Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
September 17, 2007
4. Water Quality
WASTEWATER PLANT:
Sewage project's deadline is upheld; Pollution problem must be fixed within 1 year - San Diego Union Tribune
SEWAGE ISSUES:
Editorial: Perrier, it isn't; Aguirre toilet-to-tap plan doubles sewage bills -
FLUORIDATION:
In the pipeline; Fluoridation is coming to San Diego County - San Diego Union Tribune
Water districts to dilute fluoride - North County Times
STORM WATER RUNOFF:
Planned new storm-water restrictions cost millions -
Guest Opinion: Stricter regulations needed for real change - Ventura County Star
Guest Opinion: Untested new requirements too expensive -
Guest Opinion: I want clean water — what does that cost? -
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD:
Water agency lack of board members forces meeting cancellation - North County Times
AG ISSUES:
Water softener ban may be going before voters; Farmers claim chlorides damage strawberry crops
IDAHO-MARYLAND MINE:
Grass Valley Seeking Public Input for EIR on Proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine in Grass Valley; Deadline for public comment is Oct 8; Public meeting on Sept. 20 - YubaNet.com
WASTEWATER PLANT:
Sewage project's deadline is upheld; Pollution problem must be fixed within 1 year
By Mike Lee, staff writer
During a hearing in
Yet everyone involved in the case agreed that Moskowitz's deadline won't be met, and it's unclear when a solution would be finalized. The judge has scheduled a hearing for January to assess the commission's progress.
“You are offering me nothing but pipe dreams,” Moskowitz told the commission's leaders and lawyer. “To give you an extension, all that would do is say to everybody there is not a problem. . . . (Fixes) won't happen unless this comes to a point where this is an emergency.”
Moskowitz also said he might order a shutdown of the San Ysidro plant if not enough has been accomplished in a year. The facility was built in the late 1990s to treat about 25 million gallons a day of sewage flowing from
“The government cannot continue to violate the law,” Moskowitz said. “If nothing happens within the next year, I think we have to come to grips that nothing is likely to happen in the foreseeable future.”
His ruling was welcomed by water-quality officials, who sued the commission in 2001 over the sewage problem.
“It keeps the pressure on,” said Carol Squire, an attorney for the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Moskowitz did not settle the question of whether the commission should enhance the San Ysidro plant or build a new one in
Debates about the right remedy have pitted surfers against surfers, politicians against politicians and agencies against agencies. In the past few weeks, the parties involved in the court case have filed documents accusing one another of lies, delays, legal blunders, shortsightedness and incompetence.
One conservation group already has threatened another lawsuit if the boundary commission decides to expand its plant in San Ysidro without significant environmental reviews.
Congress will wade into the controversy in the coming weeks as it works on the nation's 2008 budget.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she supports putting $66 million toward the San Ysidro facility next year – enough to get the roughly $100 million retrofitting project well under way. Her position is important because she sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, which is negotiating next year's budget with the House.
“I believe it presents the best opportunity for dealing with
“At this point, there are simply too many unresolved questions about the Bajagua proposal,” she said. “We simply cannot afford to wait any longer on the assumption that the Bajagua plan will work out.”
Bajagua officials have said their plant would treat at least 59 million gallons of wastewater a day. They would initially finance the construction costs, but
Bajagua's preconstruction process in
During the court hearing, a Bajagua lawyer asked Moskowitz to force the commission to officially reactivate the company's project. The judge refused, but he told the commission's leaders that they must do everything possible to end their violations.
Afterward, commission leader Carlos Marin would not say whether he will reopen work on Bajagua. “We are just going to have to . . . strategize on what our next move is,” he said. #
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070915/news_1m15bajagua.html
SEWAGE ISSUES:
Editorial: Perrier, it isn't; Aguirre toilet-to-tap plan doubles sewage bills
Should San Diegans pay a staggering $4.5 billion for the privilege of drinking treated sewage water from their faucets?
City Attorney Mike Aguirre believes they should. What's more, he hopes to persuade federal regulators to require
Exactly how expensive would it be? City wastewater engineers calculate Aguirre's scheme would drive up the typical household sewage bill, which today is about $38 per month, to a whopping 102.50 per month, or $1,230 per year.
Under a series of rate hikes already adopted by the City Council, the typical monthly sewage bill is set to rise to $50.62 cents by 2012. Aguirre's toilet-to-tap proposal would more than double this figure.
