HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12032002 - C31 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: MAURICE M. SHIU, CHIEF ENGINEER, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 20012
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD'S (SFBRWQCB)PROPOSER AMENDMENT TO CONTRA.COSTA COUNTY'S
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)PERMIT
I. Recommended Action:
ACCEPT the following report from the Chief Engineer of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District on
the proposed amendment to Contra Costa County's NPDES permit and APPROVE the attached comments on
the proposed amendment for submittal to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's public
hearing on the consideration of our permit amendment.
IL Financial Impact:
The proposed amendment to Contra Costa County's NPDES permit will have a significant financial impact on
the County. These permit requirements were first required in Southern California in the last two years and
communities have been trying to estimate what the costs will be. Earlier this year the City of San Diego
estimated that the cost to comply with their new permit requirements for the first five years would be$27 million
the first year, $55 million the second year, and about$50 million for each of the next three years. The City of
Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE —OTHER
SIGNATURE(SI:
ACTION OF BOARD ON DECEMBER 03._ 2002 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED xx OTHER
I hereby certify that this is a true and
correct copy of an action taken and
entered on the minutes of the Board
VOTEOF SUPERVISORS of Supervisors on the date shown.
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT )
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
sA.>z
ATTESTED: DECEMBER 03, 2002 G:IGrpI)ataWdmtnl4fltch1bo110021C1ean Water 2.dnc JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk of the
drlg.Div: Public Works(Admin Services) Board of Supervisors and County
Contact: Mitch Avalon(3-2203) Administrator
cc: Don Freitas,Clean Water
John Sweeten,CAO
Dennis Barry,CDD
Carlos Baltodano,BID f/
Jim Kennedy,Redevelopment By •"� , Deputy
Ken Stuart,Environmental Health
Ed,Meyers,Agriculture
Slivano Marches!,County Cousel
CORRECTED COPY 1i
PLEASE DESTROY
PRE'VIOtl�S ISSUE
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD'S (SFBRWQCB)PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES)PERMIT
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 2002
PAGE 2
San Clemente experienced almost a ten-fold increase in costs. Before the new requirements were adopted,the
City's share of their countywide program was$30,000 per year. After the new requirements were adopted,the
City's share of the countywide costs went up to$270,000 per year. Before the new requirements were adopted
the cost of the City's local clean water program was $250,000 per year. After the new requirements were
adopted the City's annual cost for their local program increased to $2 million per year.
The Clean Water Program is an unfunded Federal mandate. We fund our Clean Water activities in the
unincorporated County,and fund our share of the Joint Municipal permit costs,through a local assessment paid
by the property owners in the unincorporated County. The statutory authority to establish and collect the
assessment for the County and the cities is through the County's Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
The County is currently at the maximum assessment that we can charge,and the program costs associated with
the new requirements will require us to increase our existing assessments or develop other revenue sources. The
assessment for a standard residential unit is currently$30 per year. Most of the cities in the Contra Costa Clean
Water Program are also at or near their maximum assessments. Increasing the existing assessment will require a
vote in accordance with Proposition 218. The assessment may have to be doubled or tripled(or maybe higher)
to fund the new clean water requirements. If the voters refuse to increase the assessment,then the County will
have to fund the increased costs from another source. Since restricted funds can't be used,as they are restricted
to specific programs,unrestricted revenue would have to be used. This would mean using the County's General
Fund or applying for grant monies. Grant revenue is unpredictable at best, so the primary reliance for funding
would be the General Fund. The courts have held that lack of funding is no excuse for not meeting permit
requirements.
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Backeround
In October of 2001 the SFBRWCQB renewed Santa Clara Valley's NPDES permit. This permit included new
development standards. Contra Costa County's current NPDES permit is not scheduled to be renewed for two
more years. However, Santa Clara claimed that there was an uneven playing field in the Bay Area if they were
the only county to have these new clean water requirements. As a result, the Regional Board is proposing to
amend our NPDES permit to include these new development standards for clean water. The Regional Board has
submitted to Contra Costa County a tentative order for an amendment to our permit. The tentative order is
currently going through a comment and review period. The Regional Board intends to conduct a hearing on
November 20, 2002 to consider the amendment of Contra Costa County's permit.
