[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER

(Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.)

STEPHEN V. WILSON, District Judge.

The following [Proposed] Consent Decree is entered into by and between Plaintiff California River Watch ("Plaintiff" or "River Watch" or "CRW") and Defendant City of Burbank ("Defendant" or "Burbank" or "City"). The entities entering into this Consent Decree are each an individual "Settling Party" and collectively the "Settling Parties."

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Plaintiff California River Watch is an Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) non-profit, public benefit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, with headquarters located in Sebastopol, California. The mailing address of River Watch's office is 290 S. Main Street, #817, Sebastopol, CA 95472. CRW is dedicated to protecting, enhancing, and helping to restore surface and ground waters of California, including rivers, creeks, streams, wetlands, vernal pools, aquifers and associated environs, biota, flora, and fauna, and educating the public concerning environmental issues associated with these environs;

WHEREAS, Burbank is a California municipal corporation located in the eastern San Fernando Valley, nestled between the Hollywood Hills and the Verdugo Mountains, encompassing 17 square miles with a diverse population of approximately 103,000;

WHEREAS, The City is organized under the laws of the State of California, and owns and operates a sanitary sewer collection system for the purpose of collecting and conveying to the Burbank Water Reclamation Plant ("BWRP") to treat wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial sources, subject to NPDES Permit No. CA0055531 issued under the federal Clean Water Act ("CWA");

WHEREAS, The City has also been enrolled under the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems ("Statewide WDR"), State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB") Order No. 2006-003-DWQ since the Statewide WDR's adoption in May 2006;

WHEREAS, Burbank is committed to complying with all environmental laws and regulations, while also recognizing the importance of conservation and environmental protection;

WHEREAS, River Watch members live, use, and/or recreate in and around those portions of the Los Angeles River in the City and the Burbank Western Channel;

WHEREAS, on or about June 13, 2018, River Watch provided the City, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), EPA Region IX, and the SWRCB with a 60-day Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit under CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, and on November 30, 2018 served the City with a Supplemental Notice Letter (collectively "Notice Letters") alleging various violations of the CWA relating to the collection system and unpermitted discharges to the Los Angeles River and the Burbank Western Channel. Copies of the Notice Letters are attached to this Consent Judgement as Exhibit A;

WHEREAS, on August 15, 2019, River Watch filed a complaint against the City in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:19-cv-07110-SVW-PJW, alleging violations of substantive and procedural requirements of the CWA;

WHEREAS, Burbank denies all allegations set forth in the Notice Letters and CWA Complaint;

WHEREAS, the Settling Parties have agreed that it is in the Parties' mutual interest to enter into a Consent Decree setting forth the terms and conditions appropriate for resolving River Watch's allegations set forth in the CWA Complaint and Notice Letters without further proceedings; and have consented to the entry of this [Proposed] Consent Decree and Order without trial of any issues, and hereby stipulate that, in order to settle the claims alleged by River Watch against the City in the CWA Notice Letters and CWA Complaint this [Proposed] Consent Decree should be entered; and,

WHEREAS, all actions taken by Defendant pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be made in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws and local rules and regulations;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY THE SETTLING PARTIES, AND ORDERED AND DECREED BY THE COURT, AS FOLLOWS:

CONSENT DECREE

The above recitals are incorporated into and shall become part of this Consent Decree.

I. JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Section 505(a)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1)(A);

2. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to Section 505(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), because the location at which the alleged violations took place is located within this District;

3. The Complaint states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Section 505(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1);

4. Plaintiff has standing to bring this action;

5. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of enforcing the terms of this Consent Decree for the life of the Consent Decree, or as long thereafter as is necessary for the Court to resolve any motion to enforce this Consent Decree.

II. OBJECTIVES

6. It is the express purpose of the Settling Parties entering into this Consent Decree to further the objectives set forth in the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251, et seq., and to resolve those issues alleged by River Watch in its Complaint. In light of these objectives and as set forth fully below, Defendant agrees to comply with the provisions of this Consent Decree and to comply with the requirements of the Statewide WDR and the BWRP NPDES Permit.

III. COMMITMENTS OF THE CITY OF BURBANK

7. In order to reduce or prevent pollutants associated with the City's Sanitary Sewer System from discharging to the Los Angeles River and the Burbank Western Channel, Burbank shall implement appropriate structural and non-structural BMPs, as described more fully below.

8. Sewer Collection System Operation and Maintenance

9. SSO Reporting and Response

10. Inflow and Infiltration Program: The City will develop a program designed to reduce inflow and infiltration ("I/I") in lieu of a sanitary sewer lateral inspection/repair program where the City determines that such a program is appropriate based on ground water levels.

11. Root Control Policy: The City will prepare a written Integrated Pest Management Program ("IPM") for Root control. The City will prepare its IPM within one (1) year of the Effective Date. The policy will include consideration of physical root removal and pipe linings prior to the application of root control chemicals that are registered under FIFRA by US-EPA and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

12. SSMP Updates: The City's SSMP shall be kept current and properly certified. All documents relating to the certification shall be provided on the City's Department of Public Works' website.

13. Staff Training: The City will continue to comply with all training, reporting, and response actions set forth in the State and Federal permits and its SSMP.

14. Dry Weather Sampling of City Outfalls: The City shall participate in the RWQCB-LA approved Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) for the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Management Group ("ULARWMAG"), pursuant to attachment E, Part IV.B of the RWQCB MS4 Permit R4-2012-0175.

IV. MITIGATION PAYMENT, ATTORNEYS FEES & COSTS

15. The City shall make the following mitigation payment and reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs:

V. COMMITMENTS OF CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH

16. Submission of Consent Decree to DOJ. Within three (3) business days of receiving all of the Parties' signatures to this Consent Decree, River Watch shall submit this Consent Decree to the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and EPA for agency review consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 135.5. The agency review period expires forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt by the DOJ, evidenced by correspondence from DOJ establishing the review period. In the event DOJ comments negatively on the provisions of this Consent Decree, the Parties agree within twenty (20) business days to meet and confer to attempt to resolve the issues raised by DOJ.

VI. WAIVER, RELEASES & COVENANTS NOT TO SUE

17. Releases. In consideration of the above, and except as otherwise provided by this Consent Decree, the Parties hereby forever and fully release each other and their respective parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, insurers, successors, assigns, and current and former employees, attorneys, officers, directors and agents from any and all claims and demands of any kind, nature, or description whatsoever, and from any and all liabilities, damages, injuries, actions or causes of action, either at law or in equity, which the Parties have against each other arising from River Watch's allegations and claims as set forth in the Notice Letters and Complaint up to and including the Termination Date of this Consent Decree.

18. Waiver. The Parties acknowledge that they are familiar with section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which provides:

The Parties hereby waive and relinquish any rights or benefits they may have under California Civil Code section 1542 with respect to any other claims against each other arising from, or related to, the allegations and claims as set forth in the Notice Letters and Complaint and allegations and claims that could have been brought under Section 505(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), up to and including the Termination Date of this Consent Decree.

