The most serious stormwater-discharge vioation in Amador County history earned a massive state fine for a Colfax developer.

Floods of mud dumped into shallow Jackson Creek last winter after pouring down steep slopes at the Pine Grove Bluffs commercial and residential development site on State Route 88. Developer Del Rapini of Colfax said he would contest a $154,500 fine levied by the state Regional Water Quality Control Board. Only a single other stormwater violation has ever earned a fine in Amador County, in the amount of $10,000, said Wendy Wyels, environmental project manager for the water-quality board.

Mud from the Pine Grove Bluffs site hit and easily crossed the paved surface of the highway and slid into the creekbed, which parallels the road only a few yards away. Tests by state personnel in February revealed that Jackson Creek below the site was running with up to 30 times more mud in it than it was running above the site.

"Turbidity measurements were taken at the western discharge location from the construction site and upstream in Jackson Creek on 17, 22, and 23 February 2009," a water-quality board document states. "Turbidity measurements taken at the discharge location were 979, 520, and 384 (turbidity units), respectively. Turbidity measurements taken at Jackson Creek upstream of the construction site were 30, 18 and 30 units, respectively."

Sediments deposited from the mud had the ability to harm aquatic habitat areas, the state found.

Rapini said that in a single five-day period, 24 inches of rain fell at the site. He said he and his attorney have arranged a meeting with state officials to discuss the fine.

"Usually, you get 31 inches all year," Rapini said.

Rapini and state officials agree that the downpour "overwhelmed" the runoff-management devices the developer installed. What is at issue is whether anything less than genuinely effective stormwater-management practices count as following the law. The state contends they don't.

"At a minimum, the discharger-operator must implement an effective combination of erosion and sediment control on all disturbed areas during the rainy season," a clause in the general discharge permit to Rapini states.

Rapini said he probably would agree to pay some fine amount.

"If they want to be reasonable, I'll be reasonable," he said.

Two state criteria in setting fine amounts are likely to count against Rapini in the matter. They are a previous history of permit violation and what the state is calling an uncooperative stance by the developer.

Rapini received a state notice of violation in 2008 for the Cerise Estates construction project in Placer County.

Wyels said officials had visited the Pine Grove Bluffs site repeatedly and never agreed Rapini's runoff-prevention measures were adequate. Instead, they found "very minimal" and "poorly installed and maintained" sediment-control practices, a situation that was gradually improved but never fixed as the visits continued, an agency report states.

"The discharger was friendly but not cooperative with the Central Valley Water Board staff or Amador County staff regarding onsite storm management issues," an agency report states. "Towards the end of the wet season, the discharger appeared to understand the gravity of the situation and became more cooperative."

The water-quality board estimates Rapini avoided expenses of $21,000 in taking the approach he took to runoff-prevention.

His fine is considerably larger than that amount, which equals the minimum fine amount the board imposes on stormwater discharge permit holders. The maximum penalty is $1.49 million, Wyels said.