The following report outlines the history and issues associated with these new clean water requirements.
Attached to this report are comments for the Board to consider submitting to the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board's hearing on November 20,2002. The goal of the Regional Water Quality Control
Board is to improve water quality and increase retention time of stormwater in the watershed. These are goals
that the County also supports. The County also supports goals to further smart growth,open space preservation
and improved public health while at the same time being fiscally responsible. The County is currently working
on programs that further the goals of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and would not want to
implement one program carte blanche at the expense of other socially desirable programs.
......... ........ .
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD'S (SFBRWQCB)PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES)PERMIT
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 2002
PAGE 3
HISTORY
The Federal Clean Water Act was adopted in 1972. The purpose of the legislation was to clean up America's
waters. Initially the regulators focused on point source pollution,that is pollution emanating from a fixed point,
such as a factory,refinery,or wastewater treatment plant. Over the ensuing 15 years,private industry cleaned up
their point sources of pollution, and on the public side many wastewater treatment plants were upgraded or
rebuilt. Much of the investment on the public side was funded through Federal grants. In California,30 billion
dollars was invested in public infrastructure,primarily wastewater treatment plants.
In 1987 the Federal Clean Water Act was amended to require the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)to
establish permit application requirements for eliminating non-point source pollution in stormwater. The
responsibility for cleaning up non-point source pollution has fallen to local jurisdictions: counties, and cities.
Non-point source pollution comes from a variety of sources throughout the watershed, such as cars traveling
through the watershed,fertilizers and pesticides used in residential yards,sediment from erosion throughout the
watershed and other pollutants generally caused by human activity in the watershed. The State Water Resources
Control Board was authorized to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permits to
operators of large and medium municipal separate storm sewer discharges with requirements to reduce non-point
source pollution to the maximum extent practicable.
In response to these NPDES requirements,Contra Costa County,the cities and the Flood Control District formed
the Contra Costa Clean Water Program in February 1991. A Joint Municipal NPDES permit was then issued to
our Clean Water Program. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards issue NPDES permits to the counties
every five years. Each permit renewal has contained new and more stringent requirements than the prior permit.
Over the last several years environmental groups have felt that the Regional Water Quality Control Boards were
not implementing the Clean Water Act adequately and have filed suit against the Cities,the Counties, and the
Regional Board when the Regional Board issued new NPDES permits. These legal actions have been very
costly for the cities and the counties and have resulted in even more stringent Clean Water requirements as the
Regional Boards have tried to respond to the allegations of the environmental lawsuits. Contra Costa's permit is
not due to be renewed for another two years.
Last October,the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board approved new permit requirements
for Santa Clara Valley's Clean Water Program. These new permit requirements, which originated in Los
Angeles, are proposed to be added to Contra Costa County's Joint Municipal NPDES permit. The Regional
Board is proposing to amend our permit on November 20, 2002, even though our permit is not due to be
renewed for another two years. These new permit requirements will result in a change in the way we plan,
review, design, construct, inspect and maintain development projects and County projects. These new
requirements will significantly increase the cost of our Clean Water Program. Looming on the horizon are Total
Maximum Daily Load(TMDL)requirements,which will be even more costly.TMDL is a maximum amount of
pollution allowed for a particular pollutant of concern (e.g., trash, mercury, PCB, etc.) for each impaired
watershed in the County. The calculation of the TMDL pollutant level is based on the amount ofpollutant that a
waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. The maximum amount is then allocated to point
and non-point source discharges. Municipalities will then be given a pollutant discharage allocation which will
have to be met.
