Follow FEMA:
Tapo Water 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). FEMA obligated $509,087 for this project. The City did not complete the project by the approved time extension deadline. FEMA denied the Citys request for a time extension to February 2009. The Regional Administrator and Assistant Administrator sustained this determination on first and second appeal, respectively. The City subsequently stated that FEMA made factual errors in the evaluation of the second appeal and requested that FEMA reconsider the determination. Specifically, the City stated that it delayed construction of the plant solely because the Regional Water Quality Control Board had not developed limits on the quality of discharge into the streams. This is contrary to what FEMA stated in the second appeal determination. The City did not want to risk building the water treatment plant that would put the water control plant in violation of Federal and state requirements.
Issues: Did FEMA administratively err in its second appeal determination?
Findings: Yes.
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 and36700; Tapo Water Canyon Water Treatment Plant
12/22/2008
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 and36700; Tapo Water Canyon Water Treatment Plant
12/22/2008
Cross-reference: Time Limitations
Summary: In January 1994, the Northridge Earthquake damaged the Tapo Canyon Water Treatment Plant (TCWTP). FEMA obligated $509,087 for this project. The City did not complete the project by the approved time extension deadline. FEMA denied the Citys request for a time extension to February 2009. The Regional Administrator and Assistant Administrator sustained this determination on first and second appeal, respectively. The City subsequently stated that FEMA made factual errors in the evaluation of the second appeal and requested that FEMA reconsider the determination. Specifically, the City stated that it delayed construction of the plant solely because the Regional Water Quality Control Board had not developed limits on the quality of discharge into the streams. This is contrary to what FEMA stated in the second appeal determination. The City did not want to risk building the water treatment plant that would put the water control plant in violation of Federal and state requirements.
Issues: Did FEMA administratively err in its second appeal determination?
Findings: Yes.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.204(d)(2)