The Beaumont Audits have revealed that the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has Colluded with the City of Beaumont to Commit Fraud, Forge EPA Documents, Violate the Federal 4th Amendment to Illegal Search and Seizures, and is using the Water Board Agency for Predatory Purposes.

Union Bank set up the Ghost Account in order to Embezzle the money, but it took the Gross Negligence and Collusion of the California Water Quality Control Board to fake the construction of $100 Million in Infrastructure over the last 1/4 century.

For the past three years Complaints with backup Documentation were submitted directly to the State Water Quality Control Board in Sacramento in the hopes that the State was not aware of the illegal actions of the Regional Board. The State Water Board’s response has been to Destroy the Forged EPA Documents and continue to Collude with the City of Beaumont.

TO THIS DAY the California Water Quality Control Board claims that the City of Beaumont has a fully functioning Recycled Water Facility that produces an ‘equivalent’ of Title 22 Compliant Recycled Water. The Facility does not exist.

A Federal EPA Investigation, 2017-0280, has been initiated against the California Water Quality Control Board for Forging EPA Documents, Destroying EPA Documents, Illegal Search and Seizure, and Using the Water Board Agency for Predatory Purposes.

Sequence of Complaints:


1. Complaint Against California Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Regional Division

Download Complaint PDF

[accordion clicktoclose=”true”][accordion-item title=”View Complaint” autoclose=”true”]
Libi Uremovic 
P.O. Box 2894
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741
(702) 503-2022 
beaumontgate.org 

May 24, 2017

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mailcode 2431T
Washington, DC 20460
[email protected]

Complaint Against:  California Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Regional Division 

To whom is may concern: 

My name is Libi Uremovic.  I am the independent Auditor that uncovered the $400 Million Federal Bond Fraud & Embezzlement scam in the City of Beaumont, over $70 Million of which was Embezzled through the City’s Sewer Bonds.   

SEC Subpoenas, California State Controller Report, and the Indictments of the City Manager, City Attorney, Public Works Director, Economic Development Director, Finance Director, Planning Director, and Chief of Police can be viewed on beaumontgate.org.

The Beaumont Audits have disclosed that the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control has Colluded with the City of Beaumont to Commit Fraud, Forged EPA Documents, Violate Federal 4th Amendment to Illegal Search and Seizures, and use the Water Board Agency for Predatory Purposes.

Union Bank set up the Ghost Account in order to Embezzle the money, but it took the Gross Negligence and Collusion of the California Water Quality Control Board to fake the construction of Infrastructure for over 20 years. 

For the past three years I have submitted Complaints with backup Documentation to the State Water Quality Control Board in Sacramento in the hopes that the State was not aware of the illegal actions of the Regional Board.  The State Water Board’s response has been to Destroy the Forged EPA Documents and continue to Collude with the City of Beaumont.

TO THIS DAY the California Water Quality Control Board claims that the City of Beaumont has a fully functioning Recycled Water Facility that produces an ‘equivalent’ of Title 22 Compliant Recycled Water

I am requesting the Federal EPA Investigate the California Water Quality Control Board for Forging EPA Documents, Destroying EPA Documents, Using a Federal EPA Agency for Predatory Purposes, Illegal Search and Seizure, 
 .
The California State Water Quality Control Board obligations are:

PROTECT SURFACE WATERS AND PUBLIC HEALTH:  The Water Board Oversaw the 2004 Adjudication of the Beaumont Basin, which ‘legally’ allowed the Overdraft of the Beaumont Basin for 10 years.   It also appears that the City is drilling into the South Beaumont Basin and using other Overlyers’ Potable Water to dilute the City’s Sewage with the State Water Board’s knowledge and consent.

FRAUD/FORGED GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS:  The State Water Board has colluded with the City of Beaumont, Riverside County, and Wildermuth Environmental to Forge EPA Documents, altering the definition of words such as ‘recycled water’, ‘tertiary treated’, and ‘water’.  

INSPECTION/VERIFICATION: The State Water Board never Inspected Beaumont’s  Facilities or they would have seen that the recycled water facility was never constructed.    For 20 years Wildermuth Environmental was the only ‘Expert’ used in by the Regional Board, City of Beaumont, STWMA, and the Beaumont Basin Wastermaster. 

NEGLIGENCE/REFUSAL TO INSPECT OVERSEE CONSTRUCTION AND INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER DISCHARGE:  In the last 15 years the City of Beaumont has grown from 12,000 to 45,000 people with no oversight EPA Permits or oversight.  Beaumont has 31 heavy Industrial Companies with no NPDES Permit for Industrial Waste.   

VIOLATION OF FEDERAL 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE:  The Staff and Board California State Water Quality Control is using the Agency for predatory purposes.  The Board has illegally entered the Bingham Property and Forged an Order against the Binghams to intimidate them because Judy Bingham was uncovering Beaumont’s Bond and Construction scam.  The Board continues to deny the Citizens of Quail Valley the right to use their property based on a Fraudulent EPA Report.  

Audit Packets: 

State Water Quality Control Board Staff, Board Members, and Wildermuth Environmental
1993 Documents showing Original Embezzlement and Negligence
Overdraft of the Beaumont Basin
Forged Sewer Capacity
Maximum Benefit Commitments 
Use of Government Agency for Predatory Purposes
Blue Baby Scam 

I am requesting the Federal EPA Investigate the Illegal Activity of the California Water Quality Control Board and Issue a Cease and Desist on the City of Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Facility to prevent further deterioration of the Beaumont Basin and the Pass Area Citizens’ quality of life.

