Two views

An article headlined “Rainwater Rules to Soak L.A. Businesses?” in the Aug. 22 issue dealt with state proposals that may require some businesses to capture and clean rainwater before it runs off their property. This would particularly affect the many industrial properties, truck yards and the like in Los Angeles County. Here are two of the responses generated by that article.

The present and proposed regulations regarding water runoff are a mixture of good requirements, poor requirements and ridiculous requirements. It’s important for advocates and regulators to decide if they want results – less pollution in the ocean – or just want to push businesses around.

Yes, stopping pollution at the source is good. It’s far easier to stop pollution than to remediate it. It’s far cheaper to stop pollution versus trying to remove it from a large volume of water, regardless of who is paying the bill.

In regards to stopping pollution at the source, it’s ridiculous that nothing is done about all the used car oil that ends up in the storm drain. We have a state redemption program on recyclable soda cans and bottles. It would make a lot of sense to have an incentive fee for the return of used motor oil. There are hundreds of thousands of people in Los Angeles who dump used motor oil in the storm drains because there is no incentive to do otherwise and because it’s impossible to police the activity. So forget fines for individuals – put an incentive for good behavior in place. It’s not going to be perfect but doing nothing is worse.

Testing runoff water for pollution is good. Requiring every business property owner to do it themselves is silly, a recipe for failure. Many good business owners do not have the skills to do it correctly. You can require every owner to have runoff testing done by a testing organization. You can and should have regulatory oversight of the test firms to ensure quality results, correct methodology and cost-effectiveness.

It’s ridiculous that the business property owner is responsible for water than runs onto his property and then off his property. If the pollution is occurring uphill, then he has no control. Holding a landowner responsible for polluted water he cannot control may or may not be legal, but it certainly is not going to be very effective.

What about runoff from residential property? Isn’t pollution in the ocean still pollution if it comes from the property of a voter rather than a business? What would you guess is the ratio of residential to business property? If residential acreage is the majority, then how is ignoring it going to be helpful in solving this issue?

Prev

For reprint and licensing requests for this article, CLICK HERE.