And this is only the sewage portion of your monthly bill. It does not include your water bill, which also is rising dramatically. If Aguirre has his way, typical homeowners would pay a combined sewage-water bill of $160.77 per month, or $1,929.24 per year – double what they now pay.
With this huge outlay by ratepayers, sewage from the Point Loma treatment plant would be processed to higher levels than currently and pumped through a new network of pipelines many miles uphill and deposited directly in city reservoirs. Then it would be treated yet again before flowing to your faucet.
Aguirre says
We're counting on Mayor Jerry Sanders, who is adamantly opposed to Aguirre's toilet-to-tap plan, to save us from it. #
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070915/news_lz1ed15top.html
FLUORIDATION:
In the pipeline; Fluoridation is coming to San Diego County
By Anne Krueger, staff writer
Like it or not, thousands of county residents will soon be drinking fluoridated water.
Beginning Nov. 5, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
That means faucets around the county will flow with water containing an odorless, tasteless additive some consider an effective way to prevent tooth decay, but others deplore as an unnecessary government intrusion and possible health risk.
Although 67 percent of Americans now receive fluoridated water, Californians – and
Whether you'll be on tap in November depends on where you live. Some residents will receive fully fluoridated water, some will remain fluoride-free, and for others the amount will fluctuate.
At
“People have told me, 'There's no way I'm going to drink fluoridated water.' Others say, 'It's about time,' ” said board president Chuck Muse.
Fluoridation of public water systems has been controversial since 1945, when
More than 8,000 communities in the
Less than a third of Californians drink fluoridated water, the sixth-lowest rate in the nation, after
Supporters say the science showing fluoridation's benefits in reducing tooth decay is solid, but some opponents blame the chemical for causing cancer, Alzheimer's disease and kidney damage.
Opposition has sometimes been stoked by conspiracy theories, from accusations of a communist plot in the 1950s to more recent claims of a scheme by space aliens to control humans' minds.
“There are a certain number of people who are just resistant to putting anything in the water, regardless of what that is,” said Wynne Grossman, executive director of the Oakland-based Dental Health Foundation.
In mailings about fluoridation, local water agencies are assuring customers that the chemical is beneficial for them, their children and even their pets, and won't harm the fish in their aquarium.
“It's going to be a huge change for the better,” said Eleanor Nadler, executive director of the San Diego Fluoridation Coalition, which is funded by the San Diego County Dental Society Foundation. “We can look forward within a few years to improved dental health for everybody.”
But Jeff Green, the San Diego-based national director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, which relies on private donations, said fluorosilicic acid, the chemical used to fluoridate the water, is not properly tested and contains cancer-causing elements.
“The general public is not aware that this is not the same substance that's found in toothpaste,” Green said.
Toothpaste with fluoride contains sodium fluoride, which some small water systems use for their fluoridation. Larger systems use fluorosilicic acid because it's a liquid and is easier to handle than sodium fluoride, a powder.
Push for fluoridation
A 1995 state law, signed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson, requires public water systems with 10,000 or more connections to fluoridate their drinking water if the money becomes available to pay for the equipment and ongoing operating costs.
Three years ago, the City of
Escondido Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler said she became convinced that fluoridation was a simple and inexpensive way to improve health.
“I heard so much overwhelming experience from local dentists who treat children and said fluoride would make a difference,” she said.
The Metropolitan Water District provides both treated and untreated water from the Colorado River and Northern California to
The County Water Authority has put together a map showing where fluoridation will occur. But as recently as last week, the agency was revising it because of new construction and changes in how the water will be delivered, said Gary Eaton, director of operations for the County Water Authority.
“We're still uncertain where it's going to go ultimately because of the size of our system,” said Jim Fisher, deputy director of
The question of who will and will not receive fluoridated water presents a predicament for dentists, who prescribe supplements for children needing additional fluoride because of inadequate dental hygiene or poor nutrition.
Although dentists stress the importance of fluoride to prevent tooth decay, consuming too much can cause dental fluorosis, a mottling or staining of the teeth, in young children whose teeth are still forming.
The American Dental Association recommends that fluoride-free water be used for infants under a year old who are drinking formula. The occasional use of fluoridated water for formula will not discolor teeth, the
Local dentists are being advised not to prescribe fluoride supplements to young patients for a year while officials test water around the county to determine fluoride levels, said Dr. Lester Machado, president-elect of the San Diego County Dental Society.
Machado said he hopes fluoridation can be expanded to other parts of the county, particularly low-income areas.
“The kids who need it the most are the kids who don't have access to other dental care,” he said.
Pros and cons
Proponents of fluoridation, including the American Dental Association and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, say it's one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.