19. No Admission. The Parties enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of avoiding prolonged and costly litigation. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed as, and Burbank expressly does not intend to imply, any admission as to any fact, finding, issue of law, or violation of law, nor shall compliance with this Consent Decree constitute or be construed as an admission by Burbank of any fact, finding, conclusion, issue of law, or violation of law. However, this paragraph shall not diminish or otherwise affect the obligation, responsibilities, and duties of the Parties under this Consent Decree.

20. Covenant Not to Sue.

VII. BREACH OF CONSENT DECREE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

21. Dispute Resolution. If a dispute under this Consent Decree arises, or either Party believes that a breach of this Consent Decree has occurred, the Parties shall schedule a meet and confer within ten (10) business days of receiving written notification from the other Party of a request for a meeting to determine whether a violation of this Consent Decree has occurred and to develop a mutually agreed upon plan, including implementation dates, to resolve the dispute. In the event that such disputes cannot be resolved through this meet and confer process, the Parties agree to request a settlement meeting before the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action. The Parties agree to file any waivers necessary for the Magistrate Judge to preside over any settlement conference pursuant to this paragraph. In the event that the Parties cannot resolve the dispute by the conclusion of the settlement meeting with the Magistrate Judge, the Parties agree to submit the dispute via motion to the District Court. In resolving any dispute arising from this Consent Decree, the Court shall have discretion to award attorneys' fees and costs to either party. The relevant provisions of the then-applicable CWA and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern the allocation of fees and costs in connection with the resolution of any disputes before the Court. The Court shall award relief limited to compliance orders and awards of attorneys' fees and costs, subject to proof.

22. Force Majeure. No Settling Party shall be considered to be in default in the performance of any of its obligations under this Consent Decree when performance becomes impossible due to circumstances beyond the Settling Party's control, including Force Majeure, which includes, but is not limited to, any act of god, war, fire, earthquake, windstorm, flood or natural catastrophe; civil disturbance, vandalism, sabotage, or terrorism; restraint by court order or public authority or agency; inability to proceed due to pending litigation under the California Environmental Quality Act; action or non-action by, or inability to obtain the necessary authorizations, approvals, or permits from, any governmental agency or private party; or inability to obtain equipment or materials from the marketplace if such materials or equipment are not reasonably available. Impossibility and/or Force Majeure shall not include normal inclement weather, economic hardship, or inability to pay. Any party seeking to rely upon this paragraph to excuse or postpone performance shall have the burden of establishing that it could not reasonably have been expected to avoid the impossibility or Force Majeure event and which by exercise of due diligence has been unable to overcome the failure or performance. Delay in compliance with a specific obligation under this Consent Decree due to impossibility and/or Force Majeure as defined in this paragraph shall not excuse or delay compliance with any or all other obligations required under this Consent Decree.

VIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

23. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Consent Decree shall be ten (10) business days after the entry of this Consent Decree by the Court and becomes a final enforceable order.

24. Term of Consent Decree. Subject to Paragraph 21, above, this Consent Decree shall terminate ten (10) years after the Effective Date, through the conclusion of any proceeding to enforce this Consent Decree initiated prior to the Termination Date, or until the completion of any payment or affirmative duty required by this Consent Decree, whichever is the later occurrence.

25. Execution in Counterparts. The Consent Decree may be executed in one or more counterparts which, taken together, shall be deemed to constitute one and the same document.

26. Facsimile Signatures. The Settling Parties' signatures to this Consent Decree transmitted by facsimile or electronic mail transmission shall be deemed binding.

27. Construction. The language in all parts of this Consent Decree, unless otherwise stated, shall be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. The captions and paragraph headings used in this Consent Decree are for reference only and shall not affect the construction of this Consent Decree.

28. Authority to Sign. The undersigned are authorized to execute this Consent Decree on behalf of their respective parties and have read, understood, and agreed to all of the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree.

29. Integrated Consent Decree. All Consent Decrees, covenants, representations, and warranties, express or implied, oral, or written, of the Settling Parties concerning the subject matter of this Consent Decree are contained herein.

30. Severability. In the event that any of the provisions of this Consent Decree are held by a court to be unenforceable, the validity of the enforceable provisions shall not be adversely affected.

31. Choice of Law. This Consent Decree shall be governed by the laws of the United States, and where applicable, the laws of the State of California.

32. Full Settlement. This Consent Decree constitutes a full and final settlement of this matter. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Consent Decree has been freely and voluntarily entered into by the Settling Parties with and upon advice of counsel.

33. Negotiated Consent Decree. The Settling Parties have negotiated this Consent Decree and agree that it shall not be construed against the party preparing it but shall be construed as if the Settling Parties jointly prepared this Consent Decree, and any uncertainty and ambiguity shall not be interpreted against any one party.

34. Modification of the Consent Decree. This Consent Decree, and any provisions herein, may not be changed, waived, or discharged unless by a written instrument signed by the Settling Parties.

35. Assignment. Subject only to the express restrictions contained in this Consent Decree, all of the rights, duties and obligations contained in this Consent Decree shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Settling Parties, and their successors and assigns.

36. Mailing of Documents to River Watch/Notices/Correspondence. Any notices or documents required or provided for by this Consent Decree or related thereto that are to be provided to River Watch pursuant to this Consent Decree shall, to the extent feasible, be sent via electronic mail transmission to the e-mail addresses listed below or, if electronic mail transmission is not feasible, via certified U.S. Mail with return receipt, or by hand delivery to the following address:

Unless requested otherwise by Burbank, any notices or documents required or provided for by this Consent Decree or related thereto that are to be provided to Burbank pursuant to this Consent Decree shall, to the extent feasible, be provided by electronic mail transmission to the e-mail addresses listed below or, if electronic mail transmission is not feasible, by certified U.S. Mail with return receipt, or by hand delivery to the addresses below:

Notifications of communications shall be deemed submitted on the date that they are emailed, or three (3) business days after postmarked and sent by first-class mail, or one (1) business day after deposited with an overnight mail/delivery service. Any changes of address or addressees shall be communicated in the manner described above for giving notices.

37. If for any reason the DOJ or the Court should decline to approve this Consent Decree in the form presented, the Settling Parties shall use their best efforts to work together to modify the Consent Decree within thirty (30) business days after being notified so that it is acceptable to the DOJ or the Court. If the Settling Parties are unable to modify this Consent Decree in a mutually acceptable manner that is also acceptable to the Court, this Consent Decree shall immediately be null and void as well as inadmissible as a settlement communication under Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and California Evidence Code section 1152.

38. The Settling Parties hereto enter into this Consent Decree, Order and Final Judgment and submit it to the Court for its approval and entry as a final judgment.

Approved as to content:

service. Any changes of address or addressees shall be communicated in the manner described above for giving notices.

