|
EL MONTE INFORMATION |
|
Serving the Community
Local News City Employees Help the Community
Local Events Rep. Judy Chu Operation Gobble
Businesses
Sav-on Fuel
Maps
|
|
Protect Local Vital Services
Ruling will be devastating to Southern California Cities
Effort to improve beach water quality could cost Valley cities millions of dollars By Rebecca Kimitch Staff Writer Posted: 07/05/2010 05:48:18 PM PDT
A federal requirement to remove harmful bacteria from the Los Angeles River and the beaches it drains to could cost San Gabriel Valley cities more than $1.3 billion over the next 25 years. Regional water quality officials will decide Friday how cities will be required to prevent bacteria that stems from dog feces, portable bathrooms and other sources from making its way from their streets, lawns and sidewalks to the waters of Long Beach. Depending on what they decide, the fixes could cost cash-strapped cities across inland Los Angeles County millions of dollars every year, averaging nearly 10 percent of their budgets, according to Ray Tahir, an environmental consultant and lobbyist working on behalf of some of the affected cities. "Nearly every city in the San Gabriel Valley will be hit," Tahir said. Environmentalists say the fixes are necessary to keep dangerous fecal indicator bacteria, such as E. coli, from traveling from city storm drains down the Los Angeles River to Long Beach, where it ends up in the mouths and bodies of swimmers. "Studies have shown that massive amounts of people are getting sick by swimming in polluted water. The bottom line is, we need cleaner water," said Kirsten James, director of water quality for the environmental organization Heal the Bay. Studies have found swimming in fecal-contaminated water can cause respiratory diseases, skin rashes, and ear and eye infections. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board will decide at a hearing in Glendale Friday morning the total maximum daily load (TMDL) for bacteria in the Los Angeles River. TMDLs establish the maximum amount of a pollutant, like bacteria, that is allowed in a body of water to comply with federal water quality laws, and set a schedule by which that water quality must be achieved. Because city stormwater discharges are responsible for some of that bacteria, depending on the standards and schedule set, cities could be forced to build expensive treatment plants to remove bacteria from stormwater before it is discharged, or find ways to use infiltration ponds to naturally filter the water, according to Tahir. Such endeavors would have an estimated annual price tag in the millions of dollars for many valley cities, ranging from $1.9 million in Pico Rivera to $3.2 million in Monterey Park to 7.3 million in Pasadena, for the next 25 years. And some cities said they simply cannot comply. "If you ask El Monte right now, it's impossible to comply," said Rene Bobadilla, city manager of El Monte, which faces an estimated $3 million annual cost. "We'll have to deal with the lawsuits if they come. Otherwise we'll go insolvent." The expense would be more than the small foothill city of Bradbury could bear, and could force it to unincorporate, according to city analyst Jeremiah Petsas. With a population of barely 1,000, and a total annual budget of $750,000, the estimated annual compliance cost of $1.5 million would be overwhelming, Petsas said. Local city officials are therefore urging the regional water board to give them five years before they have to comply with the TMDL in order to find ways to reduce the sources of fecal bacteria before it gets into stormwater. But cities have had decades to come up with such best management practices, as they are known, and failed to do so, according to Adan Ortega, of Water Conservation Partners, who is trying to find a compromise solution for cities and environmentalists. That negligence partially prompted the TMDL requirement, he said. Still, Ortega said best management practices could go a long way to improving water quality, whereas immediately establishing a tough TMDL that is unrealistic for cities to comply with may only result in excuses by cities, lawsuits by environmental organizations and continued poor water quality. He suggests requiring improved manufacturing standards for portable toilets, and establishing public information campaigns to convince pet owners to clean up their pets' waste. Under the current proposal being considered by the regional board, cities would have to meet a schedule of bacteria reduction standards over the next 25 years. And while cities object to that proposal, Heal the Bay doesn't support it either. "We feel like 25 years to get clean water is ridiculous," James said. "Sure, it is a large watershed with many sources, but for the folks in Long Beach who are swimming in polluted waters, we can't wait 25 years." While building expensive treatment plants is one way to remove bacteria, James said cities can find other, less expensive ways to comply with the TMDL. And, cities can find other funding sources, such as federal grants, rather than relying exclusively on their own coffers to fund the fixes, she said. "I think there are creative solutions that are more cost effective. Yes, it is going to cost money, but water quality is a critical component of our way of life in L.A.," James said. But officials from inland cities said they are unfairly being burdened with the high cost of improving that coastal water quality, while reaping none of the benefit. At the same time, paying for such cleanup will threaten their own communities' recreational opportunities, they said, since parks and recreation programs are often the first cut when city finances are strained. "This will absolutely put those programs at risk, and that is no exaggeration," Tahir said. Ortega said if coastal communities are serious about improving beach water quality, they should use their political power to bring state and federal funding inland - something they haven't done in the past. Otherwise, the fight over water quality will only result in more lawsuits and little remedy, he said. "For me it's double talk to position yourself to get all this money, but then never lobby to get money to upstream communities. Until that happens, we are not going to see collaboration in this watershed," he said.