The
Dr. David Kennedy, a retired
“Do you think it's appropriate for a government to put a chemical in the water that causes disproportionate harm?” he asked.
Green, leader of the anti-fluoride group, said fluorosilicic acid, the chemical used to fluoridate water, has not been tested to determine its long-term effects. The chemical contains arsenic and lead, which could lead to lung or bladder cancer, he said.
Fluorosilicic acid “is a contaminated product,” Green said.
Mark Umphries, director of water quality for Helix, said the substance contains minute amounts of arsenic and lead, but meets rigorous federal safety standards. “It's perfectly safe,” he said.
After
Green has sent letters to every city and water district in
Process brings wariness
Although the Escondido City Council voted for fluoridation, Helix was pushed into adding the treatment because of the state law requiring larger water districts to fluoridate if the funding is offered. Helix was placed at the top of a statewide priority list because its cost per customer was the lowest.
The
Mark Weston, Helix's general manager, said the board will decide after a year whether to continue. “We are doing this because we are complying with the law,” he said.
Bob Cook, general manager of the Lakeside Water District, said fluoridation is unwelcome there. The district board passed a resolution opposing the process in 1995, and he says he's not looking forward to having fluoridated water. The district will have a blend of treated water from Metropolitan and its own wells.
“I can say this with all certainty,” Cook said: “People aren't going to like it.”
The Metropolitan Water District, which serves 2.5 million people in six
Advocates of fluoridation, such as Nadler, hope bringing the treatment to
Now city officials said
Roberts is proposing that the county's First 5 Commission, which he chairs, spend $5 million to fully fluoridate the cities of
“I've seen what happens when kids don't get the treatment,” he said. “It makes a huge difference.” #
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070916-9999-1n16fluoride.html
Water districts to dilute fluoride
By Chris Bagley, staff writer
Most water agencies in
Metropolitan Water District, which distributes hundreds of millions of gallons each day to about 18 million customers in the southern half of the state, plans to begin in early October to add fluoride compounds, which most dental-health advocates say help to prevent tooth decay but which critics say are toxic and harmful over time.
Most naturally occurring groundwater contains up to 0.3 parts of fluoride per 1 million, and the American Dental Association recommends that public drinking water contain fluoride at two to three times that level.
According to the American Water Works Association, a consortium of utilities, the water used by about two-thirds of Americans contains added fluoride. "Fluoride" refers to a group of compounds containing the element fluorine. Fluoridated drinking water typically contains a compound of fluorine, hydrogen and silicon.
Critics, particularly in western states, have argued that excess fluoride can build up in the brain, possibly contributing to Alzheimer's disease. One frequently cited study found that fluoridated water was associated with elevated levels of bone cancer among men who were born in areas served by fluoridated water, though most doctors say it is safe if measured and delivered properly.
Eastern Municipal Water District, which serves
The district said several of its customers had written in to protest its plans to use fluoridated water. Southwest County's other three large agencies said complaints had been minimal.
Those three agencies have little alternative to accepting Metropolitan's new supply. None plan to add more fluoride but none plan to filter out Metropolitan's newly added fluoride, either. Water agencies that serve Temecula and
Eastern extracts its own groundwater and buys both treated and "raw" ---- untreated and unfluoridated ---- water from Metropolitan that is drawn from the aquifer supplied by Northern California's snowmelt and from the Colorado River. Eastern already treats the raw water at two separate plants, where the new equipment will add fluoride to the same level as the fluoridated water from Metropolitan, spokeswoman Betty Gibbel said.
Eastern plans for its entire drinking water supply to contain about 0.7 parts fluoride per 1 million, the standard that Metropolitan uses.
Western Municipal Water District and Rancho California Water District have no plans to add fluoride. Those agencies buy from Metropolitan and mix it with their own treated water before sending it on to customers. As a result, customers from
Officials with the Rancho California district, which serves households in Temecula and southern Murrieta, and large agricultural customers in Wine Country and De Luz, don't plan to add fluoride, either.
"It's a controversial subject," district spokeswoman Meggan Reed said.
Adding fluoride remains a vague possibility for Western, which serves a sliver of northern and western Murrieta, spokeswoman Tedi Jackson said.
Like Eastern and Rancho
A spokesman for the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District said critics have focused on a handful of cases from districts that fluoridated their water far beyond the recommended range of 0.7 to 0.8 parts per 1 million.