Download ComplaintPDF
[/accordion-item][/accordion]


2. California Water Board Collusion in Beaumont Sewer Embezzlement Scam

Download Complaint PDF in a zip file (large file)

[accordion clicktoclose=”true”][accordion-item title=”View Complaint” autoclose=”true”]
California Water Board Collusion in Beaumont Sewer Embezzlement Scam

In order to produce Recycled Water, Wastewater must pass through a series of Preliminary Treatment Systems to prepare the wastewater for the Tertiary Treatment.

In 1993 the Beaumont Basin was already in Overdraft and the State Water Quality Control Board was requiring the City to replace their entire Sewer Facility.

Beaumont acquired an $8.5 Million Sewer Bond on August 31, 1993. Page 18 of the Bond states that the City did not replace all of their Sewer Infrastructure and the City was also suppose to construct a “..new secondary treatment process.”

In 2001 the City of Beaumont acquired a $9.79 Million Wastewater Bond. In 2002 Union Bank became the Bond Trustee for the City of Beaumont’s Bonds including the 2001 Wastewater Bond.

Union Bank set up a Ghost Account titled ‘Construction Fund’ to Embezzle money through the Bond Fund Accounts. Over $60 Million was Embezzled between 2005 and 2014 and plugged onto Beaumont Financial Statements as Sewer Machinery and Equipment.

Sewer Systems are Infrastructure and recorded on Financial Statements as a long-term Asset. The reason the money embezzled from the Bond Fund Accounts was plugged onto the Financial Statements as Sewer ‘Machinery & Equipment’ was so it would depreciate away.

Beaumont claims to have purchased $74 Million in Machinery and Equipment and put it all in a $61,000 Building.

On August 28, 2009 California Water Quality Control Board Issued R8-2009-0002, which Amended R8-2006-0003. The 2009 Order added UV Validation and two Recycled Water Discharge Points.

From 2009 TO THIS DAY the City of Beaumont and the State Water Quality Control Board claim that the City has a Recycled Water Facility.

It was never possible for the City to produce Recycled Water. Not only was Beaumont’s UV Validation System substandard and not properly installed, but the City never constructed the Preliminary Treatment Systems.

At the May 16, 2017 Beaumont City Council Meeting, Albert Webb and Associates’ Report confirmed that the City never constructed the Grit Removal Facility and Fine Screening Facilities needed to prepare the wastewater for the Tertiary Treatment. The Report also includes the construction of RO and MBR Systems, which are Systems alternative to the UV System that can be used to create Recycled Water.

The embezzlement of tens of millions through Beaumont’s Sewer Plant could not have been possible without the State Water Quality Control Board’s Collusion, Fraud, Gross Negligence, and Forging of EPA Reports and Investigations.

Download Complaint PDF
[/accordion-item][/accordion]


3. Overdraft of the Beaumont Basin

Download Complaint PDF in a zip file (large file)

[accordion clicktoclose=”true”][accordion-item title=”View Complaint” autoclose=”true”]
Overdraft of the Beaumont Basin

The California Water Quality Control Board is an EPA Organization assigned to protect the waters. The Beaumont Basin is the only natural water supply for the Citizens of Beaumont and the Cherry Valley Community of Interest.

Federal EPA Laws were created to protect Water Quality and Sole Source Aquifers specifically. EPA Title 40 Section 131.12 (1) Antidegradation Policy states: “Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the exiting uses shall be maintained and protected.”

The Beaumont Basin has been in Overdraft for over 20 years. Currently, 2/3’s of Water used by the Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District is Imported from the State Imported Water Program, which is administered through the San Gorgonio Pass Agency.

For over a decade the Ratepayers have paid for Imported State Water to Offset the Overdraft of the Beaumont Basin. The Citizens of Beaumont and Cherry Valley have repeatedly demanded the State Water Board do their job and protect the Water Supply in the Beaumont Basin. Beaumont has grown from 10,000 to over 45,000 and plan to build another 13,000 houses with no water supply.

TO THIS DAY the State Water Quality Control Board continues to allow additional housing in Beaumont without any regard to the fact that there is not enough water in the Beaumont Basin to sustain the current population and absolutely no water for additional growth.

The Beaumont Basin was already in Overdraft when the San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority (STWMA) and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Created the Adjudication of the Beaumont Basin in 2004: http://beaumontgate.org/news/san-timoteo-watershed-management-authority-2004-adjudication-of-the-beaumont-basin/

The Adjudication of the Beaumont Basin had no basis in law or fact. The results of the Overdraft was the reduction of the Safe Yield in the Beaumont Basin from 8,650 acre in 2004 to 6,700 acre feet recorded in 2015.

At the May 8, 2017 Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District Board Report on the Status of Sustainable Water Supply Acquisition: “Under current conditions, the local water resources to meet demand have long ago been fully utilized. Nearly 2/3’s of system demand is met through imported water replenishing the Basin. Currently there are over 7,000 dwelling units entitled and approved by the City of Beaumont with an additional 6,700 units under review and several more thousand planned through build-out.”

The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has repeatedly Approved the Expansion of Beaumont’s Sewer Plant to accommodate additional growth with reckless disregard to the fact that there is NO WATER SUPPLY to accommodate the additional population.

The Water Board has neglected their duty to require the City of Beaumont to comply with Basin Plans and Board Orders to construct a Recycled Water Facility and to limit construction. The State Board also has a duty of care to stop the Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District from Issuing Will-Serve Letters without a 20-year water supply as required by California Water Code 66473.7 (2).