37. If for any reason the DOJ or the Court should decline to approve this Consent Decree in the form presented, the Settling Parties shall use their best efforts to work together to modify the Consent Decree within thirty (30) business days after being notified so that it is acceptable to the DOJ or the Court. If the Settling Parties are unable to modify this Consent Decree in a mutually acceptable manner that is also acceptable to the Court, this Consent Decree shall immediately be null and void as well as inadmissible as a settlement communication under Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and California Evidence Code section 1152.

38. The Settling Parties hereto enter into this Consent Decree, Order and Final Judgment and submit it to the Court for its approval and entry as a final judgment.

Approved as to content:

Approved as to form:

IT IS SO ORDERED

Approved as to form:

IT IS SO ORDERED

EXHIBIT A

Law Office of Jack Silver 708 Gravenstein Hwy. North, # 407 Sebastopol, CA 95472-2808 Phone 707-528-8175 Email: JSilverEnvironmental@gmail.com Via Certified Mail — Return Receipt Requested June 13, 2018 Mr. Ron Davis, City Manager Head of Agency/On-site Plant Manager Members of the City Council Burbank Water Reclamation Plant City of Burbank 740 N. Lake Street Burbank City Hall Burbank, CA 91502 275 East Olive Avenue Burbank, CA 91510 Ms. Marnell Gibson, Public Works Director Ms. Dominique Demessence, CEO Public Works Department Suez Water Environmental Services, Inc. 150 North Third Street 200 First State Boulevard Burbank, CA 91502 Wilmington, DE 19804

Re: Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)

STATUTORY NOTICE

This Notice is provided on behalf of California River Watch ("River Watch") in regard to violations of the Clean Water Act ("CWA" or "Act"), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., that River Watch alleges are occurring through the ownership and/or operation of the City of Burbank's Water Reclamation Plant ("Plant") and associated sewer collection system.

River Watch hereby places the City of Burbank ("the City"), as owner of the Plant, its associated collection system, and outfalls, and Suez Water Environmental Services, Inc., ("Suez") as operator of the Plant, on notice that following the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of this Notice, River Watch will be entitled under CWA § 505(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), to bring suit in the U.S. District Court against the City and Suez for continuing violations of an effluent standard or limitation pursuant to CWA § 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, Water Quality Control Plan ("Basin Plan"), as the result of violations of the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit.

The CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters. The statute is structured in such a way that all discharges of pollutants are prohibited with the exception of enumerated statutory provisions. One such exception authorizes a discharger, who has been issued a permit pursuant to CWA § 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, to discharge designated pollutants at certain levels subject to certain conditions. The effluent discharge standards or limitations specified in a NPDES permit define the scope of the authorized exception to the CWA § 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) prohibition such that violation of a permit limit places a discharger in violation of the CWA. River Watch alleges the City and Suez are in violation of the CWA by violating the terms of the City's NPDES permit.

The CWA provides that authority to administer the NPDES permitting system in any given state or region can be delegated by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to a state or to a regional regulatory agency provided that the applicable state or regional regulatory scheme under which the local agency operates satisfies certain criteria (see 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b)). In California, the EPA has granted authorization to a state regulatory apparatus comprised of the State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB") and several subsidiary regional water quality control boards to issue NPDES permits. The entity responsible for issuing NPDES permits and otherwise regulating the operations of the City and Suez in the region at issue in this Notice is the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region ("RWQCB-LA").

While delegating authority to administer the NPDES permitting system, the CWA provides that enforcement of the statute's permitting requirements relating to effluent standards or limitations imposed by the Regional Boards can be ensured by private parties acting under the citizen suit provision of the statute (see CWA § 505, 33 U.S.C. § 1365). River Watch is exercising such citizen enforcement to enforce compliance by the City and Suez with the CWA.

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

The CWA requires that any Notice regarding an alleged violation of an effluent standard or limitation, or of an order with respect thereto, shall include sufficient information to permit the recipient to identify the following:

1. The Specified Standard, Limitation, or Order Alleged to Have Been Violated

The order violated is, SWRCB Order No. R4-2012-0059, NPDES No. CA0055531, superseded by SWRCB Order No. R4-2017-0064 effective on May 1, 2017. River Watch has identified specific violations of the City's NPDES permit including raw sewage discharges and failure to either comply with or provide evidence that the City and Suez have complied with all the terms of this NPDES permit.

2. The Activity Alleged to Constitute a Violation

River Watch contends that from June 13, 2013 through June 13, 2018, the City and Suez have has violated the Act as described in this Notice. River Watch contends these violations are continuing or have a likelihood of occurring in the future. The location or locations of the various violations alleged in this Notice are identified in records created and/or maintained by or for the City which relate to the ownership and operation of the Plant, associated sewer collection system, and outfalls as described in this Notice.

A. Sanitary Sewer Overflows, Inadequate Reporting, and Failure to Mitigate Impacts

I. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Occurrences

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ("SSOs"), in which untreated sewage is discharged above ground from the collection system prior to reaching the Plant, are alleged to have occurred both on the dates identified in California Integrated Water Quality System ("CIWQS") Interactive Public SSO Reports and on the dates when no reports were filed with CIWQS by the City or Suez, all in violation of the CWA.

The City's aging sewer collection system has historically experienced high inflow and infiltration ("I/I") during wet weather. Structural defects which allow I/I into the sewer lines result in a buildup of pressure, causing SSOs. Overflows caused by blockages and I/I result in the discharge of raw sewage into gutters, canals, and storm drains which are connected to adjacent surface waters including the Burbank Western Channel and the Los Angeles River. All of the waterways lead to the Pacific Ocean, and all are waters of the United States.

A review of the CIWQS Spill Public Report — Summary Page, identifies the "Total Number of SSO locations" as 78, with 187,746 "Total Vol. of SSOs (gal)" discharged into the environment. Of this total volume, 94,167 gallons or just 50% are reported as being recovered while the City admits at least 58,791 gallons, or approximately 31% of the total, reached a surface water. This discharge poses both a nuisance pursuant to California Water Code § 13050(m) and an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment.

A review of the CIWQS SSO Reporting Program Database specifically identifies 5 recent SSOs reported as having reached a water of the United States, identified by Event ID numbers 827055, 823882, 823548, 814489, and 805790. All of the reported violations lack detailed information of the effects and explanation of spill. Included in the 5 reported SSOs are the following incidents:

• August 04, 2016 (Event ID# 827055) — an SSO estimated at 380 gallons occurred at 536 East University (Coordinates 34.19491-118.31698). The cause of the spill was root intrusion. Of this amount, 300 gallons is reported as having been recovered, 330 gallons as reaching land, while 50 gallons are reported as reaching the Burbank Western Channel. For item "36 — Health Warnings posted" the City reports "No." For item "41 — Explanation of water quality samples analyzed for" the City, contradicting its report, states "Due to the limited amount of flow, the sewer spill did not reach receiving waters and was contained in the storm drain system."

