Home › Opinion › Opinion
Storm-water permit will break the bank
Meetings
— The Fillmore City Council is holding a special workshop on the storm-water permit Monday at 7 p.m. at the Memorial Building, 211 Second St., Fillmore.
— The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board is also holding a special workshop on the draft permit Thursday in the Ventura County Board of Supervisors meeting room, 800 S. Victoria Ave., Ventura, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. All interested stakeholders should attend this meeting and express their views.
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board is about to issue a storm-water permit to the cities in Ventura County that is going to hit us like an out-of-control train. Out of control because the permit will increase the annual cost of storm-water treatment from about $50 to $900 per home. This will affect every home and business in Ventura County.
The storm-water permit should adhere to the Federal Clean Water Act, which includes methods of tackling storm-water pollution: Best Management Practices and a concept of Maximum Extent Practicable. BMPs include good housekeeping practices and installed treatment devices. The MEP concept was introduced because, even when you correctly use BMPs, they don't consistently remove pollutants. This is because weather and rain events are highly variable and affect the performance of treatment devices.
So, instead of following the Clean Water Act, the board is proposing Municipal Action Levels (numeric limits), not applicable to Ventura County, to limit the concentrations of pollutants coming out the end of storm drains. Even though BMPs cannot consistently remove all of these pollutants, cities must meet those concentrations 80 percent of the time or face mandatory minimum penalties of $3,000 per exceedence.
Cities will have two years to implement BMPs for cleaning their storm water. After that, cities will be fined by the state. No excuses, no waivers. You violate, you pay, per Senate Bill 709, signed into law by former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. For the city of Fillmore, this could mean $231,000 per day and bankruptcy.
To try to comply with the board's new approach to controlling storm-water treatment, Fillmore would have to convert at least 22 miles of the public parkway in residential neighborhoods to bioretention areas ($18 million); install storm-water treatment wetlands at the end of storm drains ($14 million); and require each existing home and business to retrofit and install onsite storm-water treatment ($3,000 per home — total, $12 million; $5,000 to $100,000 per business — total, $10 million). The city installations and maintenance would cost residents $900 per year or $75 per month. This would be in addition to their cost to install and maintain their own onsite storm-water treatment devices.
The Ventura County cities would be the first in the state and first in the nation to have to meet numeric limits and retrofit existing communities with storm-water treatment. In 2007, the State Water Quality Control Board convened a blue-ribbon panel of scientists, engineers and academic experts to consider the numeric-limit approach the board is proposing. This panel determined: "It is not feasible at this time to set enforceable numeric effluent criteria for municipal BMPs and in particular urban discharges."
The Los Angeles board has chosen to ignore the conclusions of the state board blue-ribbon panel and Environmental Protection Agency standard practice in the federal Clean Water Act and is insisting upon placing this unrealistic approach and excessive limits in the permit.
To add insult to injury, cities currently do not have any access to or methods for raising the funds to implement the desire of the board. So, there is a Grand Canyon of a divide between the requirements of the draft permit and our ability to implement them.
The cost to retrofit the existing community is so great that the Fillmore City Council is asking the board to remove these requirements from the draft Ventura County permit and consider them at a statewide level. If the state decides existing communities should be retrofitted with storm-water treatment, then the state should establish a financial mechanism to implement it.
— Bert J. Rapp, P.E., is the public works director for the city of Fillmore.




Posted by chair on July 6, 2008 at 1:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A possibly cheaper alternative (long term): Remove all permanent structures within three miles of the coastline. Reinstall all the wetlands that were put there by Nature, left alone by the Chumash, but destroyed by greedy Westerners. As pavement gets replaced, use porous paving materials. Mandate use of only natural cleaning and other materials. Ban use of plastic bags, bottles and other containers: Require all packing materials to be biodegradeable. Last, but not least, remove regulatory power from all boards, commissions, etc. Require they submit their suggestions to the appropriate legislators for enactment. Power must rest with our elected leaders, not with their appointees.
Posted by WaterSource on July 6, 2008 at 5:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Numeric limits....or the solution to pollution is dilution.... which means add fresh water.
Viable water solutions are difficult to formulate. CA has been offered a truly new fresh water Source of 325,900,000,000 gallons per year (one million acre feet). CA has a strange attitude. CA would rather DIE (Deny, Ignore & Evade). Investigation to verify that development of the Source will not damage the environment or the water rights of others seems prudent considering CA's water dilemmas.
Attitude is everything....Ray Walker (Retired Water Rights Analyst) waterrdw@yahoo.com Development of the Source is legally available and economically feasible.
(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.