Laserfiche WebLink
Current Problem Facing California’s Cities <br />The Little Hoover Commission found in 2009 that more than 30,000 stormwater discharges are subject to <br />permits regulating large and small cities, counties, construction sites and industry. The Commission found <br />that a diverse group of water users – the military, small and large businesses, home builders and local <br />governments and more – face enormous costs as they try and control and limit stormwater pollution. The <br />Commission concluded that the costs of stormwater clean up are enormous and that the costs of stormwater <br />pollution are greater as beach closures impact the state’s economy and environmental damage threatens to <br />impair wildlife. <br /> <br />Additionally, new programs and projects to improve water quality are currently being required by the U.S. <br />EPA and the State under the NPDES permits and the TMDL programs. Many local governments find that <br />they lack the basic infrastructure to capture, infiltrate and reuse stormwater and the cities are facing difficult <br />economic challenges while Federal and State financial assistance has been reduced due to the impacts of the <br />recession and slow economic recovery. <br /> <br />Cities have seen their costs with the new NPDES permit requirements triple in size in the past year, with <br />additional costs anticipated in future years. Additionally, many local businesses have grown increasingly <br />concerned about the costs of retrofitting their properties to meet stormwater and runoff requirements <br />required under the NPDES permits and TMDL programs. <br /> <br />In Los Angeles County alone, reports commissioned by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District <br />estimate the costs of achieving region-wide compliance for implementing TMDL programs in the NPDES <br />permits required by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) will be in the <br />tens of billions of dollars over the next twenty years. Additionally, failure to comply with the LARWQCB’s <br />terms could result in significant Clean Water Act fines, state fines and federal penalties anywhere from <br />$3,000- $37,500 per day. Violations can also result in third-party litigation. Such costs are not confined to <br />Los Angeles County and are being realized statewide. <br /> <br />Clearly, compliance with the NPDES permit and TMDL programs will be expensive for local governments <br />over a long period of time and cities lack a stable, long-term, dedicated local funding source to address this <br />need. Many cities are faced with the choice of either cutting existing services or finding new sources of <br />revenue to fund the NPDES and TMDL programs. <br /> <br />Los Angeles County Division Resolution <br />The Division supports strong League education and advocacy at both the State and Federal levels to help <br />cities face the challenges in providing programs to capture, infiltrate and reuse stormwater and urban runoff. <br />While Los Angeles County cities and other regions seek to secure local funding sources to meet the Clean <br />Water Act and the State’s water objectives, it will simply not be enough to meet the enormous costs of <br />compliance. The Los Angeles County Division strongly believes that State and Federal cooperation are <br />necessary to fund programs to secure and reuse stormwater in order to improve water supply and reliability <br />throughout the state. <br /> <br />The Division calls for the League to engage in discussions on 2014 State Water Bond to assist cities in <br />funding and implementing the goals of the Clean Water Act and the State’s Water objectives. This <br />resolution does not support the 2014 bond issue, since the League and individual cities will need to make <br />this decision at a later time upon review of the final language. However, the Governor and Legislature have <br />reopened discussions for the 2014 water bond and funding of urban runoff and stormwater programs has <br />taken a back seat in past bond issues, such as Proposition 84. In May, Assembly Speaker John Perez <br />appointed a Water Bond Working Group which recently outlined a new set of Priorities and Accountability <br />Measures for developing a water bond that would gain the support of 2/3 of the Legislature and voters. One <br />of the priorities identified by the committee included, “Regional Self Reliance/Integrated Regional Water <br />8