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD'S (SFBRWQCB)PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES)PERMIT
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 2002
PAGE 4
CURRENT CLEAN WATER REQUIREMENTS
Our current NPDES permit requires us to reduce or eliminate pollution in creeks and watersheds that drain into
the bay to the maximum extent practicable. This is accomplished by the Regional Board requiring our Clean
Water Program to develop a Stormwater Management Plan that serves as a five-year guide for implementing
activities to reduce pollution. The Stormwater Management Plan provides for implementation of activities,
prohibition of practices,maintenance procedures or"best management practices",and performance standards to
prevent,reduce and/or eliminate stormwater pollutants. Our plan includes activities such as street sweeping,
outreach to school children, code enforcement for illicit discharges, inspections of industrial and commercial
establishments, debris removal in creeks and along roadways, increased and enhanced drainage maintenance,
watershed planning activities and studies,and special projects such as watershed mapping,drainage inventories,
studies to analyze watershed impacts of using fertilizers and pesticides, etc.
NEW CLEAN WATER REQUIREMENTS AND TMDL'S
The major change in the new Clean Water requirements revolve around new development standards. These new
requirements affect not only private development projects and redevelopment projects,but also public capital
improvement projects such as public buildings,parks and roads. Implicit in these new requirements,is a change
in the approach the Regional Boards are taking with cities and counties. Rather than relying on the County and
cities to propose a Stormwater Management Plan on how they will reduce pollution, these new requirements
reflect a more proactive approach which emphasizes enforcement of more stringent requirements. This is in
contrast to the largely educational approach required in our current permit.
In the past, the NPDES permit requirements focused only on water quality. The other big change in the new
requirements is that they also attempt to deal with water quantit issues. The water quantity issues relate to the
ability or opportunity for stormwater to provide beneficial uses in the watershed. When development occurs in
the watershed,impervious surfaces are created that prevents rain from percolating into the soil because the soil is
covered with an impervious surface. In addition to eliminating a portion of the watershed that receives rainfall,
impervious surfaces speed up the generation ofrunoff from the watershed. So impervious surfaces produce two
results, more runoff going to the creeks and the runoff getting to the creeks in a shorter time period.
The affect of impervious surfaces changes the hydrologic response of the watershed. The increased flows from
the impervious surfaces destabilizes the creek system in that the creek must accommodate more water and tends
to erode its banks and downcut its bed in an effort to increase capacity. This results in steepened creek banks
which triggers creek bank failures and additional loss of property along creeks and additional erosion and
sediment deposition downstream. Sediment is now considered one of the primary pollutants in the County's
creeks and streams. The reduction of rainfall landing on soil covered with impervious surfaces also results in a
reduction in summer flows due to reduced water entering subsurface ground water reserves during the rainy
season.
To offset the affects of impervious surfaces,the new development standards require local agencies to collect and
treat stormwater, or allow it to infiltrate into the soil, on all applicable projects. This is designed to improve
water quality and increase retention time of stormwater in the watershed. These development standards will
apply to all public and private projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces(as
a transitional period,the new NPDES permit allows a threshold of one acre of impervious surface for the first 18
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD'S (SFBRWQCB)PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 2002
PAGE 5
months after the new NPDES permit is approved). This would apply to most county capital improvement
projects, road projects, development projects, redevelopment projects and building permits for many single-
family homes.
PROPOSED NEW CLEAN WATER REQUIREMENTS
The following is a more detailed description of these new development standards as they are proposed to be
added to Contra Costa County's permit by the Regional Board on November 20,2002. These new requirements
will apply to Contra Costa County and the cities in the County except for Antioch,Oakley,Brentwood,and East
Contra Costa County.
• Stormwater runoff must be treated prior to discharge - All public and private development,
redevelopment and capital improvement projects resulting in the creation or replacement of one(1)acre or
more of impervious surfaces(referred to as"Group 1 Projects")will be required to capture and infiltrate
or treat 80-90 percent of the runoff.Implementation of this requirement is to begin on April 15,2004.