Spokesman Greg Morrison said the district buys about 55 percent of its water from Western. That water's fluoride content will be diluted further when it's mixed with local groundwater, which won't be additionally fluoridated. The district serves residents of
"With the dilution factor, it's pretty much a nonissue," spokesman Greg Morrison said. #
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/09/16/news/californian/0_05_439_16_07.txt
STORM WATER RUNOFF:
Planned new storm-water restrictions cost millions
By Kevin Clerici and John Krist, staff writers
Tough new regulations intended to keep trash, bacteria and other pollutants out of local waters could cost Ventura County communities as much as $140 million a year, according to a preliminary estimate by the county Watershed Protection District.
That's more than $400 for each of the county's approximately 330,000 households.
The figure is the high end of a range of cost estimates developed by engineers and analysts trying to gauge the implications of a groundbreaking set of storm-water regulations proposed for
The low-end estimate is $60 million. The wide range reflects the deep uncertainty associated with the new rules, which represent a significant departure from the way untreated runoff from city streets, yards, parking lots, housing tracts and businesses has been regulated in the past.
The rules, for the first time, would establish strict limits on the quantity of pollutants allowed into lakes, rivers and the ocean and levy steep fines against those who don't comply.
Local officials say they have few options for recovering any drastic increase in compliance costs. The county and cities collectively spend about $13.5 million a year on storm-water programs now. Part of that is offset by a countywide fee levied on property owners, which raises about $3 million a year, or less than $10 a year per household on average.
'At what cost?'
Increasing that fee would require voter approval, and local officials believe it would be difficult to persuade residents to dig deeper into their pocketbooks. Previous surveys have found that public support for such an increase drops below 50 percent when the fee exceeds $20 per household per year, said Jeff Pratt, director of the Watershed Protection District. "We know we need to do more," Pratt said, "but how, and at what cost?"
State Sens. Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, and Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, introduced a constitutional amendment this year that would allow public agencies to increase fees for urban runoff management without voter approval, adding it to a list of exempted charges that includes sewer, water and trash fees. However, the bill, SCA12, barely made it out of committee. Even if approved by the Legislature and governor, it would have to be submitted to a statewide vote.
Absent voter approval of a big fee increase, cash-strapped local governments would have to tap existing budgets for emergency response, public works, law enforcement, recreation and other services to come up with the money for a heightened storm-water program.
That prospect is sufficiently alarming that all 10
"This is a tsunami," Pratt said.
The problem
Rain falling on streets, sidewalks, roofs and other impermeable surfaces that cover most of the land in urban areas runs off quickly. As it does, it picks up pet waste, fluids dripping from automobiles, household chemicals, lawn fertilizer, garden pesticides, and a flotilla of cigarette butts, fast-food wrappers, beverage containers, disposable diapers, plastic shopping bags and other trash.
In semi-rural suburban neighborhoods, manure from horses, chickens and other barnyard animals joins the mix. The noxious soup makes its way into local waterways and ultimately winds up in the ocean, where it threatens the health of swimmers and surfers and can damage aquatic ecosystems.
The volume of storm water, and the amount of contamination, is greatest during wet winter months. But the public-health threat is greatest in summer, when beach use soars. Even in dry weather, contaminants reach the ocean on a trickle of runoff from landscaping irrigation, pool and spa drainage, driveway car washing, sidewalk cleaning and other sources.
According to a research paper published last year in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, contaminated water at beaches in
Beach closures or warnings related to high bacteria levels also can have a direct economic effect in other ways. According to the UC Santa Barbara Economic Forecast Project, visitors from out of the area spend more than $1.1 billion in
Urban storm runoff was among the last major sources of contamination to be regulated in the
Only recently have federal water-quality regulators begun grappling with the much more difficult issue of controlling pollution from diffuse sources such as farm fields and urban storm drains, which typically do not feed into sewage plants.
"The old process is simply not working," said Kirsten James, a staff scientist at Heal the Bay, a Santa Monica-based environmental group. "Runoff is the biggest source of pollution to our waterways."
The new permit
This has meant adopting such strategies as constructing barriers to keep mud from flowing off construction sites, sweeping streets frequently, covering waste and chemical containers, constructing detention basins to capture debris in drainage systems, and installing filters or landscaped basins to capture and decontaminate runoff in new parking lots and new urban developments.
The persistence of pollution in the waters off
Agree in principle
In comments submitted to the regional board, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups argued that even the stepped-up enforcement specified by the draft permit does not go far enough.
