s review is aimed at prevention and verifying facilities implement best management practices. Alexis said the state statute gives the agency 180 days to render a registration decision and that to avoid automatic acceptance the agency must find an application incomplete and set a new deadline.

Why it matters: Operators that fail to complete registration activity exposing the aquifer could move from administrative review to formal enforcement if staff deems they have not reasonably attempted compliance. Agency members repeatedly asked staff how enforcement would be carried out and were told enforcement would begin with staff orders and could end with litigation if other steps fail.

Agency members and applicants discussed two specific cases in detail. AMCO, operator of the facility identified as RA24104255 on Main Avenue, submitted an updated stormwater management plan prepared by McChord Engineering but still lacked a certified material‑management plan and some on‑site physical improvements. Harry, an engineer with McChord Engineering, told the agency he had received Alexis’ comments the morning of the meeting, that McChord had reviewed them and did not have “any issues,” and that the firm needs to camera a storm pipe to confirm whether the catch basin discharges to a dry well or ties into the city storm system before finalizing the stormwater management plan. Harry said, “we request 90 days extension if that's possible.” The agency approved a 90‑day extension by roll call vote.

A second operator, identified on the agenda as RA25108 at 18 Pearl Street (doing business as L F and P), said the business had difficulties finding a licensed professional to inspect and prepare the required plan and asked for more time. The owner said they had struggled to find someone licensed and that staff had provided a list of potential firms; the owner said one firm was scheduled to visit the site the week after the meeting. The agency granted a 90‑day extension and directed staff to send and post the list of licensed professionals and to follow up during the extension period.

Board members asked how enforcement would proceed if deadlines were missed. Alexis said staff would first issue enforcement letters and orders and that unresolved noncompliance could be escalated to a show‑cause hearing before the agency and ultimately to the city law department seeking a temporary injunction in superior court. Alexis called that “stepwise enforcement steps” and acknowledged enforcement can be difficult, but available.

The agency chair asked staff to issue updated letters documenting the new deadlines and to keep the agency informed of registrants’ progress; staff said the extensions require not only paperwork but any physical on‑site improvements specified in the plans.

Discussion points: the agency discussed whether repeatedly granting extensions risks allowing prolonged noncompliance; staff said extensions are an administrative tool to prevent automatic acceptance under the 180‑day statute and that enforcement remains available if operators do not act.

Next steps: staff will issue updated letters to registrants with the new deadlines, post the provided list of licensed professionals on the agency web page, and return any applicants’ completed materials for final agency review within the extension period.