The (1) acre threshold will be reduced to 5,000 square feet (called "Group 2 Projects") on October 14,
2005. The above requirement is not limited to discretionary projects (i.e., also applies to ministerial
permits and capital improvement projects).
* Municipalities are responsible for ensuring treatment controls are properly operated and
maintained for their life -Municipalities must implement an Operation and Maintenance Verification
Program for all required treatment controls. The Program shall include a listing of properties and
responsible operators, annual verification of Program implementation, and legally enforceable and
transferable agreements or mechanisms assigning operation and maintenance responsibilities.
• Municipalities must "manage" increases in runoff from Group 1 projects - Municipalities shall
manage increases in peak runoff and increased runoff volume for all projects of one(1)acre or more where
the increased flow and/or volume can cause increased erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant
generation, or other impacts to beneficial uses. Management measures shall be contained within a
Hydrograph Modification Management Plan(HMP)be submitted to the Regional Board for approval by
October 15, 2004 (implementation to occur following Regional Board's approval).
• Dischargers may establish a waiver program-Municipalities may establish a program where a project
proponent may request a "waiver" from the treatment requirement upon appropriate demonstration of
impracticability and providing compensatory mitigation off-site.
Municipalities must modify their project review processes-Municipalities are required to modify their
project review processes as needed to comply with the new requirements. This requirement will require
implementation of the following:
✓ Amending General Plan to include water quality and watershed protection principles and policies.
Adopting Ordinances adding new regulations and alternative standards into municipal codes(e.g.,
zoning, parking, street, and drainage codes).
... ... .. .........
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD'S (SFBRWQCB)PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES)PERMIT
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 2002
PAGE 6
✓ Expanding Environmental Review to address new water quality and quantity threshold impacts.
✓ Expanding Site Design and Source Control Measures to prevent the discharge of pollutants in
runoff.
✓ Developing Hydrograph Modification Management Plan(HMP)to address increased runoff from
all major projects.
✓ Expanding Inspection and Enforcement Activities to ensure compliance with new requirements.
✓ Developing Waiver Program & Regional Solutions as an alternative to the onsite treatment with
provisions for equivalent off-site compensatory mitigation.
✓ Increasing Data Management and Reporting to document compliance and report findings to the
Regional Board.
✓ Increasing Staff and Training for program development,plan review,inspections,enforcement and
maintenance activities.
✓ Increasing Funding for development and implementation of the new regulations.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
When these new requirements go into effect they will impact both private development projects and public
improvement projects. Our Community Development,Building Inspection and Public Works Departments and
.Environmental Health Division will all need to retrain and staff up to review plans for compliance with the new
development standards. Additional training will be necessary to monitor the effectiveness of the Clean Water
improvements constructed by private developers or public projects.
Under the new requirements, a sizeable public project, such as the Juvenile Hall project or the Family Law
Center,would require the installation of a Clean Water basin as part of the project to be maintained in perpetuity
by the County. Future road projects will be required to collect stormwater draining from the pavement and
treating it in a grassy Swale or into a water quality pond or constructed wetland. Significant staff time will be
required initially to establish new ordinances and process a General Plan amendment to include water quality
principles and the enforcing regulations. Significant staff time will also be required to monitor the effectiveness
of stormwater treatment facilities and report the findings to the Regional Board each year. There will also be a
significant cost associated with the maintenance of these facilities.
Attached to this report are several other issues that are of concern to Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County
is in two Regional Water Quality Control Board boundaries. Most of the County is in the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board. However, Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood, and Eastern Contra Costa
County is in the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The permit amendment,if approved by
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on November 20,2002,will only apply to western
and central Contra Costa County. It will not apply to Eastern Contra Costa County. This will create a myriad of
problems for the County, from administering a program with inconsistent policies to developing a
comprehensive strategy for funding new requirements on a countywide basis.