The new permit, which is expected to be adopted early next year, goes much further than the old one. It would require increased monitoring of storm-drain outfalls and natural waterways. It would require cities to install screens on storm-drain inlets in commercial and industrial areas, as well as near schools, to trap trash before it enters the system. It would set numeric limits on the allowable amount of bacteria, heavy metals, nutrients and, in some watersheds, pesticides. Violations of those limits could lead to fines of up to $27,500 a day.
The permit also would require cities to adopt new land-use regulations. Nearly all new construction — as well as redevelopment of most existing urban lots — would have to incorporate design and landscaping strategies to prevent virtually all runoff from leaving the property during storms.
The public works managers responsible for compliance generally agree in principle with the goals of the new regulations. It's the details that concern them.
Specific evidence
"Can we do better? Sure," said Vicki Musgrove,
The proposed reductions, however, might not be immediately achievable, she said, at least not at a cost commensurate with the benefits.
"I do not think it's feasible right now," she said.
Michael Levy, senior staff counsel for the regional water board, said cost and feasibility issues are frequently raised during the permit process for municipal discharges, and the board considers them.
"Unfortunately, those who have raised these claims in the past have rarely submitted specific evidence that actually demonstrates the requirements are infeasible or cost-prohibitive," Levy said in an e-mail, adding the water board can help local agencies find grants or loans for storm-water improvements.
Compliance challenges
Planners and representatives of the building industry suggest the permit's strict requirements to reduce runoff from even small redevelopment projects might conflict with smart-growth strategies, which encourage high-density projects on existing urban lots.
Many of the design-related techniques specified by the regional board — such as setting aside areas to be planted with water-filtering vegetation — would be difficult to accomplish on small lots almost entirely covered by structures, they say.
"The conditions (in the permit) are so onerous it's going to severely limit redevelopment," said Mark Watkins,
The focus on "end-of-pipe" limits for specific pollutants also makes cities responsible for pollutants that might originate outside their boundaries on farmland or rangeland, city officials say. It also might force them to consider extremely costly treatment facilities at coastal locations, rather than attacking the problems at the source higher in the watershed.
Ventura, for example, recently installed a pair of gates to shunt dry-weather flows in two storm drains — both leading to popular beaches and surf spots — into the city's wastewater plant for treatment.
The wastewater plant would be overwhelmed by high storm flows, so the gates must be left open in winter and provide only a partial solution to the year-round contamination problem. Still, the city spent $1 million to install gates on just those two drains, Musgrove said, and there are 24 more just like them.
"We know it's going to cost us money," Musgrove said. "We just want to make sure we're spending it in a way that really improves water quality."
If you go
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board will host a workshop on the proposed new
What is storm-water pollution?
Storm water is rainwater that becomes polluted, often from multiple, diverse land uses. Sources of storm-water pollution include driveways, streets, parking lots, lawns, construction sites, agricultural fields, failing sewer systems, and illicit discharges such as the dumping of waste motor oil. Pollutants found in storm-water runoff include heavy metals, oil, grease, sediment, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, bacteria, and trash. When it rains, these pollutants — without treatment — are washed through streets and storm drains directly into rivers and the ocean.
What is a storm-water permit?
The Clean Water Act is a
How are cities permitted?
Since 1992, the 10 cities in
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/sep/16/planned-new-storm-water-restrictions-cost/
Guest Opinion: Stricter regulations needed for real change
By Paul Jenkin, environmental director of the Surfrider Foundation, Ventura County Chapter, and coordinator of the Matilija Coalition
I spoke to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors at its Tuesday study session to discuss implications from future storm-water and total maximum daily load requirements in
I spoke on behalf of the approximately 1,000 Surfrider Foundation members in the county and all the other thousands of residents and visitors who use our county's beaches.
Since 1991, our members have participated in volunteer programs such as the Blue Water Task Force, Stream Team and storm-drain stenciling. This participation is largely because many people get sick every year from surfing or swimming at our county's beaches and we want clean water now!
Recent reports from the Joint Oceans Commission resulted in the formation of the California Ocean Plan, West Coast Governors Agreement and other initiatives that have all identified urban runoff as a significant threat to the health of our nation's oceans. There is agreement that a new approach is required to solve this problem, with recommendations to implement what is now known as Ecosystem Based Management.
The root cause of urban runoff is traditional urban infrastructure. Our society has implemented a conveyance approach to flood control, resulting in impervious urban areas and "hydromodification" of our watersheds. Storm water that is redirected into concrete channels no longer filters through the soil and vegetation to recharge aquifers. And despite all the money spent on flood control, flooding problems in some of the cities in
Meanwhile, all of these concrete channels deliver the byproducts of our urban lifestyle directly to the rivers and beaches, severely impacting the health of our valuable coastal ecosystem.
