[Water_news] 4. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS -WATER QUALITY- 5/05/09

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

May 5, 2009

 

4. Water Quality –

 

Opinion: Higher fees to clean storm-water runoff are necessary

The Los Angeles Times

 

County failed to enforce mining laws, state says

The Ventura County-Star

 

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

 

 

Opinion: Higher fees to clean storm-water runoff are necessary

The Los Angeles Times – 5/5/09

By Mark Gold

 

Mark Gold is president of Heal the Bay, a Santa Monica-based environmental organization.

 

Last week, the city of Los Angeles decided to postpone asking voters to pay higher fees to clean storm-water runoff. Given the economy -- and the recent failure of Measure B, a solar energy initiative -- the decision to not rush the vote was probably wise. But we can't put off raising fees forever.

Five years ago, Los Angeles voters passed Proposition 0, which allotted $500 million in bond money to improve water quality in the county. When these projects are completed, major sources of pollution will have been eliminated and the L.A. River, Santa Monica Bay and local watersheds will be far cleaner.

 

But Proposition 0 wasn't a panacea. It left some serious water-quality problems that need to be addressed. And it put in place systems that will have to be maintained. That can't be done on the current assessment of $23 a household each year for storm-water pollution cleanup.

L.A. is at a crucial place in its environmental history. The city has long been in violation of federal summer beach bacteria regulations. And we are coming up against regulatory deadlines for cleaning up winter beach bacteria, as well as nutrients and pesticides in Machado and Echo Park lakes and toxic metals in the L.A. River and Ballona Creek.

The good news is that, two weeks ago, the Board of Public Works approved an L.A. water-quality plan that moves us in the right direction -- if we come up with a way to pay for it.

 

The mayor's initial plan was to send out a mail-in ballot to all homeowners in the city asking them to approve fee hikes that would raise the annual water-quality assessment from $23 to $99 by 2014. That plan was scrapped after the City Council decided the move was too abrupt. The council cited the defeat of Measure B in March as evidence that voters needed to be educated on an issue before they would agree to spend money -- even on an environmental measure they supported in principle.

Fair enough. So let's start the education.

We've come a long way in cleaning up Southland water. The beaches are safer for swimmers in summer. Santa Monica Bay no longer has a dead zone, and locally caught fish no longer have tumors. These major environmental successes were because of improvements in sewage treatment plants; now we need to be as rigorous in reducing storm-water pollution.

But the current storm-water assessment of $23 a household -- a fee that has not been raised in 16 years -- is just not enough to clean up and maintain our long-neglected rivers, lakes and beaches.

The proposed $76 fee hike would be phased in over five years. Despite the sizable increase, the $99 annual household fee would still be far less than those paid by residents of Santa Monica, Sacramento and other cities.

The Jarvis anti-tax folks are already squawking about the idea -- although their point that the measure shouldn't be rushed through without public comment is a good one.

But now that the ballot measure has been slowed down for public education and comment, I would challenge those who say we shouldn't raise fees to explain how we can attain the high standards needed to protect the environment and public health -- and required by law -- without additional funding.

In the end, the city will have to decide whether to put the measure to voters as a fee hike, in which case a simple majority of homeowners would have to support it, or as a ballot measure that would require the approval of two-thirds of the voters citywide. Whichever approach is chosen, it will need to be carefully explained that the funds will be used exclusively to protect public health and the environment.

As they did to overhaul the faulty Hyperion Sewage Treatment Plant, voters need to dig deep and provide the resources to clean up local waters. These funds will create and maintain for the long haul a green infrastructure that will cut pollution, augment local groundwater supplies, reduce flood risk and improve the quality of life for millions of residents.

Without a steady stream of funding, the public health of swimmers and surfers will remain at risk and the aquatic environment will remain degraded. Violations of water-quality requirements will continue to grow along with the city's liability under the federal Clean Water Act.

Passing a fee increase is always difficult, but enacting an increase in this dire economy leaves no margin for error. Given the missteps on Measure B, strong leadership and communication from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council are essential to reach the mayor's goal of making L.A. the cleanest, greenest major city in America.#

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-gold5-2009may05,0,5219830.story

 

County failed to enforce mining laws, state says

The Ventura County-Star – 5/5/09

By Zeke Barlow

 

After the county of Ventura failed to adequately enforce laws governing mines, the state stepped in last week and issued a violation against Tom Staben and his Camarillo quarry, Pacific Rock.