• April 14, 2016 (Event ID # 823882) — an SSO estimated at 4,684 gallons occurred at Beachwood and Riverside (Coordinates 34.15761-118.31597). The City reports 4,684 gallons reached a surface water. The cause of the spill was a power outage due to winds. For item "36 — Health warnings posted," the City reported "No."

• April 27, 2014 (Event ID # 805790) — an SSO estimated at 54,344 gallons occurred in the 400 block of North Beachwood Drive (Coordinates 34.174167-118.323889). The cause of the spill is reported as an 18-inch force main rupture. Of the total estimated volume, 34,275 gallons are reported as reaching land, and 20,069 gallons are reported as reaching the Los Angeles River. For item "36 — Health warnings posted" the City reports "No."

All of the above-identified discharges are violations of CWA § 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), as discharges of a pollutant (sewage) from a point source (sewer collection system) to a water of the United States without complying with any other sections of the Act. Further, these alleged discharges are violations of the City's NPDES Permit, which states in Section III. Discharge Prohibitions:

River Watch contends these violations are continuing in nature or have a likelihood of occurring in the future.

ii. Inadequate Reporting of Discharges

a. Incomplete and Inaccurate SSO Reporting

Full and complete reporting of SSOs is essential to gauging their impact upon public health and the environment. The City's SSO Reports, which should reveal critical details about each of these SSOs (including which SSOs reach which specific surface water), lack responses to specific questions that would present sufficient information to accurately assess and ensure these violations would not recur.

In addition, River Watch's expert believes many of the SSOs reported as not reaching a surface water did in fact reach surface waters, and those reported as reaching surface waters did so in greater volume than stated. River Watch's expert also believes that a careful reading of the time when the SSO began, the time the City or Suez received notification of the SSO, the time of their response, and the time at which the SSO ended, appear as unlikely estimations. For example:

• October 14, 2016 (Event ID #823882) — the spill start time is reported as 11:15 pm, agency notification time is reported as 1:45 am the following day, operator arrival time as 2:10 am, and spill end time as 1:45 am. The report filed asserts the spill ended upon notification. The estimated total volume of spill is 4,684 gallons, all of which are reported as reaching the Los Angeles River.

• March 30, 2016 (Event ID #823548) — the spill start time is reported as 8:36 am, agency notification time is reported as 8:43 am, while the operator arrival time is reported as 8:47 am (4 minutes after notification). The spill end time is reported as 9:04 am. The estimated total volume of spill is 2,100 gallons, 500 of which are reported as recovered, while 500 gallons are reported as reaching land, and 1,600 as having reached the Burbank Western Channel.

• April 08, 2015 (Event ID #814489) — the spill start time and agency notification time are both reported as 8:07 am. The operator arrival time is reported as 8:21 am, and spill end time is reported as 8:22 am (1 minute after arrival). The estimated total volume of the spill, recovered amount, and amount having reached land are all reported as 1,734 gallons.

Given the inconsistent accuracy of the times and intervals provided in these reports it is difficult to consider the stated volumes as accurate. Without correctly reporting the spill start and notification times, and by inaccurately reporting the operator arrival time and spill end time, there is a danger that the duration and volume of a spill will be underestimated.

b. Failure to Warn

There is no indication that the City or Suez post warning signs for any of the SSOs that presumably reach a surface water. River Watch contends the City and Suez are understating the significance of the impacts of their CWA violations by failing to post health warning signs for any SSOs which pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment regardless of location.

iii. Failure to Mitigate Impacts

River Watch contends the City and Suez fail to adequately mitigate the impacts of these SSOs. The City is a permittee under the Statewide General Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ ("Statewide WDR") governing the operation of sanitary sewer systems. The Statewide WDR requires the City and Suez to take all feasible steps, and perform necessary remedial actions following the occurrence of an SSO, including limiting the volume of waste discharged, terminating the discharge, and recovering as much of the wastewater as possible. Further remedial actions include intercepting and re-routing of wastewater flows, vacuum truck recovery of the SSO, cleanup of debris at the site, and modification of the collection system to prevent further SSOs at the site.

A critical remedial measure is the performance of adequate sampling to determine the nature and impact of the release. As the City and Suez are inconsistently underestimating SSOs which reach surface waters, River Watch contends they are not conducting samples on many SSOs as required by the Statewide WDR.

The EPA's "Report to Congress on the Impacts of SSOs" identifies SSOs as a major source of microbial pathogens and oxygen depleting substances. Numerous biological habitat areas exist within areas of the SSOs. Neighboring waterways include sensitive areas for the American White Pelican, Double Crested Cormorant, Osprey, Northern Harrier, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Merlin, California Gull, Vaux's Swift, Loggerhead Shrike, Yellow Warble, Yellow-breasted Chat, Tri-colored Blackbird, Least Bittern, White-faced Ibis, Golden Eagle, Prairie Falcon, Long-billed Curlew, Burrowing Owl, Vermillion Flycatcher, California Horned Lark, and Summer Tanager. There is no recent record of the City or Suez performing any analysis of the impact of SSOs on habitat of protected species under the ESA, nor any evaluation of the measures needed to restore water bodies containing biological habitat from the impacts of SSOs.

B. Sewer Collection System Subsurface Discharges Caused by Underground Exfiltration

It is a well-established fact that exfiltration caused by structural defects in a sewer collection system results in discharges to adjacent surface waters either directly or via underground hydrological connections. Studies tracing human markers specific to the human digestive system in surface waters adjacent to defective sewer lines in other systems have verified the contamination of the adjacent waters with untreated sewage.

River Watch contends untreated or partially treated sewage is discharged from the City's collection system either directly or via hydrologically-connected groundwater to surface waters including the Western Burbank Channel and the Los Angeles River, all which lead to the Pacific Ocean. Surface waters then become contaminated with pollutants, including human pathogens. Chronic failures in the collection system pose a substantial threat to public health. Evidence of exfiltration can also be supported by reviewing mass balance data, I/I data, video inspection, as well as tests of waterways adjacent to sewer lines for nutrients, human pathogens and other human markers such as caffeine. Any exfiltration found is a violation of the City's NPDES permit and thus a violation of the CWA.