I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the resistance to regulation that I am hearing. The countywide storm-water permit has been around for more than a decade, but nothing has changed. Indeed, the pace of poorly planned urbanization has increased during this period, and the problem continues to get worse. Environmental groups like the Surfrider Foundation may comment on individual projects through the California Environmental Quality Act, but this process does not adequately account for cumulative impacts of increased urbanization. Stricter regulation is clearly required in order to change this "business as usual" attitude.
It is clear that major changes are needed in the way we plan our communities. Regional planning is desperately needed on a watershed basis, rather than the current piecemeal permitting of development. Moreover, a major retrofit to the existing storm-water infrastructure is required in order to implement reverse hydromodification. The solution lies in integration and a new trend known as green infrastructure.
Many cities around the country are planning and implementing this approach, which integrates flood control with water supply, parks, bikeways and more. This is a necessary response to climate change, as we may experience longer droughts and greater flooding in the future. Greening our community has the added benefit of making cities more walkable and bikable, while the added green space absorbs carbon emissions.
With a proactive approach to this problem, the Surfrider Foundation is launching a new program called
But to complete the process at a watershed scale, it will take the cooperation and support of local government and developers to change the design of our urban landscape. Unfortunately, until now, the voluntary approach has not worked, and it will take stricter regulations such as this new storm-water permit to force real change. For more information, go to www.surfrider.org/ofg. #
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/sep/16/stricter-regulations-needed-for-real-change/
Guest Opinion: Untested new requirements too expensive
By Brian Brennan, Ventura Councilman, former mayor of Ventura and past president of the Surfrider Foundation, an environmental group advocating clean beaches and oceans
A dry winter, drought conditions along the
As an elected official and environmental activist, I've always been concerned with how our communities affect our watershed. That's why I'm proud of the integrated approach that all 10 of our cities and the county have established through the leadership of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District. Together, we've addressed this complex challenge.
We're now at a critical juncture. The next permit with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board could turn out to be a national model for environmental stewardship — or it could be a colossal boondoggle, costing homeowners hundreds of dollars a year in added taxes and fees.
Storm water is rainwater that becomes polluted as it flows over driveways, streets, parking lots, lawns, construction sites and agricultural fields. Pollutants found in storm-water runoff include heavy metals, oil, grease, sediment, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, bacteria and trash. When it rains, these pollutants are washed through our streets and storm drains directly into rivers and the ocean — without treatment.
The federal Clean Water Act regulates pollutants in our nation's lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and coastal areas. Early efforts to reduce water pollution focused on traditional "point sources" like industry and waste-treatment facilities. In 1987, Congress added municipal storm water. Now, cities must abide by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements. These are administered locally through permits governing how local communities deal with pollution that can't be traced to a specific "point."
Since 1992, the 10 cities, the Ventura County Watershed Protection District and the
So far, that all sounds good. Besides, isn't it the duty of government to safeguard the environment? As with all complex issues, the devil is in the details.
In December, the LA Regional Water Quality Control Board released a proposed new draft permit that may be the most stringent in the entire nation. There are approximately 75 new or additional requirements. While strongly supporting the goal of cleaner water, local cities fear the proposed requirements are potentially counterproductive — not to mention prohibitively expensive.
For example, the first draft required installation of special trash screens in thousands of storm drains. Not only would this cost millions — a storm could quickly jam the drains with captured trash, flooding nearby streets and properties, defeating the very purpose of storm drains. Some cities might simply seal off the drains rather than face the costs and hazards of complying with the new permit.
The most onerous new requirement concerns something being called Municipal Action Limits. Failure to meet these limits could lead to fines of up to $27,500 a day for each violation. An estimated 80 percent of our local storm drains will fail to meet the proposed limits because they are based on national averages of communities with much higher annual rainfall.
With so many pollutant sources in our neighborhoods and surrounding farmlands, it may be impossible to meet these levels without building expensive treatment facilities. The total cost of complying with the new permit requirements is anticipated to range from a high of $130 million to a low of $20 million. That translates to more than $400 per household for full compliance.
Talk about sticker shock.
Currently, there's only one funding mechanism in place to cover storm-water costs in
Clean water is priceless. But imposing untested new requirements at the cost of millions of dollars won't ensure cleaner water — and might actually backfire. The Ventura Countywide Stormwater Program, the Building Industry of America, the California Association of Stormwater Quality Agencies,
Everyone in
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/sep/16/untested-new-requirements-too-expensive/
Guest Opinion: I want clean water — what does that cost?
