This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

After years of failing to meet state and federal expectations for storm water pollution control, Salt Lake County has agreed to pay a $280,000 penalty to settle the matter — the largest fine related to storm water in state history.

The fine is just one of more than a dozen provisions for restitution included in a consent decree the state hopes to finalize in the coming months. Walter Baker, the director of the Utah Division of Water Quality, said his division and the Environmental Protection Agency hope the decree will bring an end to what they view as the county's long-running failure to enforce measures intended to prevent pollution from reaching Utah's waterways.

Under the federal Clean Water Act, Salt Lake County, with state supervision, is responsible for preventing storm water runoff from sweeping urban pollution into local waterways. Baker said the county has a solid plan in place for preventing polluted runoff from reaching streams and rivers, but inspections conducted by the state in 2007 and the EPA in 2012 found the county had failed to enforce that plan, resulting in inadequate storm water control and oversight that likely persisted, Baker said, for several years.

Baker said the initial, routine inspection found numerous deficiencies the county was asked to address. When the EPA came in for a follow-up audit in 2012, Baker said, the original deficiencies were not only still present, but had actually grown worse.

The fact that the county had not responded to the original request for compliance was taken into account when the $280,000 penalty was calculated, Baker said, resulting in the largest storm water penalty ever assessed in the state of Utah.

If the consent decree is approved after a public comment period set to close Jan. 22, half of the penalty will be paid to the state of Utah directly; the other half will go to the EPA.

The EPA's 67-page audit of the county's storm water operations identifies dozens of shortfalls, including insufficient monitoring and reporting, failure to conduct required site inspections, failure to properly remediate discharges of polluted water, and even one instance of illegal discharge from a county facility. The audit concluded that the county's storm water program lacked sufficient resources, was understaffed, and that the staff on hand lacked adequate training.

Russ Wall, director of public works for Salt Lake County, said most of the deficiencies identified by the state and by the EPA were related to record-keeping.

"We had been complying," he said. "But we hadn't been documenting everything we were doing, so there was no proof of what we had been doing."

In addition to levying a fine, the consent decree requires the county to attain compliance with the Clean Water Act by hiring more staff and ensuring they are properly trained, conducting routine inspections and improving storm water monitoring, among other measures.

Wall said the county had not been aware of the EPA's record-keeping requirements but has since hired additional clerical staff to keep records and to help with monitoring and inspections.

"We have an obligation to monitor every single gutter and ditch, and that takes a lot of time and effort," Wall said.

The county's storm water program oversees only unincorporated areas — municipalities, including Salt Lake City, have their own storm water programs — but Salt Lake County still represents one of the four largest storm water management areas in the state, with more than 300 miles of waterways under its jurisdiction.

Baker said he saw the size of Salt Lake County's storm water program as one of the reasons why it should be held to a higher standard.

"Salt Lake County ought to be a leader," he said. "I think there's a higher responsibility that Salt Lake County had, and they were deficient in carrying out their responsibilities."

Wall said the county is now committed to holding itself to that standard and maintaining the staff required to do so. But, he said, the state's waterways were never in any real danger.

"I think that there was probably some misunderstanding of their [the state and the EPA] expectation, and when they came in and audited us … we didn't understand fully what they were asking for," he said. "We believe that they could have given us better explanations of what their expectations were."

However, Wall said, "the important part for me is to know that it wasn't a matter that we were falling down to protect the waterways. Where we fell down was adequately documenting our work, and we've resolved that."

But Baker said he disagreed with the assertion that Utah's waterways were never at risk. He pointed to the county's failure to properly permit and inspect construction sites, a significant hazard because of the potential for sediment and other pollutants to flow off the site during a storm, and to the fact that the EPA discovered illegal discharges from a county parks and recreation facility while conducting the 2012 audit.

According to the audit, EPA inspectors observed a county employee washing gasoline containers and vehicles on an outdoor concrete pad. This allowed fuel to spill onto the pad and run into an outdoor drain. When asked, staff on site said they believed this was the proper procedure, and that the drain in question was connected to an on-site oil-water separator.

The EPA ordered a dye test to determine the location of the drain's discharge, and eventually traced the drain to an outlet into Mill Creek. Scott Baird, Salt Lake County's director of engineering and flood control, confirmed the audit's account and attributed it to insufficient employee training.

These sorts of discharges are illegal, Baker said, because they slowly build up and degrade waters that are sources of drinking water, recreation and other uses.

"If oils, fertilizers, pesticides are going into our waterways and effectively turning them into sewers, that affects our quality of life," he said.

epenrod@sltrib.com

Twitter: @EmaPen Public Comment Period

Comments are due to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality, by Jan. 22. Written comments may be emailed to rthiele@utah.gov or mailed to:

Rhonda Thiele

PO Box 144870

Salt Lake City, UT

84114-4870