EPA Title 40 Section 131.12 (1) Antidegradation Policy states: “Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the exiting uses shall be maintained and protected.”

Title 40: Protection of Environment PART 149—SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERS

§149.3 Critical Aquifer Protection Areas.
A Critical Aquifer Protection Area is either:

(a) All or part of an area which was designated as a sole or principal source aquifer prior to June 19, 1986, and for which an areawide ground-water quality protection plan was approved, under section 208 of the Clean Water Act,

(i) The cost of replacing the drinking water supply from the sole or principal source aquifer, and

(ii) Other economic costs and environmental and social costs resulting from such contamination.

California Water Code 13050:
(e) “Waters of the state” means any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.

(f) “Beneficial uses” of the waters of the state that may be protected against quality degradation include, but are not limited to, domestic, municipal, agricultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves.

(g) “Quality of the water” refers to chemical, physical, biological, bacteriological, radiological, and other properties and characteristics of water which affect its use.

(h) “Water quality objectives” means the limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water or the prevention of nuisance within a specific area.

(i) “Water quality control” means the regulation of any activity or factor which may affect the quality of the waters of the state and includes the prevention and correction of water pollution and nuisance.

(j) “Water quality control plan” consists of a designation or establishment for the waters within a specified area of all of the following:

(1) Beneficial uses to be protected.

(2) Water quality objectives.

(3) A program of implementation needed for achieving water quality objectives.

SEC. 4. Section 66473.7 is added to the Government Code, to read:

California Government Code 66473.7. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following
definitions apply:

(1) “Subdivision” means a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units, except that for a public water system that has fewer than 5,000 service connections, “subdivision” means any proposed residential development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections.

(2) “Sufficient water supply” means the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years within a 20-year projection that will meet the projected demand associated with the proposed subdivision, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses. In determining “sufficient water supply,” all of the following factors shall be considered:

(A) The availability of water supplies over a historical record of at least 20 years.

(B) The applicability of an urban water shortage contingency analysis prepared pursuant to Section 10632 of the Water Code that includes actions to be undertaken by the public water system in response to water supply shortages.

(C) The reduction in water supply allocated to a specific water use sector pursuant to a resolution or ordinance adopted, or a contract entered into, by the public water system, as long as that resolution, ordinance, or contract does not conflict with Section 354 of the Water Code.

(D) The amount of water that the water supplier can reasonably rely on receiving from other water supply projects, such as conjunctive use, reclaimed water, water conservation, and water
transfer, including programs identified under federal, state, and local water initiatives such as CALFED and Colorado River tentative agreements, to the extent that these water supplies meet the criteria of subdivision (d).

Download Complaint PDF
[/accordion-item][/accordion]


4. Beaumont’s Forged Sewer Capacity

Download Complaint PDF in a zip file (large file)

[accordion clicktoclose=”true”][accordion-item title=”View Complaint” autoclose=”true”]
Beaumont’s Forged Sewer Capacity

A Sewer’s ‘Capacity’ is the amount of wastewater that can be processed through the Facility. Capacity is measured in MGD’s, Million Gallons per Day.

Federal EPA Title 40 Section 123 et seq. requires State Water Quality Control Board to conduct annual Inspections of all major Discharge Facilities. Board Inspections can be found here: https://ftp.waterboards.ca.gov/?u=rb8adminrecord&p=YqdDTh!312

The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board conducted four (4) Inspections between February 25, 2011 and December 6, 2016. All Inspections were signed by Najah N. Amin. The first three Inspection Report were Reviewed by ‘GDC’, the forth Report was Reviewed by ‘MCG’.

The Pretreatment was ‘Not Evaluated’ on all four Inspection Reports. The Inspection Reports have not recorded Beaumont’s Sewer Violations since 2006. The last Inspection Report did not include any Historical Information.

In 2011 the population of Beaumont was 38,500. The Inspection Report dated 02/25/2011 recorded the MGD Flow at 2.95 MGD.

In 2012 the population of Beaumont was 39,400. The Inspection Report dated 11/28/2012 recorded the MGD Flow at 3.35 MGD.

In 2014 the population of Beaumont was 42,200. The Inspection Report dated 12/11/2014 recorded the MGD Flow at 3.073 MGD.

In 2016 the population of Beaumont was over 45,000. The Inspection Report dated 12/20/2016 recorded the MGD Flow at 3.00 MGD.

It is not possible to have a Decreasing Sewer Flow while simultaneously Increasing Population.

On August 25, 2016 the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Issued a Directive to Investigate Beaumont’s Sewer Plant Capacity, but the State Water Board could produce no Documents to show that an Investigation took place nor can any Representative of the State Water Board show how they calculate Capacity.

The Investigative Report page 2 states: “On January 28, 2015 the City submitted plans and schedule for construction of salt mitigation facilities … Plant capacity expansion was not part of the plans and schedule.”

That is a fraudulent statement. The Plans submitted in 2015 included increasing Capacity from 4.0 to 8.0: http://www.ci.beaumont.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/19710

Santa Ana Regional Water Board Staff Members Kurt Berchtold and Hope Smythe attended the Beaumont City Council Meeting on January 28, 2015. Berchtold spoke to Council.