C. Violations of Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements

A review of the Self-Monitoring Reports ("SMRs") file by the City or Suez identifies the following violations of effluent limitations imposed under the City's NPDES Permit1:

i. Reported Violations

a. Violations of Effluent Violations

The SMRs identify 29 violations of Order No. R4-2012-0059, Section IV. Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications, A. Effluent Limitations Applicable to Discharge Point 002, as described below:

3 — Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications Violations, A. Effluent Limitations, 1. Effluent Limitations Applicable to Discharge Point 002, a., Table 6. Effluent Limitations Applicable to Discharge Point 002:

2 — Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications Violations, A. Effluent Limitations, 1. Effluent Limitations Applicable to Discharge Point 002, a., Table 6. Effluent Limitations Applicable to Discharge Point 002:

2 — Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications Violations, A. Effluent Limitations, 1. Effluent Limitations Applicable to Discharge Point 002, a., Table 6. Effluent Limitations Applicable to Discharge Point 002:

14 — Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications Violations, A. Effluent Limitations, 2. Other Effluent Limitations Applicable to Discharge Point 002, "d. The waste discharged to water courses shall at all times be adequately disinfected. For the purpose of this requirement, the wastes shall be considered adequately disinfected if the median number of total coliform bacteria in the disinfected effluent does not exceed an MPN or CFU of 2.2 per 100 milliliters, and the number of total coliform bacteria does not exceed an MPN or CFU of 23 per 100 milliliters in more than one sample within any 30-Day period ... The median value shall be determined from the bacteriological results of the last seven (7) days for which an analysis has been completed ...":

4 — IV. Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications, A. Effluent Limitations, 1. Effluent Limitations Applicable to Discharge Point 002, Table 6:

1 — C. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs), 2. Applicable Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Criteria and Objectives, b., xi. Coliform, (a). Effluent Limitations, "the number of total coliform bacteria must not exceed an MPN or CFU of 23 per 100 milliliters in more than one sample within any 30-day period."

3 — Additional reported violations of Chloride, Total Dissolved Solids, and Nitrite Plus Nitrate:

b. Violations for Deficient Monitoring

The SMRs identify 1 violation of Order No. R4-2012-0059, Attachment E — Monitoring and Reporting Program, IV. Effluent Monitoring Requirements, A., Table 3. Effluent Monitoring:

D. Violations of Receiving Water Limitations and Impacts to Beneficial Uses

The aquatic environment of the Los Angeles River has numerous beneficial uses as set forth in the RWQCB-LA's Basin Plan including ground water recharge, water contact recreation, warm freshwater habitat, wildlife habitat, wetland habitat, marine habitat, and rare, threatened, or endangered species. The Los Angeles River, as well as its tributary the Western Burbank Channel, and the Pacific Ocean contain sensitive species and support important recreational value.

The Los Angeles River stretches approximately 51 miles from Canoga Park in the western end of the San Fernando Valley to Long Beach, southeast. Two channelized streams, Bell Creek and Arroyo Calabasas, come together in the Canoga Park section of Los Angeles at the head of the River which flows east past Burbank and curving around Griffith Park before flowing south to the Pacific Ocean at Long Beach.

The Los Angeles River watershed includes three regionally significant ecological areas: the Santa Monica Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, and Griffith Park. It is one of largest watersheds in the region at 824 square miles.

The Los Angeles River was channelized by the Army Corps of Engineers beginning in 1938 after several devastating floods, providing flood control for the growing City of Los Angeles and a consistent path for the course of the River. Fed primarily by rainwater, snow melt, and urban discharge, the River is one of the few perennial rivers in Southern California. The concrete channel helps limit absorption of water into the earth. There has been flow every month since recording of the stream flow began in 1929 (even the driest months). Although no native species of fish survived the channelization in 1938, the Los Angeles River is home to many fish species including common carp, largemouth bass, tilapia, Amazon Sailfin, channel catfish, fathead minnow, and crayfish.

Bird species of special concern relying on the Los River include the American White Pelican, Double Crested Cormorant, Osprey, red tailed hawk, Northern Harrier, Sharp-shinned Hawk, American coot, snowy, great egret, Merlin, great blue heron, California Gull, Vaux's Swift, Loggerhead Shrike, Yellow Warble, Yellow-breasted Chat, Tri-colored Blackbird, and the Mallard. More rarely seen species include the Least Bittern, White-faced Ibis, Golden Eagle, Prairie Falcon, Long-billed Curlew, Burrowing Owl, Vermillion Flycatcher, California Horned Lark, and Summer Tanager. Riparian habitat is impaired by degraded water quality resulting from increases in water temperature, sediment and nutrients, pesticides, and heavy metals.

Discharges in excess of receiving water and groundwater limitations reaching these waters cause pollution by unreasonably affecting the beneficial uses of these waters. The City's NPDES Permit specifically provides the following in Section V. Receiving Water Limitations:

River Watch finds insufficient information in the public record demonstrating the City or Suez have monitored for and complied with these receiving water standards, and is understandably concerned regarding the effects of discharges to beneficial uses of water applicable to the navigable waters identified in this Notice.

3. The Person or Persons Responsible for the Alleged Violation

The entities responsible for the alleged violations identified in this Notice are the City of Burbank, as owner of the Burbank Water Reclamation Plant, its associated collection system, and outfalls, and Suez Water Environmental Services, Inc., as operator of the Plant, as well as those of their employees responsible for compliance with the CWA and with any applicable state and federal regulations and permits.

4. The Location of the Alleged Violation

The City is located in the eastern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County, 12 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles, bordered by the Verdugo Mountains on the north, Glendale to the east, North Hollywood and Toluca Lake to the west and Griffith Park to the south. According to the 2010 Census, the area of the City is 17.4 square miles, with a 2010 population of 103,340.

The City owns the Plant, a tertiary wastewater treatment plant, located at 740 N. Lake Street. The Plant currently receives a mixture of domestic and industrial wastewater. The Plant has a design capacity of 12.5 mgd and serves an estimated population of 105,000 people.

The Plant is part of the City's integrated network of facilities known as the North Outfall Sewer which includes four treatment plants. The upstream treatment plants (Tillman Water Reclamation Plant, Los Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant, and the Plant) discharge solids to the Hyperion Treatment Plant. This system also allows biosolids, solids, and excess flows to be diverted from the upstream plants to the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment and disposal. All solids removed from the Plant's treatment process are returned untreated to the North Outfall Sewer for downstream treatment at the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Treatment at the Plant consists of barscreen removal of large solids, flow equalization, primary sedimentation, activated sludge biological treatment with nitrification and denitrification, secondary sedimentation with coagulation, single media and deep bed sand filtration, chlorination, chloramination, and dichlorination. The Plant discharges tertiary-treated municipal wastewater to the Burbank Western Channel, a water of the United States, tributary to the Los Angeles River, above the Estuary.

5. Reasonable Range of Dates During Which the Alleged Activity Occurred

The range of dates covered by this Notice is June 13, 2013 through June 13, 2018. This Notice also includes all violations of the CWA by the City and Suez which occur during and after this Notice period up to and including the time of trial.

6. The Full Name, Address, and Telephone Number of the Person Giving Notice

The entity giving notice is California River Watch, referred to throughout this notice as "River Watch," an Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) non-profit, public benefit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of California. Its headquarters and main office are located in Sebastopol. Its mailing address is 290 S. Main Street, #817, Sebastopol, CA 95472. River Watch is dedicated to protecting, enhancing, and helping to restore surface waters and groundwaters of California including coastal waters, rivers, creeks, streams, wetlands, vernal pools, aquifers and associated environs, biota, flora and fauna, and educating the public concerning environmental issues associated with these environs.

