The question I have is: what makes a notice "bogus"? It could mean at least any of the following: the URL never returned any useful content (returns a 404 or similar); the URL used to return content, but does not currently; the domain is not responding; the URL is not indexed by Google; the URL returns content, but none that contains a whiff of the copyrighted material; or other possibilities.
If the only thing "bogus" is that the URL is not indexed by Google (but does impermissibly contain copyrighted material), then this shouldn't be a problem. Google quickly scans the URL, sees that it's not indexed, and tosses the request. There should be no need for human intervention. If they wanted to, Google could even add the URL to a list of DMCAed URLs to prevent possible indexing in the future. All automated responses, very cheap to implement.
As for why copyright holders would do this, it's not difficult to see. Say you find a URL infringing your material. You don't know who indexes it. You can check Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc - but they are constantly updating their results, and it may not show up at the time you search. Especially if pirate sites appear and disappear quickly. So you send DMCA notices to every major search engine so the ones which index it stop and the ones which haven't indexed it don't pick it up later. Multiply this by 1,000 and you see why it's infeasible to verify that every takedown notice is currently active in Google's index.
If you want to talk about whether the DMCA process itself is reasonable, that's another conversation. But given the current system and the definition of "bogus" implied by the summary, this approach doesn't look unreasonable.