The California Department of Finance lists the population of Beaumont on January 1, 2016 at 45,118: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/

A Court Ruling set Capacity determination at 1 MGD per 10,000. (Village of Fox River Grove vs. Pollution Control Board https://www.wateronline.com/doc/how-should-a-wastewater-treatment-plants-capa-0001

On January 14, 2015, Craig Mains from the National Environmental Services Center in D.C. called MGD at: “..88 gallons. So, a community of 40,000 people (with no big commercial, institutional, or industrial users) would be expected to generate about 3.52 MGD of wastewater.

Best case scenario; 45,000 x 88 = 3.96 MGD.

Beaumont Sewer Capacity is considered 4.0 MGD, but that’s questionable considering the condition of the sewer equipment.

TO THIS DAY the California Water Quality Control Board can not produce documentation verifying Beaumont’s Capacity nor can any Water Board Employee explain how Capacity is calculated.

Directive for Investigation for Addressing Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity and City of Beaumont Response can be found here: http://www.ci.beaumont.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/28273

48:30: Kurt Berchtold, Executive Officer for the Regional Water Quality Control Board. I’m here tonight to urge your timely submittal of a Salt Mitigation Plan to us. The Requirement to submit a Salt Mitigation Plan by January 30th is included in our Basin Plan and compliance with that and other Deadlines in our Basin Plan is a requirement for the City to continue to participate in the Maximum Benefit Program.

January 20, 2015 Beaumont City Council Agenda item 7.g. Preliminary Plan and Schedule for the Salt Mitigation Facilities & Expansion of the WWTP by Wildermuth Environmental: http://www.ci.beaumont.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/19710

January 20, 2015, Slideshow Presentation of the City of Beaumont’s Preliminary Plan
for Recycled Water and Salt Mitigation: http://www.ci.beaumont.ca.us/documentcenter/view/19730

November 7, 2016 Beaumont Special Council Meeting Agenda Item 1: Council Awards $727,000 Contract for another Preliminary Design to Webb and Associates: http://www.ci.beaumont.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/29242

01/20/2015 Council Transcript: http://podcast.ci.beaumont.ca.us/mp3/CC_2015-01-20.mp3

37:00: Kyle Warsinski: Before you tonight is a Proposed Preliminary Plan and Schedule regarding Salt Mitigation Facilities and Expansion of the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant. Before the question comes up, I might as well go into it, which is what is the Basin Plan. That is the Plan for the Santa Ana River. It governs the use of Surface and Groundwater and requires Permits for Recycled Water Discharge, Reuse, and Recharge. It establishes requirements for Water Quality, Operation of Water Treatment Facilities, Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting. The City of Beaumont participated over two years with the Regional Board and other Agencies in this Area to include many beneficial elements into the Plan including joint and severed cooperation and responsibilities with the City of Banning, BCVWD, SGPWA, and the YVWD.

38:00 Warsinski: Shared costs of Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting. Since 2009 Beaumont paid for 100% of the Monitoring and Recording for the Beaumont Management Zone. As of the last couple months or so, I forgot the exact date, all of those Parties I just iterated, put together a Regional Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Regional Board. The Plan provides a 10-year goal to attain Water Quality Objectives, a 5-year goal to build Salt Mitigation Facilities, and a 1-year goal to deliver Recycled Water to Golf Courses for Irrigation. It also has Approval for Stormwater and Recycled Water Recharge Plan with ‘End-of-Pipe’ Water Quality Measurement Requirements. Another phrase that’s going to be thrown around or discussed in this entire Document are ‘Maximum Benefit Requirements’.

39:00 Warsinski: Maximum Benefit Requirements are made by the State of California, enforced by the Regional Board, and applied to the Cities of Beaumont, Banning, BCVWD, SGPWA, and the YVWD to foster Regional Cooperation to protect Water Resources in the Areas. The Maximum Requirements include conditions for the operation of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant including Water Quality Standards for Recycled Water and Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting. The two Maximum Benefit Requirements apply to the different Management Zones. The City currently Discharges and Operates in two Zones, one’s called the San Timoteo Management Zone. The Maximum Benefit Requirements limit of TDS, Total Dissolved Solids, otherwise commonly referred to as ‘SALT’, is 400. Beaumont Management Zone is 330. The other option, or the scenario as opposed to non-compliance is something called “Anti-Degradation”. That baseline of what the Basin Objectives.

40:00 Warsinski: So Maximum Benefit has a high standard, a higher number, so a lower standard of TDS, just by a little bit, to encourage participation in the Maximum Benefit use of water in those Management Zones. So if you don’t comply with the Basin Plan’s Maximum Benefit Requirements these other things kick in: There could be Monetary Fines, Cease & Diciest Order, and the Anti-Degradation Water Quality Objectives, if you remember, the Max Benefit was 400 TDS and the
Beaumont Management Zone was 330. Anti-Deg for San Tim is 330 TDS and it’s 230 for the Beaumont Management Zone. See you can see the difference in the different Objectives you’re looking at. So going into the Document that was presented to you for review as well as what we’re looking to submit to the Regional Board have a Deadline for the end of this Month is the Preliminary Plan & Schedule regarding the Salt Mitigation Facilities and Expansion of the Treatment Plant.