River Watch has retained legal counsel with respect to the issues raised in this Notice. All communications should be directed to counsel identified below:

RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL MEASURES

River Watch looks forward to meeting with staff for the City and Suez to tailor remedial measures to the specific operation of the Plant, associated sewer collection system, and outfalls. In advance of that conversation, River Watch identifies the following issues for discussion that will advance compliance with the CWA and the Basin Plan, and help economize the time and effort the parties need to resolve their concerns:

• Determination of the specific sewer collection system repairs required, and establishing deadlines for compliance;

• Implementation of an effective SSO reporting and response program (including revisions to the City's January, 2018 "SSO Emergency Response Plan");

• Provision of a lateral inspection and repair program;

• Ensuring the application of chemical root control complies with federal EPA or the RWQCB-LA as well as manufacturer and Cal-OSHA requirements;

• Keeping the Sewer System Management Plan up-to-date and properly certified; and,

• Promotion of staff training and education.

CONCLUSION

The violations set forth in this Notice effect the health and enjoyment of members of River Watch who reside and recreate in the affected community. Members of River Watch may use the affected watershed for recreation, fishing, hiking, photography, or nature walks. Their health, use and enjoyment of this natural resource is specifically impaired by the alleged violations of the CWA as set forth in this Notice.

CWA §§ 505(a)(1) and 505(f) provide for citizen enforcement actions against any "person," including a governmental instrumentality or agency, for violations of NPDES permit requirements and for un-permitted discharges of pollutants. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a)(1) and (f), 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5). An action for injunctive relief under the CWA is authorized by 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a). Violators of the Act are also subject to an assessment of civil penalties of up to $53,484.00 per day/per violation for all violations pursuant to Sections 309(d) and 505 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365. See also 40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1-19.4.

River Watch believes this Notice sufficiently states grounds for filing suit in federal court under the "citizen suit" provisions of CWA to obtain the relief provided for under the law.

The CWA specifically provides a 60-day "notice period" to promote resolution of disputes. River Watch strongly encourages the City and/or Suez to contact counsel for River Watch within 20 days after receipt of this Notice to initiate a discussion regarding the allegations detailed herein. In the absence of productive discussions to resolve this dispute, River Watch will have cause to file a citizen's suit under CWA § 505(a) when the 60-day notice period ends.

Service List

Law Office of Jack Silver 708 Gravenstein Hwy. North, # 407 Sebastopol, CA 95472-2808 Phone 707-528-8175 Email: JSilverEnvironmental@gmail.com Via Certified Mail — Return Receipt Requested November 30, 2018 Mr. Ron Davis, City Manager Members of the City Council City of Burbank Burbank City Hall 275 East Olive Avenue Burbank, CA 91510 Ms. Marnell Gibson, Public Works Director City of Burbank — Public Works Department 150 North Third Street Burbank, CA 91502

Re: Supplemental Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)

STATUTORY NOTICE

This Supplemental Notice is provided on behalf of California River Watch ("River Watch") in regard to violations of the Clean Water Act ("CWA" or "Act"), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., that River Watch alleges are occurring through the ownership and/or operation of the City of Burbank's sewer collection and outfall system.

River Watch hereby places the City of Burbank ("the City"), as owner of its sewer collection system and outfalls, on notice that following the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of this Supplemental Notice, River Watch will be entitled under CWA § 505(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), to bring suit in the U.S. District Court against the City for continuing violations of an effluent standard or limitation pursuant to CWA § 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, Water Quality Control Plan ("Basin Plan"), as the result of violations of the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit.

The CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters. The statute is structured in such a way that all discharges of pollutants are prohibited with the exception of enumerated statutory provisions. One such exception authorizes a discharger, who has been issued a permit pursuant to CWA § 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, to discharge designated pollutants at certain levels subject to certain conditions. The effluent discharge standards or limitations specified in a NPDES permit define the scope of the authorized exception to the CWA § 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) prohibition such that violation of a permit limit places a discharger in violation of the CWA. River Watch alleges the City is in violation of the CWA by violating the terms of the City's NPDES permit.

The CWA provides that authority to administer the NPDES permitting system in any given state or region can be delegated by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to a state or to a regional regulatory agency provided that the applicable state or regional regulatory scheme under which the local agency operates satisfies certain criteria (see 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b)). In California, the EPA has granted authorization to a state regulatory apparatus comprised of the State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB") and several subsidiary regional water quality control boards to issue NPDES permits. The entity responsible for issuing NPDES permits and otherwise regulating the operations of the City in the region at issue in this Supplemental Notice is the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region ("RWQCB-LA").

While delegating authority to administer the NPDES permitting system, the CWA provides that enforcement of the statute's permitting requirements relating to effluent standards or limitations imposed by the Regional Boards can be ensured by private parties acting under the citizen suit provision of the statute (see CWA § 505, 33 U.S.C. § 1365). River Watch is exercising such citizen enforcement to enforce compliance by the City with the CWA.

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

The CWA requires that any Notice regarding an alleged violation of an effluent standard or limitation, or of an order with respect thereto, shall include sufficient information to permit the recipient to identify the following:

1. The Specified Standard, Limitation, or Order Alleged to Have Been Violated

The orders alleged to be violated are as follows:

2. The Activity Alleged to Constitute a Violation

River Watch contends that from June 13, 2013 (the date of the initial Notice of Violations) through November 30, 2018 (the date of this Supplemental Notice), the City has violated the Act as described in this Supplemental Notice. River Watch contends these violations are continuing or have a likelihood of occurring in the future. The location or locations of the various violations alleged in this Supplemental Notice are identified in records created and/or maintained by or for the City which relate to the ownership and operation of sewer collection system and outfalls as described in this Supplemental Notice.

A. Sanitary Sewer Overflows, Inadequate Reporting, and Failure to Mitigate Impacts

I. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Occurrences

Sanitary Sewer Overflows ("SSOs"), in which untreated sewage is discharged above ground from the collection system prior to reaching the City's Water Reclamation Plant, are alleged to have occurred both on the dates identified in California Integrated Water Quality System ("CIWQS") Interactive Public SSO Reports and on the dates when no reports were filed with CIWQS by the City, all in violation of the CWA.

The City's aging sewer collection system has historically experienced high inflow and infiltration ("I/I") during wet weather. Structural defects which allow I/I into the sewer lines result in a buildup of pressure, causing SSOs. Overflows caused by blockages and I/I result in the discharge of raw sewage into gutters, canals, and storm drains which are connected to adjacent surface waters including the Burbank Western Channel and the Los Angeles River. All of the waterways lead to the Pacific Ocean, and all are waters of the United States.

A review of the CIWQS Spill Public Report — Summary Page, identifies the "Total Number of SSO locations" as 78, with 187, 746 "Total Vol. of SSOs (gal)" discharged into the environment. Of this total volume, 94,167 gallons or just 50% are reported as being recovered while the City admits at least 58,791 gallons, or approximately 31% of the total, reached a surface water. This discharge poses both a nuisance pursuant to California Water Code § 13050(m) and an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment.

