Water Officials OK Plan to Clean Up Coastline

In a pivotal moment for the long-range effort to clean up the Los Angeles County coastline, state water officials on Monday approved a plan for reducing the toxic soup of pesticides, grease, oils and organic waste that spills from storm drains into Santa Monica and San Pedro bays.

The three-year blueprint requires everything from the periodic washing of grease and oil from many parking lots to educating thousands of restaurateurs, manufacturers and other business people about how they can avoid releasing pollution into storm drains.

Environmentalists supported the action as the best hope for reducing the largest source of pollution along the county’s 70 miles of coastline. But many city officials said the 76-page plan will cost too much and produce little improvement in the quality of ocean water.

The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board unanimously approved the plan after a contentious daylong hearing. Environmentalists said they had compromised enough in 18 months of negotiations, while representatives of more than two dozen cities said they needed more time to embrace the plan.

“What I’m happy to hear is that everybody is unhappy a little bit,” said board member Beth Rogers. “That shows me that the process has worked and everybody has had their concerns heard a little bit.”

Gail Ruderman Feuer, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the action “an exciting day for the protection of the bay,” but added:

“It’s just the first step. The message has now gone out to the cities. Now, hopefully, they will do their part to tell businesses, industry and individuals to do the best they can to clean storm drains. And, hopefully, that will mean very soon that we will have cleaner water to swim in.”

Los Angeles County and 85 of its cities were required to adopt such a plan, known as a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, under the federal Clean Water Act.

Most cities in urban areas throughout the country must adopt such plans. Reaching a consensus in Los Angeles County has been particularly difficult because of the large number of cities and other groups involved in the negotiations.

The plan requires the cities and Los Angeles County to:

* Visit thousands of businesses to educate owners about storm water regulations and the penalties (typically for misdemeanors) for illegally dumping into storm drains. Such visits would occur at manufacturing plants every five years, and at gas stations and restaurants twice in five years.

* Launch a public education campaign about the dangers of dumping into storm drains.

* Require periodic sweeping to remove oil, grease and debris from parking lots of 25 spaces or more.

* Approximately double the sampling of storm drain pollution by the county, which will also begin a survey to see which of the measures are working the best.

*

The rules replace a skeletal set of regulations approved by water officials in 1990. Environmentalists have said they have the will and the ability to back up such rules with legal action--having already won several court battles forcing compliance.

Many cities called the costs of the program an onerous “unfunded mandate” that should not be imposed until the state and federal governments disburse money to get the job done. Long Beach said its $35-million deficit will be expanded by the $3.5-million first-year expense of implementing the plan. A coalition of 26 San Gabriel Valley cities estimated they will have to spend $8 to $12 per resident, or about $10 million a year.

“It shifts state responsibility to us without any compensation,” said Glendale City Engineer Desi Alvarez, in a typical complaint. “It’s unfair to do that.”

Many of the city officials said they would be forced to impose a fee for the services and that such a charge could be difficult to levy, particularly with the specter of a November ballot measure that would require voter approval of such tax increases. “We can’t just arbitrarily say we are going to raise your taxes. That will no longer fly,” said Redondo Beach City Councilwoman Marilyn White.

Many of the city officials also complained that they had not been consulted sufficiently about the rules and questioned their scientific underpinnings.

The requirements “are not based on any sound scientific evidence that applies to the receiving waters for the city of Long Beach,” said Ray Holland, speaking for that city. “Most of what we have heard is about Santa Monica Bay. Long Beach does not drain into Santa Monica Bay.”

But proponents of the plan secured a broad base of supporters--environmental groups such as Heal the Bay, cities such as Los Angeles, Malibu and Santa Monica and businesses such as Southern California Gas Co., Carl’s Jr. restaurants and developer Maguire Thomas Partners. Those supporters caught the attention of Gov. Pete Wilson’s appointees on the regional water board.

Many of the backers said that the cleanup plan had become a scapegoat for local governments tired of enduring burdensome state and federal regulation. Cities presented “hugely overblown” cost estimates by including existing programs such as trash recycling and street sweeping that already are a part of municipal budgets, said Mark Gold, executive director of Heal the Bay.

Backers said the costs of telling businesses about storm water regulations can be substantially reduced if the chore is handled by fire, health and public works inspectors who already visit most establishments regularly.

Gold and others cited scientific data confirming a connection between storm drain pollution and damage to both marine and human life. A health study released this spring said a significant number of swimmers were getting sick from swimming near drain outlets.

*

Several business representatives urged opponents to consider the hidden costs of not approving a bay cleanup plan.

“People call our Chamber of Commerce all the time to ask about water conditions,” said John Perenchio, a principal in one of the largest development companies in Malibu. “If people don’t come to visit our beaches, it ends up having a negative ripple effect for businesses throughout the county. This really ends up being a pro-business permit.”

Approval of the plan means the preservation, for the time being, of a fragile coalition of business people, environmentalists and bureaucrats who came together eight years ago to draw a plan for the cleanup of Santa Monica Bay. A centerpiece of the $8-million project known as the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project was the call for a storm-water management plan like the one approved Monday.

The proposal was revised at least four times, with several cities complaining that their concerns were not being met, and some environmentalists saying they could not give any more.

Among the provisions weakened or eliminated during the negotiations were:

* A requirement that most businesses be inspected for illicit hookups or dumping into storm drains. Instead, the facilities will merely receive “educational site visits.”

* A prohibition on spray cleaning sidewalks and driveways.

* A demand that cities oversee compliance at 20,000 industrial sites. Now, the factories are left largely to their own devices.

* Calls for monthly cleaning of parking lots. Cleaning now is required only “as needed.”

Because of the changes, environmentalists said they must take an even larger role in educating the public and checking to make sure businesses are in compliance. Currently, only 3,000 of the 20,000 manufacturing businesses in the county have storm water permits on file with state officials, Gold said.

State Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), a longtime proponent of Santa Monica Bay cleanup efforts, told the water officials the plan had been so watered down that he hesitated to support it. But he said its public education requirements made him come out grudgingly in favor.