41:00 Warsinski: This figure shows the Salt Mitigation Facilities Master Plan which is designed to implement the Basin Plan to comply with Maximum Benefit Requirements for Recycled Water Discharge, Reuse, and Recharge. It also includes Benefits of capturing new storm flows from Developed Areas to recharge the Beaumont Groundwater Basin. The Plan represents a cost-effective solution for water resources now and into the future. Some of the key points is that keeps Recycled Water local, provides Recycled Water to Golf Courses for irrigation. Our initial Phase is looking at providing 1.5 Million Gallons per Day to the Golf Courses and peak supply would be 5 MGD. Another key component of the Salt Mitigation Plan is that it protects endangered species and natural habitat at Coopers Creek and that is a 1.8 MGD average that is discharged down that habitat Area and the Plan also maximizes Stormwater Recharge.

42:00 Warsinski: This is our Master Plan for the Sewer Treatment Plant. The old Sewer Treatment Plant was first constructed in 1929 using ‘state of the art technology’. The Sewer Plant went through limited change until 1994 when a ‘NEW’ Facility was built to meet modern water quality standards including innovative use ultra violet lights to disinfect recycled water rather than using cool rain. The State of California is now looking to modernize the Treatment Plant again to meet much more stringent water quality recycled water in this Area to conserve a valuable resource for the future. The Master Plan for the Treatment Plant to 8 MGD. It calls for Reverse Osmosis and advanced Treatment to remove and concentrate Brine.

43:00 Warsinski: The Plan provides different alternatives for Brine Disposal including Zero Liquid Discharge, Evaporation, or using the Brine Line. Discusses and plans out for Pump Stations to deliver Recycled Water the Golf Courses and Recharge the Basin and shows potential for Solar Power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money through efficiency on operation costs. Some of the keys to keep in mind for this Preliminary Plan Schedule; it can be updated in the future and include new ideas and alternatives.

45:30 Warsinski: I have the City’s Consultant, Mark Wildermuth from Wildermuth Environmental who is the Author of Report and Preliminary Plan. Also in attendance tonight is Kurt Berchtold from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and Hope Smythe.

48:30: Kurt Berchtold, Executive Officer for the Regional Water Quality Control Board. I’m here tonight to urge your timely submittal of a Salt Mitigation Plan to us. The Requirement to submit a Salt Mitigation Plan by January 30th is included in our Basin Plan and compliance with that and other Deadlines in our Basin Plan is a requirement for the City to continue to participate in the Maximum Benefit Program.

49:00 Berchtold: I won’t go into great detail on that Program, but it relaxes the standards for TDS that the City has to comply with in exchange for the City and other Agencies in the Area agreeing to participate in a comprehensive water resource management program for the Groundwater Basin in this Area. In my view; the Maximum Benefit Program provides for improved sustainability of the Groundwater Basin in this Area and I believe it’s very important that the City continue participate in that program. I would encourage timely submittal Salt Mitigation Plan to us and I’d be happy to answer any questions.

51:30 Andrew Schlange: I’ve been in the Water Business for 55 years, 40 of that as ‘top management’ for three different water agencies. I’m here to express, as the Regional Board Management Consultant, I’m here recommend the Plan that’s before you for submittal to the Regional Board by January 30th. It’s very important that the Plan and the date is met.

52:00 Schlange: The failure to do that can be very costly in the future to the City by the loss of the Maximum Benefit move to the Anti-degradation. I would also like to say that I’ve worked with Alan [Kapanicas] and this Staff many years. I’m very impressed by their honesty, their integrity, professional integrity. I think they have put a lot of effort and cooperation other activities in order to bring this thing forward for your consideration. I encourage you to Approve the Request before you.

1:13:00: Berchtold: I can tell you that I don’t have the flexibility to change that deadline or revise it in any way. I can only Advise our Board and there’s no way for that to happen in the short term. My suggestion would be that the City comply with the January 30th deadline. If the City wants to submit additional information while we’re in the process of Reviewing and considering their Plan, they are free to do that. I also want to remind you that there’s a 5-year deadline to actually implement this Plan. Time is of the essence here.

1:14:30 Warskinski: I’d be more than happy to share that Facility Study that I Zero Liquid Discharge Facility. The Study also has the 2008 Report that Councilman White was looking for, so I have that.

1:15:00 Warsinski: I jotted down some other notes on the costs; specifically the question brought up by Councilmen White on the CEQA process and on Figure 5, which is the Schedule for Construction of Salt Mitigation Facilities. It shows the 2-year timeline for CEQA; that’s what we expect. The Figure 5 Schedule is what we believe can be accomplished to meet the 5-year deadline approved in that Basin Plan Amendment. The discussion on the birds and avian was with the Option that utilizes large Basins that evaporate water and leave the SALT and that’s the negative that comes with that alternative. You have to have large swaths of land and your climate in the area can evaporate as opposed to either putting it down a Brine Line, shipping it out in a truck, or running it through a Crystalizer and ‘burning it off’ per se.

1:16:00 Warsinski: Leaving you with crystalize SALT crystals, little crystals. There is one Operation nearby in Chino that does something that is very similar to ZLD. They don’t call it ‘zero’ liquid discharge because they discharge about 2 to 3% of their liquid. So they can’t call it ‘zero’ because it’s not zero, but they use the same process of the Clarifiers to crystalize the Brine retaining 97 – 98% of the water that was treated at a pristine quality and discharge 2 or 3%. That’s something that I’m very interested in studying; on the cost analysis of running the operation at zero liquid discharge verses 3% and how much money it is to reduce it down to 3% or just to put the 3% in the truck. If that’s way more expensive to get to zero just to say we got to zero. It doesn’t make any sense to do that, we would go with 97%. That’s the concept that’s laid out in this Plan.