By Kathy I. Long, of
Thirsty? Turn on the tap for good, clean water. The Clean Water Act is important legislation that was put into place to protect one of our most vital natural resources — water. Each of us understands that protecting and improving water quality is essential to public health, agriculture, economic development and our quality of life. Over the years, the Clean Water Act has made great strides toward doing just that. Most recently, there has been particular attention to the regulation of storm-water runoff in an effort to safeguard our lakes, rivers and oceans.
Since 1992, the 10 cities, the Ventura County Watershed Protection District and the
In December, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board proposed a set of regulations through a draft permit that may be the strictest in the nation, with approximately 75 new and very prescriptive requirements. As far as we know it's the first in the nation to require that storm-water runoff meet pollutant end-of-pipe numeric limits. It has extensive new requirements for new and redevelopment construction projects and the installation of trash screens at storm drain inlets in all commercial and industrial areas of the county.
We need to promote water-quality protection that is more effective and efficient, but we must ask ourselves three key questions before adopting any new regulations: Are the regulations reasonable and cost-effective? Is there a practical timeline for implementation? Are they consistent with other environmental regulations and policies
Without considering and answering these three questions, resources, attention and funding will be unnecessarily diverted from current programs to costly treatment technologies that may not work.
As noted above, the draft permit would set narrow limits on what can be discharged from storm drains, ignoring the fundamental nature of precipitation patterns in
There is no doubt whatever requirements are finally adopted, the net result will be significant increased costs to county residents and business. A storm-water program resulting from implementation of these requirements may not result in achieving the water-quality improvements residents seek. There are other solutions that could work better, with greater results, at reduced costs. A "one-size-fits-all" regulation doesn't!
The Regional Water Quality Control Board's public workshop Thursday on the storm-water permit will be your opportunity to voice your concerns on this issue. So, today, when you reach for that glass of water — ask yourself, what is it worth to you? #
http://search2.venturacountystar.com/
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD:
Water agency lack of board members forces meeting cancellation
By Gig Conaughton, staff writer
The shortage of board members shows no sign of letting up. The terms of two more San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board members are set to expire at the end of the month; Governor Schwarzenegger's office said they have no idea when they'll appoint new members; and a state senator says the entire control board system is broken.
The board enforces water quality laws from
In July, control board managers said they'd been three members short of their full nine-member capacity for six months, and had been short at least one board member for more than a year.
Executive Director John Robertus said then that agency was already unable to vote on a number of items, including a proposed new stormwater pollution regulation for
Those conflicts of interest meant board members had to excuse themselves from voting on the issues, leaving the board without enough board members to hold a legal vote.
On Friday, control board spokesman Mike McCann said the same problem led the board to cancel the agency's September 12 meeting.
Environmental groups have said that the governor's inability to keep up with appointing new board members has caused delays in taking pollution actions that have hurt the public.
Each of the nine regional control boards has nine board members appointed by the governor to four year terms. They represent different interests, from government to industry to agriculture to water quality. The San Diego-Riverside board votes on roughly 50 enforcement actions and pollution discharge permits a year.
"It does delay the decision-making process," McCann said of the shortage of board members. "The major actions are taken by the board on permits and enforcement. It does have an effect."
Gena Grebitus, a spokeswoman for the governor's office, said Friday that "the governor's office is working as quickly as it can to find the best candidates to fill the vacancies."
Steve Rukeyser, spokesman for the State Water Resources Control Board -- the Sacramento-based parent of the nine regional boards -- said it had heard the governor was working on filling two of the three open positions in San Diego-Riverside.
Some leaders say changes are needed in the water law enforcement system.
State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, has said the control-board system is failing to enforce pollution laws and has spearheaded legislation calling for changes. The bill, which has been passed by the Legislature and is waiting for Schwarzenegger's signature, would cut the number of board appointees from nine to seven.
McCann, meanwhile, said Friday that he expects the board will hold its scheduled October 10 meeting, even though the terms of two more board members, Daniel Johnson and Eric Anderson, expire September 30.
McCann said Schwarzenegger could extend Johnson's and
However, Rukeyser said he did not know if the
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/09/17/news/sandiego/18_45_239_16_07.txt
AG ISSUES:
Water softener ban may be going before voters; Farmers claim chlorides damage strawberry crops
By Patricia Farrell Aidem, staff writer
SANTA CLARITA - Water softeners working away in Santa Clarita garages are threatening strawberry fields some 40 miles away, where the crops draw well water from a riverbed running from the suburbs through the farmland.