 

The state Department of Conservation had issued the county a 15-day notice in September requiring it to serve Staben with a cease-and-desist order for mining outside his permitted boundaries. It took the county six months to issue the order, but the results did not satisfy the state, which oversees local governments’ enforcement at mines.

 

“Clearly the law was not being enforced, at least as quickly as we wanted,” said Don Drysdale, spokesman for the Department of Conservation.

 

Kim Rodriguez, planning director for the county, said the state is merely bringing its tools to help solve the issue of the only mine in the county’s history issued a cease-and-desist order.

 

“The state is stepping in to assist,” she said. “We are both working cooperatively to bring him into compliance.”

 

Staben has done millions of dollars in jobs for the county, moving dirt and debris, but has a long history of running afoul of environmental regulations. Staben, 55, declined to comment for this story. At various meetings and in letters to the county, he has said his mine is not in violation and submitted reclamation plans that he said addressed the issue. But the county deemed the plans inadequate.

 

Staben claims the boundaries were expanded before he bought the mine in 2000, and therefore he isn’t responsible. However, the county has said once he bought the mine, he owned the problems, regardless of who created them.

 

Rodriguez said how serious Staben’s alleged violations are remains to be seen, but the length of time it has taken to fix the issue is unique. The county has tried without success to get Staben to remedy this issue since May 2007, when a survey showed his mine went beyond its boundaries in the original reclamation plan.

 

In June 2007, a letter to the county from 1028 Investors, which owns the property next to Pacific Rock, said Staben’s quarry was eating away its property. The quarry expanded onto 1028 Investors’ land, resulting in a “hazardous sheer cliff” that “has created an extremely dangerous condition,” the letter said.

 

The following month, the county issued Staben a notice of violation for going outside the mining boundaries and for not having a reclamation plan addressing how to repair the area after the mining was complete.

 

In February 2008, the county issued him an order to comply that would not take effect until a formal hearing was held. Staben’s representatives changed the date of the hearing numerous times until it was held the following month — and Staben did not appear. Although he submitted multiple documents to defend himself, the county said they never adequately addressed the issue.

 

The state intervened in September 2008 and told the county it had 15 days to bring Staben into compliance.

A cease-and-desist order was drawn up but never sent because the county did not know if the entire mine or only the parts in violation needed to be shut down, Rodriguez said.

 

“The county had never issued a cease-and-desist order before and it’s not a simple matter,” she said.

 

The county issued administrative penalties of $1,000 a day against Staben in September, which he appealed.

 

Though the county did issue an order to stop mining in the area of violation in March 2009, it wasn’t enough for the state.

“Ultimately they weren’t moving forward at a pace we wanted,” Drysdale said.

 

The state is demanding that Staben submit a reclamation plan on how the site will be rehabilitated once the mining is complete. But if the allegation that he has cut away at a neighbor’s property and created a cliff proves true, it won’t be easy, Drysdale said.

 

“He’s kind of short on options,” he said.

 

The state also wants Staben to provide $400,000 in initial financial assurance by May 11 that guarantees the mine can be reclaimed if needed. The new reclamation plan is due by May 29 and a new financial assurance amount will be based upon that plan.

 

If those terms are not met, the state can impose fines up to $5,000 a day starting with the original violation date, July 17, 2007.

 

Meanwhile, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board is still working on a violation at the mine for not having adequate stormwater prevention plans. Another violation was fixed after a second notice was issued, said Stephen Cain, a spokesman for the agency.

 

A separate violation against Staben and his Somis property is being handled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It claims Staben dumped dirt into Calleguas Creek after the 2005 floods to reclaim his property — a violation of the Clean Water Act. A neighbor who was named in the violation for a similar action agreed in January to pay a $75,000 fine. The case against Staben is ongoing.

 

An investigation by The Star found some of the dirt dumped into the creek came from a county contract project where Staben was paid $4.2 million dollars to remove it from a debris basin.#

 

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/may/05/ventura-county-failed-to-enforce-mining-laws/

 

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

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.