State officials approve costly water quality requirements over objections of broke cities By Rebecca Kimitch, Staff Writer Posted: 07/09/2010 08:23:54 PM PDT
A state water agency approved a set of tough new environmental regulations for the Los Angeles River on Friday that cities say could cost them billions. The water quality standards, approved unanimously by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, are designed to prevent E.coli and other bacteria stemming from pet and human feces from traveling down city storm drains into the river and ocean. The standards are necessary to comply with the federal Clean Water Act. While environmentalists championed the decision as a step to changing the polluted face of the Los Angeles River, cities complained that compliance could force them into bankruptcy or worse. During a daylong hearing Friday, city officials stood before the board and told them of the economic strain the requirements would put on their cities. One study estimated it will cost cities a total of $5.4 billion to remove bacteria from their storm water, equating to millions of dollars every year for each city. "It will have a crippling effect on our city's ability to provide services," Rosemead Councilman Steven Ly told the board. All cities whose storm drains lead to the Los Angeles River or one of its tributaries will be effected, from Pasadena to Pico Rivera. Runoff from many of those cities ends up in the Rio Hondo River, which joins the Los Angeles River in South Gate. It is also fed by the Arroyo Seco, which runs through Pasadena and joins the Los Angeles River near Dodger Stadium. City officials pleaded for the board to allow them to implement the best management practices to reduce the sources of bacteria, such as pet waste and portable toilets, before it gets into storm water, or to keep polluted storm water from draining into the river. Board members said their decision allows them to do just that. The water quality standards, known as a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for bacteria, sets strict limits on how much bacteria a city can allow to enter the river and sets a schedule for the gradual removal of bacteria over the next 25 years. But it does not tell cities how to meet those limits. Cities will have approximately 10 years to come up with plans to show how they will reduce bacteria from their storm water discharges. Eliminating bacteria doesn't necessarily mean building expensive storm water diversion systems to treat the water. Cities can instead decrease the amount of polluted water that gets into storm drains in the first place by building grass swales, installing water permeable pavement, and generally greening their cities to improve storm water infiltration into the groundwater, water officials said. "As cities go about their normal business over the next decade, they'll realize there are things they can do that don't cost anything additional," said Alexis Strauss, Region 9 water director for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "We're not saying that by midnight tonight you must remove all bacteria." Mark Gold, president of Heal the Bay, said the 25-year TMDL timetable was too generous. "I am not saying this is cheap ... but clearly your staff has given more than a generation of time. I will be lucky to be alive by the time this is complete," he said. Several board members, including board chairwoman Mary Ann Lutz, the mayor of Monrovia, said they approved the new standards reluctantly. "These cities do not have this money. It needs to be said point blank, be it $5 billion, be it $500 billion, be it $5 million. They don't have it," Lutz said. "These cities have been laying off staff, closing programs." "I truly don't know how they are going to be able to do this. ... However, should we not approve the TMDL, it is a worse scenario," Lutz continued. Board members said if they declined to act, the EPA would have stepped in and required similar standards immediately, rather than over 25 years, a threat confirmed by EPA officials. Board members also asked for the EPA's help in providing grants to help cities clean up their storm water discharges. "I wish I were the person that could draw the check from the EPA to do this for all of you," board member Madelyn Glickfeld told the audience of city officials. "I am committed to working with the chair and the state board. The Los Angeles River hasn't gotten its fair share. ... We're not saying the burden is entirely on you." The TMDL must still be approved by the state Water Resources Control Board and the EPA.
|