There is also concern nationwide that stormwater and clean water facilities are potential breeding grounds for
mosquitos. This is of particular concern with the advent of the West Nile Virus. We do not want to create a
program for clean water,and at the same time create a public health risk. On the land use policy side,the Board
of Supervisors has been taking a leadership role in the Bay Area on smart growth and growth management. The
Board adopted an Urban Limit Line in 1990. The focus of smart growth has been to concentrate development in
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SAN FRANCISCO)BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD'S (SFBRWQCB)PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES)PERMIT
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 2002
PAGE 7
areas around and within already developed areas to fully utilize the existing infrastructure. These new water
quality requirements would be more expensive to implement in the urban and suburban areas than in the
undeveloped rural areas,which may have the effect ofpromoting sprawl rather than smart growth. All of these
progressive land use programs the Board has been pursuing have the long-term resultant effect of improving air
quality and water quality. It would not be good public policy to jeopardize these progressive land use policies
and programs by adopting a more stringent water quality program. And of course, in these difficult economic
times there is the budget and funding implications.
Contra Costa CountBoard of Supervisors
Comments to San Francisco Bay Regional `Nater Quality Control
Board Hearin on Proposed Amendment to Contra Costa Count's
NPDES Permit
1. Public Health and Stormwater Quality
The Board of Supervisors is concerned that we not create a public health risk to
our residents through the spread of the West Nile virus in the new stormwater
quality facilities required by the new permit amendment.
The proposed amendment will require that stormwater runoff be captured, treated
and/or infiltrated, and managed onsite or within a regional facility in order to remove
pollutants and protect streams from erosive flows. Building stormwater treatment
facilities designed to detain, retain and/or infiltrate stormwater will significantly
increase opportunities for mosquito breeding. This has been confirmed in other areas
of the nation and the state. Caltrans is currently conducting a $50+ million dollar,
multiyear effort to determine the cost effectiveness and water quality benefits of
stormwater treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs). As part of this effort, the
California Department of Health Services, Vector-Borne Disease Division, has been
providing technical expertise. BMPs were found to create a public health hazard by
increasing habitat availability for mosquitoes.
According to Dr. Karl Malamud-Roam, with the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector
Control District, it is anticipated that mosquitoes infected with the West Nile virus
will be found in Contra Costa County next year. It has been reported that West Nile
virus has killed 125 people nationwide, and that over 3000 individuals have been
hospitalized. Half of those hospitalized will suffer long lasting health problems.
Indeed, stormwater engineers across the country are working to improve stormwater
treatment designs in an effort to minimize the creation of mosquito habitat. However,
these efforts have just begun and more practical experience (i.e., design methods,
maintenance requirements, costs, etc.) needs to be gained. Moving forward in the San
Francisco Bay Region with requirements that will mandate the implementation of
treatment BMPs that will exacerbate mosquito breeding and increase the potential
spread of the West Nile virus is not good public policy.
Compounding the already exorbitant anticipated costs associated with inspecting and
maintaining newly installed stormwater treatment BMPs, the West bile virus threat
will almost certainly increase inspection and maintenance costs. Municipalities will
also be exposed to increased liabilities. In August 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed
into law a new mosquito control law, which increases the potential liabilities for
resource managers that produce mosquitoes through their land use practices. Who
will maintain these devices? How much will it cost? Who will be liable — the San
Francisco Bay Regional Nater Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB)? These are
critical questions that have not been adequately analyzed by the Regional Board.
1
3. Budeet and Funding
The Board of Supervisors is concerned that an appropriate analysis of costs
associated with the amendment has not been performed.
Since the adoption last year of Santa Clara's permit, the economy has suffered
tremendously. The state's energy crisis and budget shortfalls, the struggling
technology sector, lower corporate earnings, allegations of corporate fraud, and threat
of war are just some of the factors cited for the current economic recession. In order
to reduce the reliance on the State's decreasing general fund, the State Water
Resources Control Board recently adopted an emergency regulation significantly
increasing their annual NPDES fees to permittees statewide. Contra Costa's annual
fee will increase ten-fold under this newly adopted fee schedule (from $10,000 to
$122,000 per year).
