Plan to Reduce Runoff in County Hits Snag

Facing seemingly unanimous opposition from city leaders and developers throughout Los Angeles County, water quality officials decided Thursday to take no immediate action on a controversial proposal that would require major development projects to prevent urban runoff from fouling ocean waters.

The Los Angeles area is believed to suffer the worst runoff problem in the country, with viruses and toxic pollutants flowing to the ocean on dry as well as rainy days.

Under the proposed requirements, all county cities would have to ensure that many new developments capture 85% of runoff in a 24-hour storm or the first three-quarters of an inch of rain. New commercial projects of more than 100,000 square feet would have to comply, as well as all new gas stations, auto repair garages, restaurants and subdivisions of 10 or more homes.

But at a hearing Thursday, at least 45 of the county’s 85 cities--including the city of Los Angeles--opposed the requirements as too costly and restrictive on development. Builders also raised vocal objections, saying the rules could make some land undevelopable.

Not a single city in the county has supported the proposal, and only environmental activists and one resident of Lakewood endorsed it at the three-hour hearing.

As a result of the backlash, Dennis Dickerson, executive officer of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, decided to delay action until December.

Environmentalists were angered by the delay, with David Beckman, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, calling it “absolutely outrageous” because controls on runoff have been debated for nine years.

Steve Fleischli of the environmental group Santa Monica BayKeeper accused the cities of “foot-dragging, avoidance and in some instances, incompetence.”

The most vocal opposition came from inland cities, but even beach communities in the South Bay lashed out, saying there is little scientific basis for choosing specific limits and no data quantifying the benefits and costs.

The board does not have to formally vote on the matter because Dickerson has the power to implement the proposal on his own. But because the issue is so contentious, Dickerson asked his board for advice. Dickerson said he is worried that if he enacts a measure, it will face legal challenges, so he will allow more review to ensure “a very solid record” of his decision.

One board member, Jack Coe, said the measure would “put a straitjacket around cities” by making every parcel of land meet the same standards. But two of the five board members voiced support for runoff standards.

“At some time, we’re all going to have to bite this bullet together,” board Chairman David Nahai said.

New development in unincorporated parts of the county already must control runoff from the first 0.75 of an inch of rain under a settlement of a suit.