1:17:00 Warsinski: It’s really Preliminary, telling the Regional Board what we want to do, discussing the different alternatives, and within the timeline approved on this one; it shows Feasibility Study, that duration of 130 days or so, that’s when we’re going to be doing the fine tuning of whatever this Council wants to see. And if that takes going out on tours of these places or reading every Report that we have, asking every question and getting an answer; I’m more than happy to do that.

1:19:00 Mark Wildermuth: While that letter talks of Facilities, it’s really the ‘potential’ Facilities. It looks now under the timeline we’re under that maybe ZLD would be easiest to implement for each time schedule, but it provides for you to figure out what the best plan is for the City in the Feasibility Section. I want to describe to you how we got here. In 2004 the City and the other Stakeholders in the Basin came up with this Max Benefit concept. In that Max Benefit concept we figured that we would not need to do the SALT at all for 20 or 30 years, we didn’t. In the last few years the group got bigger and they wanted to redo the Max Benefit. It took a few years, it was hotly debated and a lot of compromise and a new Basin Plan Amendment came through. That Amendment came through in March of last year, [2014] April of last year, and it had these really tight timelines.

1:20:00 Wildermuth: So if you roll back to 2005 or 2006 when PC1 was studying this Issue. The BCVWD and the City said: we don’t need to get into Yucaipa’s Brine Line Extension. We won’t need it for 20 or 30 years when Technology will be available for us ‘then’ to do this. So, come to the present; we got slammed with a deadline the year when we’re expecting to have maybe 15 or 20 years. So that’s the paradigm change. We’re not on this panic mode because we’ve been sitting on our backsides for a long time. It just came at us and just to come as far as we have in the time we’ve had is pretty impressive. The Plan, the part of the document that’s going to the Regional Board is; we think we know how to do it. This is our schedule to comply and we’ll comply. In there is a Feasibility Preliminary Design Reports, CEQA Documents that will cover all the alternatives, and you’ll have the opportunity to pick it. Councilman White; you’re referring to 90%, 85% numbers in state of the art are hard to reach.

1:21:00 Wildermuth: A modern common desalting plant achieves 85% recovery of water and a 90% reduction of TDS. There’s nothing, that’s not a stretch, that’s what they do. If we were to do like they’re doing in Chino Basin; they’re expanding what they call the Chino II Desalter. That expansion is really a ZLD facility. They’re supposed to make bricks of SALT that they’re going to market in the Central Valley of California. The big ‘ag ranges’[?] is going to the same technology. Not quite the ZLD we’re talking about here, but it’s very similar to that. Like Kyle said; we may end up trucking some trucks down to the SARI Line in Riverside in the early stages of the plant. And maybe they’ll be a Brine Line at a later stage or maybe ZLD for the 1st stage, not sure. That’s all going to be worked out. What’s key to keeping the schedule is City Staff coming to you timely. You’re going to have to make quick decisions, so you’re expectations should be they’re going to provide you the information timely to go fast.

Download Complaint PDF
[/accordion-item][/accordion]


5. City of Beaumont Maximum Benefit Commitments

Download Complaint PDF in a zip file (large file)

[accordion clicktoclose=”true”][accordion-item title=”View Complaint” autoclose=”true”]
City of Beaumont Maximum Benefit Commitments

The Maximum Benefit Commitments is a schedule of compliance requirements issued with California State Water Board Orders and NPDES Permits.

Order R8-2004-0001 Maximum Benefit Commitment is addressed to the City of Beaumont and STWMA: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2004/04_001.pdf

The Desalter and Brine Disposal Facility Plan were scheduled to be completed: “as soon as possible but no later than 7 years from date of Regional Board approval of plan/schedule”, which was 2011. Non-potable water Compliance Date was December 23, 2014.

On September 30, 2005, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board issued R0-2005-0098 to the City of Beaumont, but has since removed it from their website.

Order R8-2006-0003 Maximum Benefit Commitments addressed to the City of Beaumont and STWMA: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2006/06_003_wdr_beaumont_wtp1_01182006.pdf

The Desalter and Brine Disposal Facility Plan scheduled to be completed: “as soon as possible but no later than 7 years from date of Regional Board approval of plan/schedule”, which was 2013. Non-potable water Compliance Date was January 24, 2015.

The 2006 Maximum Benefit Commitment is also Attachment L on NPDES Order R8-2006-0003.

Both Yucaipa and Beaumont began constructing Recycled Water Facilities. In June, 2007 STWMA approves Yucaipa and Beaumont’s participation in the SARI Brine Line to remove the SALT. In September, 2008 STWMA removed Beaumont from the SARI Line Agreement because Beaumont never constructed the Facility to produce the SALT. STWMA dissolves.

On August 28, 2009 California Water Quality Control Board Issued R8-2009-0002, which Amended R8-2006-0003: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2009/09_002_city_beaumont_wtp_1_amend_of_order_06-0003.pdf

The 2009 Order added UV Validation and two Recycled Water Discharge Points.

R8- 2014-0005 Maximum Benefit Commitment is addressed to the Yucaipa Valley Water District and the City of Beaumont: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2014/14_005_BPA_WQCP_Salt_Mngmt_Plan.pdf

The 2014 Order acknowledges that the Yucaipa Valley Water District completed their Facility and Brine Disposal. Both scheduled to supply Recycled Water by December 31, 2015.

but the 2014 Order gives Beaumont another deadline of January 30, 2015, to submit plans for a Desalter and Brine Facility and a deadline of: “..no later than 5 years ..”

