Home › Opinion › Opinion
Editorial: Storm water a challenge
Practical steps needed
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionStorm-water runoff isn't usually the stuff of headlines. But add a potential $400-a-year price tag for each of Ventura County's 330,000 or so households to reduce the trash and pollutants flowing through storm drains directly into our rivers, lakes and ocean and we expect people will pay attention.
For 35 years, Americans have concentrated on making our waterways and ocean cleaner through the federal 1972 Clean Water Act. The law has targeted traditional sources of pollution from factories and sewage facilities. In 1987, Congress started focusing on municipal storm-water runoff, but pollution levels at our local beaches are still too high.
Since Ventura County's storm-water permit has expired, it is the first county in California to face strict new regulations on keeping pollutants on city streets, yards and parking lots out of storm drains.
Cost estimates for some 75 new or additional proposed requirements range from a low of $60 million a year to a high of $140 million a year, with no additional government revenue to pay for them. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board's goal to make waterways healthier is laudable, but government must take practical, workable steps to achieve that aim, in cooperation with local governments. It should carefully consider the unintended consequences of unaffordable, punitive and untested new requirements.
Local government officials delivered that unified message Thursday at a meeting of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board in Ventura.
Ventura County Supervisor Kathy Long and city managers were among nearly a dozen officials who told the board, which is responsible for issuing the permit, that they are committed to reducing storm-water pollution locally and to spending a reasonable amount of money to accomplish that goal. They stated concerns about a generic permit with standards based on such high-density areas as Los Angeles and Orange counties, which don't take into consideration Ventura County's agriculture and distinct topography.
They also cited the countywide focus on reducing sources of pollution as a more cost-effective approach than pouring millions of dollars into treating the effects.
Ventura City Manager Rick Cole wrote to The Star in an e-mail that the 10 cities and county are banding together, "working hard to find cost-effective ways to move forward. This is not the typical sky is falling' response from polluters screaming they can't afford to clean up the environment. This is everyone working together to find a practical way to clean up the environment."
Since 1992, the county of Ventura, the county Watershed Protection District and the 10 county cities have worked to reduce pollutants making their way into waterways, through the award-winning Ventura Countywide Stormwater Program. Storm-water runoff costs currently run about $13.5 million countywide. A fee on property owners of less than $10 a year per household raises about $3 million of that cost.
Unless there were a large fee increase, already strapped local governments would have to pay for an enhanced storm-water program by tapping existing budgets.
We think Supervisor Kathy Long has posed important questions for the LA Regional Water Quality Control Board to answer as it considers imposing its proposed regulations:
— Are the regulations reasonable and cost-effective?
— Is there a timeline for implementation?
— Are they consistent with other environmental regulations and policies Ventura County must comply with?
The LA Regional Water Quality Control Board has until March at the earliest to take up the regulations. It would be to everyone's benefit if they take the county of Ventura up on its offer to work with it to come up with a more affordable, but still effective way to keep our waterways and beaches clean.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on September 23, 2007 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is ridiculous!
Households in Ventura County might have to pay as much as $400 dollars a year in new assessments (taxes?) to deal with storm runoff...yet Halaco got to dump wastes for 40+ years and now the taxpayers need to pay for cleaning this mess up via the "Superfund"?
Why not fine Halaco to clean up their own mess, and then fine them again to deal with storm runoff? They should pay to clean up the mess they made and then pay punitive damages to assist the community they took advantage of.
Don't come after me for $400 bucks when collectively the system (the County and citiees of Ventura) allowed Halaco to profit while being one of the largest polluters in Ventura County.
Posted by Freedom1 on September 23, 2007 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom, from what I understand Halaco is bankrupt. Nothing to go after. So the taxpayers get stuck with costs of cleanup.
But even if they had money to go after, the cost of those fines are then pushed off to the people who buy their products so in essence, we're paying those penalties anyway.
The contaminated runoff from the streets of the cities under this order are, in a large part, caused by homeowners - so why shouldn't they be responsible for the cost? My neighbors use the gutter water to put out their cigarettes and then leave the plastic butts in the water to run down the drain. I get a permit to drain my pool and follow city regulations, but my neighbors don't bother with all that. Never once in 35 years have I seen ANY neighbor on my street, other than myself, clean their gutters. But increasing water pollution standards so high that in all likelyhood they cannot be met and incur large fines is what the Water Quality Control Board does. Then they take the money and use it to run their "business," not actually improve water quality.
Posted by charlenejoy on September 23, 2007 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We live in a desert climate. Why do we have storm runoff? What about solving the problem by capturing rain water before it becomes runoff. The most efficient way to store rain is in the ground.Pave with permeable surfaces. Implement roof catchment systems. Download the 56 page report, "rain water as a resource" on the website treepeople.org Andy Lipkis has done the foot work in urban Los Angeles.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on September 23, 2007 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Freedom1, I understand what you are saying...and substantially agree. My problem is the a truly defineable polluter escapes the law, then pulls up stakes and moves on...leaving you and me with the clean-up cost.
Don't get me wrong, the extra $400 bucks won't break me, but it irks me that the corporate personal entities behind Halaco get off scot free.
It's that the rest of us, the public are frankly easier it assess for the financial corrective actions needed, than it is for corporate entities like Halaco, folks who frankly, knew that they were doing wrong and used legal chicanery to avoid accountability.
Posted by pgavin on September 23, 2007 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is Ventura the "testing" ground for the mess that is LA? We should NOT be governed by the LA board, I think most of the "Board Members" have little to no experience and/or backgrounds with water quality other then guy who was a farmer and the guy from Long Beach (http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/html/b...). These are the people making the decisions for Ventura County, some of the board members didn't even show up to the meeting last Thursday, really nice, a slap to the face of Ventura County residents.
Posted by mollymunz on September 25, 2007 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Booohooo an extra $400/YEAR - that is less than what you probably pay for cable TV. You should be paying MUCH MUCH more for water than you do now... the CVP and SWP are highly subsidized. The whole LA-SD metro is a what shouldn't have been; but is.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.