Opinion ID: 754105
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discretion of the Executive Officer

Text: 29 Appellants contend that the district court erred in concluding that California Water Code section 13223(a) grants the Executive Officer the authority to determine the method of compliance with the permit. They further contend that the Executive Officer's interpretation constituted de facto modifications of the permits in violation of the statute. 30 California Water Code section 13223(a) gives a Regional Board the authority to delegate any of its powers and duties, with limited exceptions, to its Executive Officer. 2 In this case, the Regional Board so delegated its authority. The Executive Officer routinely established the method for measuring compliance with NPDES permits including those at issue here. 31 There is no caselaw interpreting section 13223(a), but under federal law, the establishment of a method of compliance with an NPDES permit does not constitute a modification of the permit. Cf. Citizens for a Better Env't v. Union Oil Co., 83 F.3d 1111, 1119-20 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that the Regional Board's cease and desist order deferring compliance with a permit condition did not constitute a modification of the terms of the NPDES permit). We therefore conclude that the Executive Officer's adoption of a method of compliance was not a modification of the permit in violation of section 13223.