In order to fund the implementation of the original NPDES Program in Contra Costa
County, the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District
sponsored legislation in 1992 (Assembly Bill 2768) to amend the Flood Control
District Act. This legislation authorized the District to establish Stormwater Utility
Areas within each of the cities and the unincorporated county, and to impose an
annual assessment on property owners to pay for the costs associated with the
implementation of the NPDES Program. Each municipality was responsible for
establishing a maximum rate, which it could assess property owners. In 1996,
California voters approved Proposition 218 amending the California Constitution to
close perceived loopholes in Proposition 13 by making it more difficult for local
agencies and districts to impose or increase taxes, assessments and property-related
fees and charges. Most municipal NPDES co-permittees in Contra Costa County are
now at their maximum rates established in 1992. To increase revenues needed to
comply with the proposed amendment and the anticipated TMDL Program, local
agencies face the daunting task of asking for two-thirds of its registered voters to
approve a fee rate increase.
The proposed amendment will significantly increase costs for compliance with our
Municipal NPDES Permit. The increased costs associated with the proposed
amendment are in addition to increased costs associated with the annual NPDES fee
increase and the TMDL program. The potential public health risk associated with the
spread of the West Nile virus by mosquitoes threatens to further increase the cost for
treatment BMPs,particularly the inspection and maintenance costs.
The California Nater Code, Section 13241 (d) requires the Regional Board to
demonstrate that a tentative order's significant requirements are "reasonably
achievable" in light of "economic considerations." The Board of Supervisors is
concerned that there has been no substantive analysis of the costs to comply with the
requirements in the proposed amendment nor has there been an analysis showing a
reasonable relationship to environmental benefits obtained with compliance. Without
such an analysis, voter approval of increased fees for clean water activities is highly
3
working for four years on a open space plan and funding program. We are poised to
go to the ballot with a funding mechanism to generate 130 million dollars for the
acquisition of lands to preserve open space in our county. When leveraged with other
funding grants and opportunities, these funds will be able to preserve a significant
amount of open space lands. This program, coupled with our urban limit line, is
another means that Contra Costa County is working on that will achieve the goals of
the proposed amendment.
It is anticipated that the costs to implement the new requirements of the proposed
amendment will result in doubling or tripling our existing stormwater fees to the
public. Our proposed ballot measure for open space funding will be another
assessment that the voters will be asked to add to their property taxes. The Board of
Supervisors is concerned that there is a limit or capacity at which the public will no
longer fund any programs through a tax or assessment. The costs required for the new
clean water requirements will be substantial and may exceed the public's willingness
to assess themselves for public programs. It would be a shame if the open space
funding program was not approved by the voters because they had reached their taxing
threshold with stormwater assessments, especially in light of the fact that preserving
open space furthers the goals outlined in the proposed permit amendment.
6. Permit Renewah Not Permit Amendment
The Board of Supervisors requests the San Francisco Bay Regional 'Nater
Quality Control Board to modify our permit when it is due for reissuance, in July
of 2004, and not amend it at this time. This will provide time to properly address
the issues raised in this comment letter and the many other comments submitted
by our Clean Water Program, Contra Costa Cities and San Mateo County.
Our permit is due to be reissued in July of 2004. We have been told the primary reason
to amend our permit at this time is to "level the playing field" throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area. However, the proposed Order to amend our Joint Municipal
NPDES Permit, and modify our Stormwater Management Plan, in the fourth year of
implementation raises a host of programmatic, procedural, legal, and technical issues
resulting in new unprecedented strains on the cooperative and collaborative
relationships among co-permittees in our Clean Water Program. This is because nearly
one-quarter of the County's population and land area is under the jurisdiction of the
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which will address
the new development standards when they reissue their permit.
