MS4 ImplementationNGO Perspective

Kirsten James, Science & Policy Director, Water Quality

Machado Lake-Trash TMDL-Nutrients TMDL

San Gabriel River- Metals TMDL

Los Cerritos Channel- Metals TMDL

• Every major water body impaired and regulated

• Over 40 regulations in effect or under development

• Fines for non-compliance(up to $37,500 per violation)

State of Surface Water Qualityin Los Angeles County

2012 LA Permit Requirements:

Permittees may “develop Watershed Management Programs to implement the requirements of [the Permit] on a watershed scale through customized strategies, control measures, and BMPs.” (2012 Permit, at VI.C.1.a.)

In a WMP, permittees must “ensure that discharges from the Permittee’s MS4 . . . do not cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water limitations” or applicable TMDL provisions. (Id. at VI.C.1.d.)

Common Concerns with Draft WMPs

1. Use of non-site specific data for watershed characterization2. Insufficient water body-pollutant classification and prioritization 3. Improper and unsubstantiated Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA)4. Overreliance on regulatory controls and non-MS4 entities5. Proposed projects lack specificity and fail to incorporate multi-benefit

solutions6. Compliance deadlines unreasonably long and extend beyond Permit

term7. Low Impact Development and Green Street requirements8. Monitoring plans insufficient to characterize runoff and identify

responsible parties

Use of Non-Site Specific Data for Watershed Characterization

• Permittees must evaluate existing water quality conditions and characterize the current stormwater and non-stormwater discharges in their watersheds (Permit at VI.C.5.a)

• Acknowledge that, in some cases, watershed characterization data may be limited

• No quantitative or qualitative adjustments for data originating from outside of watershed

Insufficient Water Body-Pollutant Classification and Prioritization

• Permittees are required to classify and prioritize pollutants in each sub-watershed (2012 Permit, at VI.C.5.a.ii.)

• Some permittees do not prioritize pollutants according to 2012 MS4 permit scheme

• In general, permittees review of available data for water body-pollutant classification and prioritization is inadequate

Improper and Unsubstantiated Reasonable Assurance Analysis

(RAA)• Insufficient justification for

assumptions about effectiveness and scale of proposed pollution reduction strategies• Lack scientific rigor or modeling• Example:

Allege that 25% irrigation reduction will result in an approximately 60% reduction in overall dry weather pollutant loading

Image:brazos.org

Improper and Unsubstantiated Reasonable Assurance Analysis

(RAA)

• Inappropriately rely on future legislation and policy changes

• Over-reliance on future adaptive management to meet permit requirements

Image:www.copper.org

Overreliance on Regulatory Controls and Non-MS4 Entities

• Reliance on, or assumption that, non-MS4 sources will eliminate cause/contribution to receiving water exceedances is improper

• Once pollution enters a permittee’s MS4 system it is the permittee’s responsibility

Compliance Deadlines Unreasonably Long and Extend Beyond Permit Term

• Failure to meet interim and ultimate compliance with RWLs in a timely manner

• Propose interim TMDL compliance milestones for TMDLs that are past due and subject to final compliance limitations

Paying for Water in CA-- PPIC Report (March 2014)

Source: PPIC

Successful WQ Funding Measures

Los Angeles– Prop O

• $500 million• Passed with 76%

Santa Monica – Measure V

• $40 million• Passed with 67%

Echo Park, City of LA Pier Improvement, City of Santa Monica

AB 2403

“Water” means any system of public improvements intended to provide for the production, storage, supply, treatment, or distribution of water from any source.

Example Projects• Produce a water supply (such as the diversion of stormwater

flow for groundwater recharge);

• Displace demand for existing water uses (such as a recycled water project that offsets demand for potable water);

• Projects and activities that protect the quality of existing water supplies (such as a stormwater quality project that prevents contamination of existing potable water sources).

Prop 218 Reform

Section 6 of Article XIII D thereof is amended to read:

(c) Voter Approval for New or Increased Fees and Charges.

Except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and stormwater and

urban runoff management, or refuse collection services, no

property related a property-related fee or charge shall not be

imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is

submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property owners

of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the option of the

agency, by a two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in the

affected area. The election shall be conducted not less than 45 days

after the public hearing. An agency may adopt procedures similar

to those for increases in assessments in the conduct of elections

under this subdivision.

Water Bond ($7.545 Billion )Protecting Rivers, Lakes, Coastal Waters and Watersheds ($1.495 Billion) • $327.5 – Multibenefit Watershed Projects by State Conservancies • $200 – Enhanced Stream Flows by Wildlife Conservation Board • $100 – Urban Creek Restoration (Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers) • $20 – Multibenefit Urban Watershed Projects by Competitive Grant • $475 – Fulfilling State Obligations in Water Settlements • $285 – Watershed Restoration Projects by Dept. of Fish & Wildlife • $87.5 – Delta Water Quality & Ecosystem Restoration

• Regional Water Security, Climate, and Drought Preparedness ($810 Million)

• $510 – Allocation to Each Hydrologic Region • $100 – Urban and Agricultural Water Conservation • $200 – Stormwater Management

Steps Forward• Encourage your City to move forward under AB 2403

• Support larger Proposition 218 Reform

• Weigh-in on Water Bond guidelines, etc.

• Think creatively• Street measures (e.g. METRO Measure X)• Public/private partnerships• City Manager’s Funding Options Report

And Remember…NGO Partnerships Can Help

Protest Hearing: March 12, 2013