Public commenter accuses chief counsel of mischaracterizing Water Code; counsel disputes claim

During the meeting's public forum, Ray Tahir sharply criticized the board's chief counsel and staff positions on disclosure and general orders.' Tahir said counsel had previously claimed ignorance about changes to statutes and now was misrepresenting the role and legality of bracketed definitions tied to Water Code section 13287, and questioned whether general orders could lawfully apply to certain permits.

"Just because Mister Laufer answered my questions on several occasions does not mean that his responses were accurate or truthful," Tahir said, and urged the board to clarify how disclosure requirements apply to enrollment permits and named dischargers.

Board chair Joaquin Esquivel asked counsel to respond after Tahir's comments because Tahir had questioned counsel's truthfulness. Chief counsel Michael Laufer replied that the board's positions have been consistent and are grounded in language the Legislature adopted in Water Code section 13287. Laufer said the LA county CII permit had been treated as an enrollment permit that does not name dischargers and that staff relied on the regional board's language in reaching its position.

Laufer offered to meet with Tahir or Senate Environmental Quality Committee staff to walk through the statutory language and the historical record and defended staff's prior responses as based on the statute and its legislative history.

No formal board action followed the exchange; members thanked both the commenter and counsel and noted the board remains willing to review the statutory language in further detail.