Since the inception of our Clean Water Program and the issuance of Joint Municipal
NPDES Permits by the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley RWQCBs in 1993 and
1994, respectively, these two NPDES permits have been essentially identical, allowing
for a coordinated countywide approach. The proposed amendment to our permit by the
San Francisco Bay .RWQCB threatens to create a number of unnecessary and
potentially divisive consequences. Significant conflicts will arise in planning,
implementing and allocating group resources (i.e., both staff and financial) in an effort
5
The Tentative Order to amend our permit indicates that the new development
requirements are being "instituted elsewhere in the Region, State..." Indeed, the new
runoff regulations have been instituted within the San Francisco Bay Region (i.e., Santa
Clara) and in other areas in the State (e.g., Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Ana, etc.).
However, full implementation of the requirements has yet to occur in any of these
areas. Instituting the new standards in each of these areas was and continues to be
extremely controversial. Numerous appeals are outstanding and awaiting decisions,
which may result in more clearly defined requirements and direction. Furthermore, in
each case in which the new standards were instituted into Municipal NPDES permits
elsewhere in the Region and State, it coincided with the reissuance or recent reissuance
of their permits and not through a permit amendment.
There have been changes, clarifications, and modifications to the requirements in each
subsequent municipal NPDES permit reissued, and it seems almost certain that the new
development standards will be changed once again when our permit is reissued in 2004.
Implementation of the proposed amendment would initiate and require a multitude of
activities requiring the involvement and coordination of co-permittees and multiple
interdepartmental divisions. Further modifications to the amendment requirements at
the time of re-issuance, less than two years from now, will result in wasted effort and
unnecessary confusion.
Significant resources, including municipal and Regional Board staff time, would be
saved by waiting and addressing the proposed amendment when the Program's permit
is reissued in 2004. Furthermore, it is absolutely imperative the reissuance is
coordinated and consistent with the Central Valley RWQCB's reissuance process and
permit.
RMAJz(11/14/02)
G.\GrpData\Admin\Mitch\C1ean Water Requim-ments\Comments on amendments.doe
7
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL "o�'
&WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DATE: November 1 8, 2002
TO: and of Supervisors
FROM: aunce.hin, Chief Engineer
or
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD'S(SFBRWQCB)PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY'S NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM (NPDES)PERMIT
At the November 12,2002 Board of Supervisors meeting,the Board considered comments to submit
to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on the amendment to our NPDES
permit. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board was scheduled to conduct a
hearing on the proposed amendment on November 20,2002. That hearing has been postponed to the
Regional Board's December meeting. After considering our report and comments on the permit
amendment, the Board requested one additional comment and some minor modifications.
Attached is a modified Board Order which includes the requested changes. Section II of the Board
Order, "Financial Impact", was revised to add a second paragraph containing more detail on the
potential impacts to the County's General Fund should a new funding source not be identified. This
point was repeated at the end of comment three,"Budgeting and Funding"on the attachment. There
is also a sixth comment that was added to the attachment to the Board Order. This additional
comment outlined the request from the Board to modify our permit when it is up for re-issuance in
July of 2004, rather than amend it at this time. This added comment follows very closely to the
comment submitted by the Contra Costa Clean Water Program representing the County, the cities
and the Flood Control District.
If you have any further questions on this proposed amendment to our permit,please contact myself
at 313-2201 or Mitch Avalon at 313-2203.
MMs:lz
G:\GrpData\Admin\MitchUean Water i;tequirementsiComments on Amendments 2.doc
Attachments
c: John Sweeten, CAO
Dennis Barry, CDD
Gina Martin, Clerk of the Board
Jahn Wolf, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
Mitch Avalon, PWorks Deputy Director
Don Freitas, Clean Water Program
Stan Matsumoto, Flood Control District
Joe Calabrigo, Town of Danville