Clouds Gather Over State’s Storm Water Proposal

0

A showdown is looming between developers and environmentalists in L.A. County over reducing water runoff.

The battle will be fought in hearings scheduled by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The board is preparing to craft a sweeping regulation to control the amount of storm runoff that goes into the ocean. The regulation, which could add millions of dollars to project development costs by requiring cisterns and porous surface material, is expected to be presented in draft form early next year, with adoption slated for later in 2010.

Environmental groups want the board to impose a regulation similar to one just passed in Ventura County that requires developers of significant new or redevelopment projects to capture storm water on site or allow that water to percolate into soil on site, rather than letting the water wash away toward the ocean.

But developers contend this approach is too costly because it requires new porous materials for parking lots and landscaping, or the installation of even more expensive cisterns to trap water on site for reuse.

Holly Schroeder, chief executive of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, cited estimates from the city of Simi Valley that such measures would cost more than $1 million to install for a moderate-size 70-unit residential multifamily project.

What? more, she said the Ventura County measure is too inflexible.

?t doesn? take into account variations in hydrology or the geology of a site, or the slope. It simply says that no more than 30 percent of each site can be impermeable,?Schroeder said. ?n Los Angeles, where most of the projects now are urban infill, that can be nearly impossible, which is why we don? want a similar regulation here.?p>But environmental groups say that the current methods for controlling storm water runoff aren? doing the job. Developers now can let the water pass through some filtration screens and then continue to the ocean. The screens catch larger debris, but not smaller particles.

?oo much pollution is still getting through and flowing into the ocean,?said Mark Gold, president of Heal the Bay, an environmental group focused on reducing pollution in the Santa Monica Bay. ?esides, we?e in a period of water scarcity, so we should do all we can to keep the water on site.?p>Gold noted that the Ventura County regulation allows developers to pay an in-lieu fee to the water board if they can? meet the requirements.

But Schroeder countered that reusing water on site is not as simple as it sounds.

? have members who try to collect water on site for reuse in buildings ?in toilets and for watering of plants,?she said. ?ut many times, local building and safety departments prohibit such reuse; it? very difficult and costly to try to convince those agencies to change.?p>

Greenhouse Suit

In the first lawsuit filed by industry over implementing the state? greenhouse gas reduction law, a coalition of business groups is fighting the state Air Resources Board in its efforts to levy tens of millions of dollars in fees on industries that produce greenhouse gas.

The $50 million in annual fees proposed by the state Air Resources Board are meant to fund the agency? staff time spent developing the dozens of regulations required to implement AB 32, which was signed into law in 2006. So far, the board has assigned 155 staff positions to the task and has pulled in an additional 20 people from other agencies.

The fee is scheduled for consideration at the board? meeting June 25. Under current plans, about $20 million will come from major oil companies and refineries, $16 million from natural gas producers, $5 million from diesel fuel makers, and several millions more from other industries such as cement manufacturers.

The lawsuit was filed in Sacramento on May 8 by a coalition of a dozen business and trade organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, the California Business Properties Association, the Western States Petroleum Association and the California Independent Oil Marketers Association.

The lawsuit contends that the board has failed to show adequate documentation of the expenses the agency has incurred and demands that the agency produce more extensive documentation before proceeding with its fee.

Board spokesman Stanley Young said the agency believes the lawsuit is unwarranted.

?e have provided the documentation these parties requested under the Public Records Act,?Young said.


Staff reporter Howard Fine can be reached at [email protected] or at (323) 549-5225, ext. 227.

Previous article The Week’s Big Movers
Next article State’s Unemployment Fund Short by Billions
Howard Fine
Howard Fine is a 23-year veteran of the Los Angeles Business Journal. He covers stories pertaining to healthcare, biomedicine, energy, engineering, construction, and infrastructure. He has won several awards, including Best Body of Work for a single reporter from the Alliance of Area Business Publishers and Distinguished Journalist of the Year from the Society of Professional Journalists.

No posts to display