Yucaipa has a Title 22 Compliant Recycled Water Facility and disposes of their SALT thru the SARI Brine Line. The State Water Board allowed Beaumont to remain in square one.

Sections 401(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the EPA Clean Water Act and Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Section 122.44(l) prohibit backsliding in NPDES Permits.

From 2005 to 2013 $60 Million was Embezzled thru Beaumont’s Wastewater Bond and plugged onto the Financial Statements as ‘Sewer Machinery & Equipment’. For a decade Wildermuth Environmental, the City of Beaumont, and the State Water Quality Control Board pretended that Beaumont had a Title 22 Compliant Recycled Water Facility.

On January 20, 2015 Mark Wildermuth stood before Council and stated: “The BCVWD and the City said: we don’t need to get into Yucaipa’s Brine Line Extension. We won’t need it for 20 or 30 years when Technology will be available for us ‘then’ to do this. So, come to the present; we got slammed with a deadline the year when we’re expecting to have maybe 15 or 20 years.”

After Millions paid for a Recycled Water Facility and to Wildermuth Environmental for their ‘expertise’ ; the genius conclusion was to ignore the problem on the hopes that technology would create a magical option.

The Santa Ana Regional Board Issued R8-2015-0026 with the Omission of Attachment L, the Maximum Benefit Commitment.

The Order did include on the Fact Sheet page 22 Item 5.c. “Pretreatment Requirements: The treatment plant capacity is 4 MGD and there are no significant industrial users within the service areas. Consequently, this Order does not contain requirements for the implementation of a pretreatment program pursuant to Section 307 of the CWA; Parts 35 and 403 of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations; and/or Section 2233, Title 23, Cali Code of Regulations.”

The City of Beaumont has 581Commercial/Light Industrial Connections and 31 heavy Industrial Connections including Anderson Charnisky Structural Steel.

Download Complaint PDF
[/accordion-item][/accordion]


6. Use of Government Agency for Predatory Purposes

Download Complaint PDF in a zip file (large file)

[accordion clicktoclose=”true”][accordion-item title=”View Complaint” autoclose=”true”]
Use of Government Agency for Predatory Purposes

Edward and Judy Bingham moved to Riverside County in 1985 after purchasing land to operate a nursery business that resided predominately outside of the Beaumont city limits, but included a small portion inside the city limits. The City owned a parcel of land between the Bingham property and Coopers Creek that the Binghams began leasing in 1991.

The Bingham’s property is located directly southwest of the Beaumont Sewer Plant, separated by Coopers Creek. The Binghams also purchased property on 6th Street in Beaumont and have operated a retail operation, the Beaumont Garden Center, since 1988.

Judy Bingham first reported foul odors emitting from Beaumont’s Wastewater Treatment Plant in 2004 and was told by the City to “Get used to it”.

When Mrs. Bingham started to question the City’s activities former City Attorney Joe Aklufi told Mrs. Bingham that if she did not shut up he would “bring 15 government agencies onto her property to shut down her business.”

One of the government agencies that illegally entered the Bingham’s property and colluded in an attempt to intimidate the Binghams was the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.

In late 2011 and early 2012 the City of Beaumont, County of Riverside, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board conspired to use government agencies and employees to acquire access to the Bingham Property and once again target and harass the Binghams’ business and family.

As Director of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Compliance Division; Beaumont Councilman Mike Lara used his County Agency to stage a ‘Storm Water Compliance Inspection’ at the Binghams’ Wholesale Nursery.

On January 18, 2012, Riverside County Issued a Storm Water Compliance Inspection that states: “Federal and State NPDES requirements mandate the County of Riverside to implement a business Storm Water Compliance Inspection Program to inspect businesses located within the unincorporated areas of Riverside County.”

There are no State and Federal Laws allocating NPDES Requirements to the County. A Public Record Request was submitted for any/all other Storm Compliance Inspections performed by Riverside County. The County has no other Inspection Reports and no documentation regarding a NPDES Program.

On May 11, 2012 the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a Notice of Violation for ‘Unpermitted Discharge of Pollutants’ to the Binghams costing them thousands in penalties plus loss of revenue and reputation.

Federal EPA Title 40 Section 117.1(a) defines ‘Reportable Quantities’ as “Discharge that may be harmful.”

Title 40 Section 401.11(d) defines a ‘Point Source’ as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance”.

The Bingham Family grows plants in containers. Water had dripped from newly potted bare-root plants. The State Water Quality Control Board Cited the Binghams Wholesale Nursery with a Notice of Violation for an ‘Unpermitted Discharge’ that was nothing more than drips of water from freshly potted plants.

Water Board Employee Stephen Mayville addressed the letter not to Judy Bingham or their 45 year old son Jason in charge of operations, but to 70 year old Edward Bingham, who had just suffered a heart attack.

Bingham property EPA violations

EPA Title 40 Subpart A—General Provisions

§117.1 Definitions.
As used in this part, all terms shall have the meanings stated in 40 CFR part 116.

Reportable quantities means quantities that may be harmful as set forth in §117.3, the discharge of which is a violation of section 311(b)(3) and requires notice as set forth in §117.21.

§401.11 (d) The term point source means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.

(2) The following are not “waters of the United States” even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (l)(1)(iv) through (viii) of this section.

(G) Puddles.

