Follow FEMA:
Tapo Canyon Water Treatment Plant
Main Content
Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Back
Cross-reference: Time Limitations
Summary: In January 1994, the Northridge Earthquake damaged the Tapo Canyon Water Treatment Plant (TCWTP). A total of $509,087 was obligated for this project. In 2004, the City of Simi Valley (Applicant) was granted a time extension to December 31, 2006, to complete construction of its project. On October 19, 2006, the Applicant requested a time extension to December 31, 2007, to complete its impact analysis, modify design and specifications, secure permits, and award a construction contract. FEMA denied the request on December 1, 2006, because the Applicant had not made substantial progress toward completing its project. The Applicant submitted its first appeal on February 27, 2007, stating that it had continued efforts to complete its project and it requested an additional 16 months, to April 2009, to complete construction of its project. FEMA denied the first appeal on September 21, 2007, stating that there had been little, if any, sustained activity or substantive progress toward project completion. The Applicant submitted its second appeal on December 6, 2007. It provided a timeline from March 9, 2007, the date of the redesign report, to November 27, 2007, the date of the notice of award for the construction contract. As an extenuating circumstance causing delays, the Applicant cited the development of a Salts (boron, chloride, sulfate, and total dissolved solids) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The EPA was required to develop a Salts TMDL (among others) as a result of a lawsuit settled in 1999. The Applicant said that it had postponed constructing the TCWTP because of the uncertainty during the Salts TMDL development period. The Salts TMDL was approved in October 2007. Also in October 2007, the State granted Ventura County $25 million for its water projects, of which $1.5 million was intended for the TCWTP. Because nothing in the EPA settlement and no subsequent action from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board directly impacted the Applicants construction project, there is no extenuating circumstance beyond the Applicants control that justifies the time extension.
Issues: Has the Applicant provided justification for delays in project performance that warrant a time extension?
Findings: No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.204(d)(2)
Second Appeal Summary
FEMA-1008-DR
PA ID# 111-72016; City of Simi Valley
DSR ID# DSRs 15379 and 36700; Tapo Canyon Water Treatment Plant
04/11/2008
Citation: FEMA-1008-DR-CA, City of Simi Valley, Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 15379 and 36700, Tapo Canyon Water Treatment PlantPA ID# 111-72016; City of Simi Valley
DSR ID# DSRs 15379 and 36700; Tapo Canyon Water Treatment Plant
04/11/2008
Cross-reference: Time Limitations
Summary: In January 1994, the Northridge Earthquake damaged the Tapo Canyon Water Treatment Plant (TCWTP). A total of $509,087 was obligated for this project. In 2004, the City of Simi Valley (Applicant) was granted a time extension to December 31, 2006, to complete construction of its project. On October 19, 2006, the Applicant requested a time extension to December 31, 2007, to complete its impact analysis, modify design and specifications, secure permits, and award a construction contract. FEMA denied the request on December 1, 2006, because the Applicant had not made substantial progress toward completing its project. The Applicant submitted its first appeal on February 27, 2007, stating that it had continued efforts to complete its project and it requested an additional 16 months, to April 2009, to complete construction of its project. FEMA denied the first appeal on September 21, 2007, stating that there had been little, if any, sustained activity or substantive progress toward project completion. The Applicant submitted its second appeal on December 6, 2007. It provided a timeline from March 9, 2007, the date of the redesign report, to November 27, 2007, the date of the notice of award for the construction contract. As an extenuating circumstance causing delays, the Applicant cited the development of a Salts (boron, chloride, sulfate, and total dissolved solids) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The EPA was required to develop a Salts TMDL (among others) as a result of a lawsuit settled in 1999. The Applicant said that it had postponed constructing the TCWTP because of the uncertainty during the Salts TMDL development period. The Salts TMDL was approved in October 2007. Also in October 2007, the State granted Ventura County $25 million for its water projects, of which $1.5 million was intended for the TCWTP. Because nothing in the EPA settlement and no subsequent action from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board directly impacted the Applicants construction project, there is no extenuating circumstance beyond the Applicants control that justifies the time extension.
Issues: Has the Applicant provided justification for delays in project performance that warrant a time extension?
Findings: No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.204(d)(2)