Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11122002 - SD12 To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: MAUR.ICE M. SHIU, CHIEF ENGINEER, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 2002 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 1. 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. II. 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 ut $ illion for ea of the next three years. The City of Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: dN ,✓RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _ 'APPROVE ER I NAT ACTION OF BOA77 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER I hereby certify that this is a true and See attached addendum correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board VOTE OF SUPERVISORS } of Supervisors on the date shown. a UNANIMOUS(ABSENT /Y C AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED: tRMA1_.� . rp G:\GrpData\Admin\Mtch\bo\2002\Clean W'rter.due JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk of the Orig.Div: Public Works(AdminServices) Board of Supervisors and County Contact: Mitch Avalon(3-2203) Administrator cc: Don Freltas,Glean Water John Sweeten,GAO Dennis Barry,CDD Carlos Baltodano,BID Jim Kennedy,Redevelopment Ken Stuart,Environmental Health Ed Meyers,Agriculture By , Deputy Silvano Marchese,County Cousel 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 about 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. IH. Reasons for Recommendations and Background 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. 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. 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 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 of pollutant 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. 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 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 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 wateruq antity 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 of runoff 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 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). 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 • 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). ✓ 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 affect 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. 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 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 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 of promoting sprawl rather than smart growth. All of these progressive land use programs the Board has been pursuing have the longterm 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 -- Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Comments to San Francisco Bay ft.e2ional Water Quality Control Board HearinLy on Proposed Amendment to Contra Costa County'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, multi-year 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 Nile 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 Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB)? These are critical questions that have not been adequately analyzed by the Regional Board. 1 We agree with the Board of Trustees of the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District and urge the Regional Board to delay the implementation of the new permit requirements until the proposed stormwater treatment requirements and resultant facilities can achieve their intended purpose to treat stormwater without creating a public health crisis. 2. Consistent ARplication and Administration The Board of Supervisor is concerned that the amendment would divide the County into two, separate and distinct areas with inconsistent compliance mandates. The Regional Board is taking the unprecedented action of amending our National Pullutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to its normal time for renewal. One of the stated reasons for this is to establish a level playing field with the Santa Clara permit. While amending our permit may assist in establishing a level playing field for Santa Clara County, it will institute an uneven playing field inside Contra Costa County. Four municipalities representing approximately 21% of the County's population and 27% of the County's land area is outside the Regional Board's boundary and would not be covered under the proposed amendment. Imposing the new development standards on a portion of the Countywide Clean Nater Program threatens to divide the Countywide program and will unnecessarily complicate the implementation of group Program activities. The tentative order encourages and/or requires that certain activities be implemented at the Program level (e.g., Alternative Project Proposal, Operations and Maintenance Verification Program, Waiver Program, etc.). This creates a "catch 22" situation for the Program. To ask the Program to coordinate and implement required activities countywide when not all of the county is under the same requirements is difficult at best and bad public policy. This situation will be especially troublesome for the unincorporated County, which is under the jurisdiction of two Regional Boards. The amendment would create two internally inconsistent policies within the unincorporated County. The County is faced with the prospect that it will need to find and secure additional funding sources in order to comply with the ever-increasing stormwater requirements (i.e., the proposed amendment requirements, increased stormwater fees, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), etc.). The bifurcation of Contra Costa's NPDES Clean Water Permits will significantly weaken the County's ability to plan and promote countywide funding measures for clean water activities. 2 3. Budget 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 Water 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 3 such an analysis, voter approval of increased fees for clean water activities is highly unlikely. 4. Smart Growth The Board of Supervisors is concerned that the requirements of the proposed amendment will be a disincentive for the County's Smart Growth Program. The goals of the proposed amendment is to decrease impervious surfaces throughout watersheds in the County, to increase retention time of water in the watershed and to improve water quality. The County adopted an urban limit line in 1990. The urban limit line preserves 65% of the County in its natural state, and limits development to 35% of the land area in the County. By this action the Board of Supervisors has concentrated the impervious surfaces in the County to 35% of the total land area. This in itself is a huge step in meeting the goals of the proposed amendment. The Board of Supervisors also strongly supports the principles of smart growth. The Board, through its General Plan policies and its actions, is encouraging the development of infill properties, the clustering of housing units at transit sites ("transit villages"), the clean up and development of brownfield sites, and the optimization of existing infrastructure in already developed areas. Smart growth projects reduce congestion, reduce energy use, and increase utilization of transit. All of these benefits of smart growth also improve air quality and water quality by reducing the amount of pollutants and particulate matter that enter the environment. The Board of Supervisors is concerned that these new development requirements will place a financial burden on redevelopment projects, transit village projects, and affordable housing projects that are fulfilling our goals of smart growth. We do not believe that adopting a program for clean water, at the expense of smart growth, would be a good public policy, especially when the ultimate result of smart growth is improved water quality. These new requirements will increase the costs of smart growth projects and may make some projects unfeaseable to build. 5. Ogen Space Preservation and Taxing Capacity The Board of Supervisors is concerned that the costs of these new clean water requirements may exceed the taxing capacity of the public and jeopardize funding of other critical programs that benefit water quality. The goal of the proposed amendment is to improve the beneficial uses of water within each watershed. One very effective means of doing that is to preserve lands in the watershed in their natural state as open space. Our Board of Supervisors has been 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 4 g 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. RMA:lz(10/23/02) G.\GrpData\Admin\Mitch\Clean Water Requirements\Comments on amendments.doc S a ADDENDUM TO ITEM SD.12 November 12, 2402 On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered comments to submit to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on the amendment to the County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit. After considering the report and comments on the permit amendment,the Board requested one additional comment and some minor modifications. Following discussion,the Chair invited the public to comment. The following individual presented testimony is support of the Board's action: John Wolf, Contra Costa Taxpayers' Association, 600 Las Juntas Street, Martinez, CA 94553 Therefore,the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: a) ACCEPTED the report from the Chief Engineer of the]Flood Control and Water Conservation District on the proposed amendments to the NPDES permit; b) REQUESTED that the "Financial Impact" statement under Section II of the Board Order be expanded to provide more detail on the potential impacts to the County's General Fund should a new funding source not be identified. C) ADDED a sixth comment outlining the request from the Board of Supervisors to modify the County's permit when it is up for re-issuance in July of 2004, rather than amend it at this time. Clerk's Note: The above-mentioned changes to the Board Order were made; the item was returned to the Board of Supervisors and adopted as Item C.31 on December 3, 2002.