A review of the CIWQS SSO Reporting Program Database specifically identifies 5 recent SSOs reported as having reached a water of the United States, identified by Event ID numbers 827055, 823882, 823548, 814489, and 805790. All of the reported violations lack detailed information of the effects and explanation of spill. Examples of the alleged violations included in the list of CIWQS-reported SSOs are:

All of the above-identified discharges are violations of CWA § 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), as discharges of a pollutant (sewage) from a point source (sewer collection system) to a water of the United States without complying with any other sections of the Act. Further, as stated above, these alleged discharges are violations of the City's NPDES Permit, Section III. Discharge Prohibitions. River Watch contends these violations are continuing in nature or have a likelihood of occurring in the future.

ii. Inadequate Reporting of Discharges

a. Incomplete and Inaccurate SSO Reporting

Full and complete reporting of SSOs is essential to gauging their impact upon public health and the environment. The City's SSO Reports, which should reveal critical details about each of these SSOs (including which SSOs reach which specific surface water), lack responses to specific questions that would present sufficient information to accurately assess and ensure these violations would not recur.

In addition, River Watch's expert believes many of the SSOs reported as not reaching a surface water did in fact reach surface waters, and those reported as reaching surface waters did so in greater volume than stated. River Watch's expert also believes that a careful reading of the time when the SSO began, the time the City received notification of the SSO, the time of its response, and the time at which the SSO ended, appear as unlikely estimations. Examples of the alleged violations included in this list of CIWQS-reported SSOs are:

Given the inconsistent accuracy of the times and intervals provided in these reports, it is difficult to consider the stated volumes as accurate. Without correctly reporting the spill start and notification times, and by inaccurately reporting the operator arrival time and spill end time, there is a danger that the duration and volume of a spill will be underestimated.

b. Failure to Warn

There is no indication that the City posts warning signs for any SSOs that presumably reach a surface water. River Watch contends the City is understating the significance of the impacts of its CWA violations by failing to post health warning signs for any SSOs which pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment regardless of location.

iii. Failure to Mitigate Impacts

River Watch contends the City fails to adequately mitigate the impacts of its SSOs. The City is a permittee under the Statewide General Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ ("Statewide WDR") governing the operation of sanitary sewer systems. The Statewide WDR requires the City to take all feasible steps and perform necessary remedial actions following the occurrence of an SSO, including limiting the volume of waste discharged, terminating the discharge, and recovering as much of the wastewater as possible. Further remedial actions include intercepting and re-routing of wastewater flows, vacuum truck recovery of the SSO, cleanup of debris at the site, and modification of the collection system to prevent further SSOs at the site.

A critical remedial measure is the performance of adequate sampling to determine the nature and impact of the release. As the City is inconsistently underestimating SSOs which reach surface waters, River Watch contends the City is not conducting samples on many SSOs as required by the Statewide WDR.

The EPA's "Report to Congress on the Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs" (U.S. EPA, Office of Water (2004)) identifies SSOs as a major source of microbial pathogens and oxygen depleting substances. Numerous biological habitat areas exist within areas of the SSOs. Neighboring waterways include sensitive areas for the American White Pelican, Double Crested Cormorant, Osprey, Northern Harrier, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Merlin, California Gull, Vaux's Swift, Loggerhead Shrike, Yellow Warble, Yellow-breasted Chat, Tri-colored Blackbird, Least Bittern, White-faced Ibis, Golden Eagle, Prairie Falcon, Long-billed Curlew, Burrowing Owl, Vermillion Flycatcher, California Horned Lark, and Summer Tanager. River Watch finds no recent record of the City performing any analysis of the impact of SSOs on the habitat of protected species under the ESA, nor any evaluation of the measures needed to restore water bodies containing designated as critical habitat from the impacts of SSOs.

B. Failure to Eliminate Sewer Collection System Subsurface Discharges Caused by Underground Exfiltration

It is a well-established fact that exfiltration caused by structural defects in a sewer collection system results in discharges to adjacent surface waters either directly or via underground hydrological connections. Studies tracing human markers specific to the human digestive system in surface waters adjacent to defective sewer lines in other systems have verified the contamination of the adjacent waters with untreated sewage.

River Watch contends untreated or partially treated sewage is discharged from the City's collection system either directly or via hydrologically-connected groundwater to surface waters including the Burbank Western Channel and the Los Angeles River, all which lead to the Pacific Ocean. Surface waters then become contaminated with pollutants, including human pathogens. Chronic failures in the collection system pose a substantial threat to public health. Evidence of exfiltration can also be supported by reviewing mass balance data, I/I data, video inspection, as well as tests of waterways adjacent to sewer lines for nutrients, human pathogens and other human markers such as caffeine. Any exfiltration found is a violation of the City's NPDES permit and thus a violation of the CWA.

C. Failure to Comply with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Stormwater Permit

The City's MS4 is a system of conveyances intended to carry stormwater. It is connected to storm drain pipes which discharge neighboring surface waters. However, SSOs bring sewage into the MS4 and in turn into waterways connected to, and downstream of, the MS4. River Watch contends the City fails to adequately comply with the discharge prohibitions of its MS4 Permit as stated above.

All SSOs which reach a storm drain or storm drain conveyance are violations of CWA § 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), as they are discharges of a pollutant (sewage) from a point source (sewage collection system) to a water of the United States, without complying with any other sections of the Act.

River Watch contends these violations are continuing in nature or have a likelihood of occurring in the future. In addition, all of these discharges pose both a nuisance pursuant to California Water Code § 13050(m), and an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment.

D. Failure to Eliminate Unpermitted Discharges

Multiple sources of pollution generated through activities in the City, vehicular traffic, and sewage and garbage, make their way to the City's system of storm drains connected to the Los Angeles River and the Burbank Western Channel. Results from recent sampling tests indicate non-stormwater discharges of pollutants from the City's outfalls exceed water quality standards. River Watch's ongoing investigation indicates a lack of any structural Best Management Practices in place at these outfalls to prevent maintenance waters from coming into contact with pollutant sources and/or water treatment measures to prevent contaminants from being discharged without treatment in or around the storm drains. A map of the City's outfalls and photographs of the discharges River Watch addresses in this Supplemental Notice are attached as Exhibit A.

Under EPA regulations, water quality standard based provisions are required in NPDES permits to protect the beneficial uses of water. 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d). The RWQCB-LA has identified beneficial uses of the Los Angeles River region's waters and has established water quality standards for the Los Angeles basin. The beneficial uses of these waters (discussed here and below) include, among others, contact and non-contact recreation. The non-contact recreation use is defined as use of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving contact where water ingestion would be reasonably possible such as picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, camping, boating, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with those activities. Water quality considerations relevant to hiking, camping, boating, and activities related to nature studies, require protection of habitats and aesthetic features.