And it could be up to local voters to decide what to do.
A ballot measure that would outlaw most softeners in the Santa Clarita Valley is a possibility for a 2008 ballot. If it doesn't pass, residents could face a hefty property tax hike - as much as $400 a year - to finance a $350 million desalination system, said Paul Martyn, head of the industrial waste section for the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.
"Since only one in 11 households has a water softener, I can guess which way that vote would go," Martyn said.
The board of the district governing the Santa Clarita Valley is looking at putting the measure on the local ballot in June or November 2008, Martyn said. If approved, the ban would take effect in 2009.
The problem involves chlorides, or salts, in the Santa Clarita Valley's treated wastewater, which come primarily from the kind of softeners that process bags of salt to neutralize harsh minerals in the water. The residue remains after the sewage is treated and pumped from two wastewater plants into the
Farmers there say the salt in the water they pump from the riverbed for irrigation damages delicate crops such as strawberries and avocados.
For several years they've seen "tip burn," a condition where the tips of leaves turn brown because of high levels of chloride in the water, said Rex Laird, chief executive officer of the Farm Bureau of Ventura County, a nonprofit trade group with 1,700 members.
Under the state's Clean Water Act, which prohibits upstream users from degrading water used downstream for "beneficial purposes" such as agriculture,
Upstream water treatment plants face a 2013 deadline to cut chlorides to 100 milligrams per liter. So far they've achieved 130 mpl to 140 mpl, but the numbers plateaued and the main culprit is water softeners.
"We're not looking to be punitive about this," Laird said. "All we're asking is that everyone play by the same set of rules and that set of rules is the Clean Water Act."
For five years, the county district and the city of
In March 2003, the city banned new salt-processing water softeners. Rebate programs followed, including one now that offers residents "reasonable value" up to $2,000 and free removal and disposal of their softeners.
Last week, one of the larger suppliers, Rayne Water Corp., agreed to remove, by the end of 2008, nearly 600 automatic water softeners rented to Santa Clarita Valley residents.
Martyn said he's hoping a similar deal will be cut with other companies, including Culligan.
http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_6913281?IADID=Search-www.dailynews.com-www.dailynews.com
IDAHO-MARYLAND MINE:
YubaNet.com
By Tom Last, City of
The City of Grass Valley is preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above project. We invite scoping comments on which issues should be addressed in the EIR. An Initial Study has been prepared which identifies the following potentially significant impacts proposed to be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, soils, seismicity, and mineral resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems.
In addition, the EIR would analyze alternatives that may include but would not be limited to: No Project, Reduced Project, and Site Reconfiguration.
Description of the Proposed Project
The Idaho-Maryland Mining Corporation (IMMC) proposes to reopen the historic Idaho-Maryland Mine and develop precious and industrial mineral deposits into gold and high quality stone ceramic products. The Idaho-Maryland Mine project comprises three properties that encompass a total of 138 acres of land within the City of Grass Valley (City) and unincorporated
These properties include the: (1) Idaho-Maryland site (101 acres); (2)
Public Comments and Public Scoping Meeting
The public is invited to help identify the scope of issues that the City should address in the Draft EIR. These public comments should be received no later than October 8, 2007. A scoping meeting will be held on Thursday, September 20, 2007 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the
The purpose of the scoping meeting is to identify issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIR. The public will also later have the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR once it has been completed.
Written comments regarding the scope of the EIR should be sent to:
Tom Last, Planning Director
c/o Environmental Science Associates
Fax: (415) 896-0332
E-mail: idahomaryland@esassoc.com
Availability of Initial Study. Copies of the Initial Study are available for public review at City Hall, and the libraries listed below, or online. Copies of the Initial Study may be requested by telephone at
(858) 638-0917 or by e-mail at idahomaryland@esassoc.com. The public may also wish to refer to the June 2006 Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), which is available for public review online at the above website and at the City of Grass Valley Planning Department. The MEA is also included on a CD located inside the back cover of the Initial Study.
Project Information Repositories:
(530) 274-4330
(530) 273-4117
(530) 265-7050
REMINDER: Comments will be accepted by fax, e-mail, or postmark through October 8, 2007. Please be sure to include your name, address, and telephone number in your correspondence.
Editor's Note: All Idaho-Maryland mine news coverage by YubaNet.com from
2005 to the present is archived at:
http://www.yubanet.com/specialreport.shtml
####
No comments:
Post a Comment