Common use of Potential for Harm Clause in Contracts

Potential for Harm. The Enforcement Policy requires a determination of whether the characteristics of the violations resulted in a minor, moderate, or major potential for harm or threat to beneficial uses. Staff has determined that the potential for harm is moderate, because the characteristics of the violation present a substantial threat to beneficial uses, and the circumstances of the violation indicate a substantial potential for harm. The Discharger has undermined the efforts of the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Board’s (Regional Water Board) Land Disposal Program by disregarding the requirement to submit timely reports. Discharger’s compliance with reporting requirements is foundational to the Regional Water Board’s efforts to protect water quality. The Land Disposal Program’s Orders adopted by the Regional Water Board specify the expectations and requirements for water quality protection. The Discharger failed to submit six Monthly Monitoring Reports as required by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order No. R7-2008-0038 (Mountain Station WDRs). Additionally, the Discharger has submitted sixty-five late Monthly Monitoring Reports. By not submitting or submitting late monitoring reports, the Discharger has undermined the Regional Water Board’s ability to analyze the reports to ensure compliance with the Mountain Station WDRs. The Discharger has therefore avoided potential violations related to its discharge which could potentially degrade the groundwater quality and impact beneficial uses. Additionally, the regulatory program is compromised when Regional Water Board staff resources are directed toward bringing the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway Mountain Station Wastewater Treatment Facility (Mountain Station WWTF) into compliance rather than being available for outreach and applying technical knowledge to ensure the protection of the Region’s groundwater.

Potential for Harm. The Enforcement Policy requires a determination of whether the characteristics of the violations resulted in a minor, moderate, or major potential for harm or threat to beneficial uses. Staff has determined that the potential for harm is moderate, because the characteristics of the violation present a substantial threat to beneficial uses, and the circumstances of the violation indicate a substantial potential for harm. The Discharger has undermined the efforts of the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Board’s (Regional Water Board or Board) Land Disposal Program by disregarding the requirement to submit timely reports. The Discharger’s compliance with reporting requirements is foundational to the Regional Water Board’s efforts to protect water quality. The Land Disposal Program’s Orders adopted by the Regional Water Board specify the expectations and requirements for water quality protection. The Discharger has failed to submit six Monthly Monitoring Reports as required by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order No. R7-20082009-0038 0026 (Mountain Valley Station WDRs). Additionally, the Discharger has submitted sixtyeighty-five nine late Monthly Monitoring Reports. By not submitting or submitting late monitoring reports, the Discharger has undermined the Regional Water Board’s ability to analyze the reports to ensure compliance with the Mountain Valley Station WDRs. The Discharger has therefore avoided potential violations related to its discharge which could potentially degrade the groundwater quality and impact beneficial uses. Additionally, the regulatory program is compromised when Regional Water Board staff resources are directed toward bringing the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway Mountain Valley Station Wastewater Treatment Facility (Mountain Valley Station WWTF) into compliance rather than being available for outreach and applying technical knowledge to ensure the protection of the Region’s groundwater.