The Basin Plan includes a narrative toxicity standard which states that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. The Basin Plan includes a narrative oil and grease standard which states that waters shall not contain oils, greases, waxes, or other materials in concentrations that result in a visible film or coating on the surface of the water or on objects in the water, that cause nuisance, or otherwise adversely affect beneficial uses. The Basin Plan establishes Water Quality Objectives for toxic metals such as copper, nickel, and zinc.

The EPA adopted the National Toxics Rule on February 5, 1993 and the California Toxics Rule on May 18, 2000. When combined with the beneficial use designations in the Basin Plan, these Rules contain water quality standards applicable to the discharges of pollutants by the City identified in this Supplemental Notice. The SWRCB adopted the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California on April 26, 2000, containing requirements for implementation of both the National Toxics Rule and California Toxics Rule.

E. Impacts to Beneficial Uses From SSOs and Direct Discharges

The aquatic environment of the Los Angeles River has numerous beneficial uses as set forth in the RWQCB-LA's Basin Plan including groundwater recharge, water contact recreation, warm freshwater habitat, wildlife habitat, wetland habitat, marine habitat, and rare, threatened, or endangered species. The Los Angeles River, Burbank Western Channel, and Pacific Ocean contain sensitive species and support important recreational value.

The Los Angeles River stretches approximately 51 miles from Canoga Park in the western end of the San Fernando Valley to Long Beach, southeast. Two channelized streams, Bell Creek and Arroyo Calabasas, come together in the Canoga Park section of Los Angeles at the head of the River which flows east past Burbank and curves around Griffith Park before lowing south to the Pacific Ocean at Long Beach.

The Los Angeles River watershed includes 3 regionally significant ecological areas: the Santa Monica Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, and Griffith Park. It is one of largest watersheds in the region at 824 square miles.

The Los Angeles River was channelized by the Army Corps of Engineers beginning in 1938 after several devastating floods, providing flood control for the growing City of Los Angeles and a consistent path for the course of the River. Fed primarily by rainwater, snow melt, and urban discharge, the River is one of the few perennial rivers in Southern California. The concrete channel helps limit absorption of water into the earth. There has been flow every month since recording of the stream flow began in 1929, even the driest months. Although no native species of fish survived the channelization in 1938, the Los Angeles River is home to many fish species including common carp, largemouth bass, tilapia, Amazon Sailfin, channel catfish, fathead minnow, and crayfish.

Bird species of special concern relying on the Los Angeles River include the American White Pelican, Double Crested Cormorant, Osprey, red tailed hawk, Northern Harrier, Sharp-shinned Hawk, American coot, snowy, great egret, Merlin, great blue heron, California Gull, Vaux's Swift, Loggerhead Shrike, Yellow Warble, Yellow-breasted Chat, Tri-colored Blackbird, and the Mallard. More rarely seen species include the Least Bittern, White-faced Ibis, Golden Eagle, Prairie Falcon, Long-billed Curlew, Burrowing Owl, Vermillion Flycatcher, California Horned Lark, and Summer Tanager. Riparian habitat is impaired by degraded water quality resulting from increases in water temperature, sediment and nutrients, pesticides, and heavy metals.

3. The Person or Persons Responsible for the Alleged Violation

The entity responsible for the alleged violations identified in this Supplemental Notice is the City of Burbank as well as those of its employees responsible for compliance with the CWA and with any applicable state and federal regulations and permits.

4. The Location of the Alleged Violation

The violations alleged in this Supplemental Notice originate in the City and result in pollutants discharged by the City from its sewage collection system and outfalls (point sources within the City's jurisdiction) to the Los Angeles River and the Burbank Western Channel —both waters of the United States.

5. Reasonable Range of Dates During Which the Alleged Activity Occurred

The range of dates covered by this Supplemental Notice is June 13, 2013 through November 30, 2018. This Supplemental Notice also includes all violations of the CWA by the City which occur during and after this Supplemental Notice period up to and including the time of trial.

6. The Full Name, Address, and Telephone Number of the Person Giving Notice

The entity giving notice is California River Watch, referred to throughout this Supplemental Notice as "River Watch," an Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) non-profit, public benefit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of California. Its headquarters and main office are located in Sebastopol. Its mailing address is 290 South Main Street, #817, Sebastopol, CA 95472. River Watch is dedicated to protecting, enhancing, and helping to restore surface waters and groundwaters of California including coastal waters, rivers, creeks, streams, wetlands, vernal pools, aquifers and associated environs, biota, flora and fauna, and educating the public concerning environmental issues associated with these environs.

River Watch has retained legal counsel with respect to the issues raised in this Supplemental Notice. All communications should be directed to counsel identified below:

RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL MEASURES

River Watch looks forward to continued conversations with staff for the City to tailor remedial measures for the City's sewer collection system and outfalls. In advance of these conversations, River Watch identifies the following issues for discussion that will advance compliance with the CWA and the Basin Plan, and help economize the time and effort the parties need to resolve their concerns:

1. Determination of the specific sewer collection system repairs required, and establishing deadlines for compliance;

2. Implementation of an effective SSO reporting and response program (including revisions to the City's January, 2018 "SSO Emergency Response Plan");

3. Provision of a lateral inspection and repair program;

4. Ensuring the application of chemical root control complies with federal EPA or the RWQCB-LA as well as manufacturer and Cal-OSHA requirements;

5. Keeping the Sewer System Management Plan up-to-date and properly certified; and,

6. Promotion of staff training and education.

CONCLUSION

The violations set forth in this Supplemental Notice effect the health and enjoyment of members of River Watch who reside and recreate in the affected community. Members of River Watch may use the affected watershed for recreation, fishing, hiking, photography, or nature walks. Their health, use and enjoyment of this natural resource is specifically impaired by the alleged violations of the CWA as set forth in this Supplemental Notice.

CWA §§ 505(a)(1) and 505(f) provide for citizen enforcement actions against any "person," including a governmental instrumentality or agency, for violations of NPDES permit requirements and for un-permitted discharges of pollutants. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a)(1) and (f), 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5). An action for injunctive relief under the CWA is authorized by 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a). Violators of the Act are also subject to an assessment of civil penalties of up to $53,484.00 per day/per violation for all violations pursuant to Sections 309(d) and 505 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365. See also 40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1-19.4.

River Watch believes this Supplemental Notice sufficiently states grounds for filing suit in federal court under the "citizen suit" provisions of CWA to obtain the relief provided for under the law.

The CWA specifically provides a 60-day "notice period" to promote resolution of disputes. River Watch strongly encourages the City to contact counsel for River Watch within 20 days after receipt of this Supplemental Notice to initiate a discussion regarding the allegations detailed herein. In the absence of productive discussions to resolve this dispute, River Watch will have cause to file a citizen's suit under CWA § 505(a) when the 60-day notice period ends.

Service List

EXHIBIT A