This is a site mirroring the emails of California Water News emailed by the California Department of Water Resources

[Water_news] 4. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: WATERQUALITY-10/22/08

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

October 22, 2008

 

4. Water Quality –

 

Santa Cruz's Measure E widely eyed as possible water-pollution funding strategy

San Jose Mercury News – 10/21/08

Kurtis Alexander - Sentinel Staff Writer


SANTA CRUZ -- Santa Cruz's stormwater tax on the Nov. 4 ballot is drawing interest well beyond city limits.

 

Policymakers across the county, and likely elsewhere, are watching to see if the proposed parcel tax, known as Measure E, proves to be a successful way of raising the cash needed to keep pollution from washing from streets and subdivisions into the bay.

 

Like Santa Cruz, cities and counties up and down the coast face a quickly approaching deadline to finalize their strategies for controlling stormwater runoff. In all of these areas, though, money remains an obstacle to creating a workable plan, or at least one the state will approve.

 

"Our financing of this is not clear at this point," said county Supervisor Neal Coonerty, who is working this week to submit a joint stormwater plan for Santa Cruz County and the city of Capitola. "We're going to take a closer look at how Measure E does in the city of Santa Cruz. That's one of several possibilities for us."

Stormwater runoff, which carries oil, pesticides and other wastes from developed areas into local waterways, can be limited by any number of measures, from upgrading storm drains to public education. But some can be quite expensive.

 

The county, as well as Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville, have until Friday to report their stormwater plans to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Although financial details are not part of the report, county leaders are wary of overcommitting to costly pollution controls.

 

"Considering that we're looking at a number of years of reduced funding, we're sitting here and looking at what other programs we can cut to make this happen," Coonerty said. "Honestly, I don't think this should be put off, but the state should pay for it. It's a huge financial burden for the local jurisdictions."

 

For several months, county leaders have gone back and forth with state officials over what is required of them. A letter sent last month from the water board identified 81 deficiencies with plans the county had submitted earlier this year.

 

While most of the problems can be easily corrected, like providing more information, some require time and effort, like committing to increased street cleaning and greater pollution monitoring.

 

John Ricker, the county's water resources director,said the revised plan the county will submit this week likely will address most of the state's concerns. But he says there are some things the county can't do, for example, monitor runoff from new development to the degree the water board is requiring.

 

"My sense is they will want us to do much more than we can," he said.

 

The water board's pressure comes as environmental regulators, with the mandate of the federal Clean Water Act, shift their attention from individual industrial sites to larger urban areas. With factories and sewage plants already controlled for pollution, regulators are now scrutinizing the more general runoff problem.

As much as a quarter of all water pollution is thought to come from stormwater.

 

State officials concede that controlling runoff will not be cheap but say it can prevent more expensive cleanup in the long run.

 

"There's a significant cost associated with not having a solid stormwater water runoff program," said Phil Hammer, an environmental scientist with the water board's Central Coast division.

 

The county is uncertain exactly how much its final stormwater plan will cost to implement, but some cities are already speculating on a price tag.

The city of Santa Cruz hopes to bring in $700,000 annually for pollution controls with Measure E, which would levy a tax of $28 per residential parcel and $94 per commercial parcel.

 

Scotts Valley would likely need, on top of additional costs for water testing, a full-time employee to execute its stormwater plan, according to Public Works Director Ken Anderson,

 

"But we don't have many extra employees to spare. None actually," Anderson said.

 

Hammer, with the water board, says the state has been providing local governments extra time to develop cost-effective strategies for addressing stormwater, but can only give so much.

 

"We'd like to see it a happen sooner rather than later," he said.

 

The water board hopes to have the local plans available for public review and completed by March of next year.

Pleasure Point attorney and avid body surfer Mike Guth, who said he has seen his share of dirty runoff and subsequent beach closures, agrees that something needs to be done.

 

"It hasn't been the most aggressively managed issue in the past four years," he said. "Let's hope that changes."

The county Board of Supervisors will consider its stormwater management plan at its regularly scheduled meeting at 9 a.m. today at 701 Ocean St.#

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_10774285?IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-www.santacruzsentinel.com

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DWR's California Water News is distributed to California Department of Water Resources management and staff, for information purposes, by the DWR Public Affairs Office. For reader's services, including new subscriptions, temporary cancellations and address changes, please use the online page: http://listhost2.water.ca.gov/mailman/listinfo/water_news. DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs. Inclusion of materials is not to be construed as an endorsement of any programs, projects, or viewpoints by the Department or the State of California.

 

 

No comments:

Blog Archive