California Water Code 13050:
(2) “Hazardous substance” does not include any of the following:

(C) Any discharge to surface water of a quantity less than a reportable quantity as determined by regulations issued pursuant to Section 311(b)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

(D) Any discharge to land which results, or probably will result, in a discharge to groundwater if the amount of the discharge to land is less than a reportable quantity, as determined by regulations adopted pursuant to Section 13271, for substances listed as hazardous pursuant to Section 25140 of the Health and Safety Code. No discharge shall be deemed a discharge of a reportable quantity until regulations set a reportable quantity for the substance discharged.

Download Complaint PDF
[/accordion-item][/accordion]


7. Blue Baby Scam

Download Complaint PDF in a zip file (large file)

[accordion clicktoclose=”true”][accordion-item title=”View Complaint” autoclose=”true”]
Blue Baby Scam

In 2006 private sector Engineer Mark Wildermuth of Wildermuth Environmental and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Executive Director Gerard Thibeault Forged EPA Documents to create the ‘Blue Baby Scam’.

The purpose of the scam was to force private property owners to use government sewer systems instead of septic tanks. A septic tank is a one-time purchase and a yearly disposal fee, the government only receives sales tax and property tax value. But government sewer systems receive a monthly fee from each house plus Grants and Federal Bond Money.

The Blue Baby Scam was attempted in the Rural Community of Cherry Valley, but the Citizens of Cherry Valley fought the Blue Baby Scam and proved that Wildermuth’s Report was Forged.

The Citizens of Quail Valley did not fight the Blue Baby Scam.

On October 3, 2006, the Santa Ana Regional Board Approved Resolution No. R8-2006-0024 Banning Septic Tanks in Quail Valley :http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2006/06_024.pdf

The rational for the septic tank ban is listed in Item 5:

5. “Poor soil conditions, combined with high groundwater in the area, are not suitable for septic system use, as evidenced by a large number of septic system failures.”

Quail Valley sits in the High Desert in Southern California. There are no ‘poor soil conditions’ causing septic tank failures and there is no such thing as ‘high groundwater’ in the Southern California Desert. But more importantly, if there was high groundwater and poor soil conditions; a break or leak in sewer pipes would be far more likely than for septic tanks.

When there are earthquakes or landslides; it’s pipelines that rupture, not septic tanks. If an Area has poor soil conditions and high groundwater then it is sewer lines traveling long distances that should be banned, not septic tanks.

Furthermore; on May 24, 2007 the State Water Board added the following Conditions to the Prohibition: “The discharge of waste from new on-site tank-subsurface disposal systems in the Quail Valley area of Riverside County is prohibited IF a sewer system is available to serve the lot. Except as provided in (2) below, the discharge of waste from existing on-site septic tank-subsurface disposal systems in the Quail Valley area of Riverside County is prohibited IF a sewer system is available to serve the lot.”

(2) again states “New septic tank-subsurface disposal systems shall not be permitted in Quail Valley IF a sewer system is available to serve the lot.”

Three times the Order states that the Prohibition against septic tanks can only be enacted “IF” there is a sewer system available, which there is not.

The Eastern Municipal Water District received over $400 Million in State and Federal Funding to provide sewer service to the Citizens of Quail Valley, but the money was Embezzled and TO THIS DAY the Eastern Municipal Water District does not offer sewer service in this Area of Quail Valley. And what is the State’s solution? To hand the Water District a $7.5 Million Grant: http://www.pe.com/2017/01/07/quail-valley-is-75-million-closer-to-a-sewer-system/

On February 3, 2017 Senior Citizen Frank Barcelo, representing dozens of Property Owners denied their Property Rights, requested approval to install a septic tank so he could build his house. Mr. Barcelo provided a letter from the Eastern Municipal Water District verifying that the Water District does not offer sewer service to the Barcelo’s property. A Report from an independent Sewage Disposal Investigation verified that there is no valid reason why people can not use septic tanks in Quail Valley: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/…

On April 24, 2017 the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff will Recommend continuing to deny the Barcelo’s and dozens of other Property Owners in Quail Valley the right to build a house on their property based on a scam Thibeault and Wildermuth created a decade ago: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/…

The Citizens of Quail Valley are denied their right to use their Property TODAY because of the State Water Quality Control Board refuses to allow the Citizens to use septic tanks, which violates the Citizens Federal 4th Amendment Right to Illegal Seizures of property.

When the issues of State’s Violations of Federal Laws, Forged EPA Documents, and Predatory Practices were raised In a Meeting with the State Board on April 25, 2017, Regional Executive Director Kurt Burchtold repeatedly stated: “They can use their property.”

The Lots in Quail Valley are Zoned ‘Single-Family Residential’. The Citizens purchased the lots for the purpose of building their homes. The lots have no other use and the State Board Approved the Development with septic tanks usage when the Developer had the Plans Approved by Riverside County and the State Water Board.

The California Water Quality Control Board has rendered the lots worthless based on a forged EPA Report. Wildermuth Environmental’s Forged EPA Report claiming that septic tanks in Quail Valley were leaking can be found: Nowhere.

The Forged EPA Report that the State Water Quality Control Board has used to deny Citizens their Property Rights has been scrubbed from Wildermuth Environmental’s website, the Riverside County Environmental Health Department’s website, and the California Water Quality Control Board’s website.

The State Water Quality Control Board is Forging EPA Documents and using a State EPA Agency for Predatory purposes. It was thought that the Santa Ana Regional Office was ‘rogue’, but the State made it clear on April 25th that Forging EPA Documents, Predatory Practices, and Violations of Federal Laws is a Directive from Sacramento.

Download Complaint PDF
[/accordion-item][/accordion]