HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02032004 - C13-C16 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: S'UPIl RVISOR GREENBERG, DISTRICT III
[SATE: February 3, 2004
SUBJECT: Support the Town of Danville's request to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to
reprogram Measure C funds from the Stone Valley Road Circulation Improvements Project
to the Camino Tassajara Circulation Improvements Project.
Project No.: 0662-6R4321
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)O RECOWAENDATtON(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
i, Recommended Action:
SUPPORT the Town of Danville's request to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(OCTA) to
reprogram$300,000 of Measure C funds from the Stone Valley Road Circulation Improvements
Project (CCTA Project No. 1716, County Project No. 0662-6R4321) to the Camino Tassajara
Circulation Improvements Project, AlamolDanville area.
Continued on Attachment:X SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
—APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 3, 2004 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE.OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Nom ) 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct
AYES: NOES: copy of an action taker: and entered on the
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the
date shown.
SK:sk ATTESTED: February 3. 2CC4
G_,Grp£FatalTransEnglProjects,8tonevatley Rd at Monte Vista HS-aim and sig 01aOAM JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk of the Board of
Orlg.Div: District III Supervisors and Counter Administrator
Contact: Kathy Chiverton(925)831-8421
cc: M.Shiu;.Public Works Department Lilla—vi
r � ' " f �
S.Goetz,Community Development By I ,'�_ Deputy
Public Works Accounting
Tai Williams,'Town of Danville
UBJECT: Support the Town of Danville's request to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to
reallocate Regional Measure C funds from the Stone Valley Road Circulation
Improvements Project to the Camino Tassajara Circulation Improvements Project.
Project No.: 0662-6R4321
DATE: February 3, 2004
PAGE: 2
11. Filcai Impact:
There will be no impact to County General fund. Funding consists of the Town of Danville's local
funds($185,000)and Measure C funds programmed in CCTA's 2002 Measure C Strategic Plan
under the Southwest Arterials program category($300,000).
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Bacl ground:
Over the past two years, the Town of Danville and Contra Costa County have been working
diligently to implement the Stone Valley Road Circulation Improvements (Project No. 1716)to
provide congestion relief along the Stone Valley Road corridor. The project is funded by Measure
C funds with an allocation of$525,000 in the 2002 Strategic Plan from the Southwest Arterials
program category.
The first phase of this project was successfully completed in 2002. Unfortunately, implementation
of the last two phases has been delayed due to issues associated with San Ramon Valley Unified
School District, a current development proposal, and concems from Alamo residents. After
accounting for outstanding right-of-way costs incurred by Contra Costa County, there is an
estimated project balance of approximately $350,000.
Camino Tassajara Improvements
In the meantime, an urgent and unanticipated need to improve Camino Tassajara, an east-west
major arterial that traverses the Town and County jurisdictions, has surfaced resulting from a
tragic accident which took the lives of Troy and Alana Pack, local children who were traveling
along the Camino Tassajara sidewalk when they were hit head-on by a hit-and-run driver who
jumped the curb.
Consequently, the Town of Danville seeks support from the County Board of Supervisors on the
proposed request to reprogram$300,000 from the Stone Valley Road Circulation Improvements
Project (No. 1716)to a new Camino Tassajara Circulation Improvements Project.
These reprogrammed funds, in combination with another $165,000 from other Danville funds,
would be used to improve the pedestrian facility portion of the major arterial corridor,which carries
a heavy vehicular volume as well as a number of pedestrians. These improvements would be
consistent with the language of!Measure C Major Arterials category which states that the funds
are "...to improve major arterials as jointly determined by the local jurisdictions of the Southwest
Region."
The Town urges support of this proposal to reprogram funds from a joint Ton/County project to
one that is at a common Town/County location to develop an improved pedestrian facility that is
part of a major arterial roadway in the southwest region.
SUBJECT: Support the Town of Danville's request to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to
reallocate Regional Measure C funds from the Stone Valley Road Circulation
Improvements Project to the Camino Tassajara Circulation Improvements Project.
Project No.: 0662-6R4321
DATE: February 3, 2004
PAGE: 3
111. Conseauences of Neuative Action:
Failure to support the reprogramming of Measure C Funds will delay the implementation of the
project.
...............................................................................
.................................................................
aid.
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: TRANSPORTATION AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2004
SUBJECT: STORMWATER LEGISLATION—ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 10
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. Recommended Action:
Affirm support for Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10 and authorize the Chair of the Board to sign a letter
to the Assemblymember, Tom Harman,author of ACA 10 affirming the Board's support.
11. Financial Impact:
The legislation reported on in this Board Order has the potential for providing funding for our clean water
program.
)AAContinued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR UMENDATION_� OF BOARD COMMITTEE
PPROVE —OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 3, MZ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENTNom
AYES: NOES: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: of an action taken and entered on the minutes of
the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
RMA:lz
G\GrpDafa\Adniti',Mitch\bo\2004\Stet ater Legislation ACA10 2-3-04.doe
Orig.Div: Public Works(Admin Svcs)
Contact: Mitch Avalon(313-2203) ATTESTED: gEbruar 3 2004
C! 1.Sweeten,County Administrator
S.Roffiman,Assist
Adininistratur John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
M Shia,Public Works Director
M.Avalon,Deputy Public Works Director and County Administrator
G Connaughton,flood Control
S.Goetz,Community Development
R.Goulart,Community Development
I Kopchik,Community Development
County Counsel By ✓V 4 Deputy
n i,�
............................................................................................
...................I........I.....................................
SUBJECT: STORMWATER LEGISLATION
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2004
PAGE 2
Ill. Reasons for Recommendations and Backeround:
On January 5, 2004 the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee considered several stormwater
legislation items. Attached is a memo to the Transportation,Water and Infrastructure Committee dated December
29,2003 with background information on the stormwater legislative proposal.
V. Consequences of Negative Action:
The County's position and concerns regarding this legislative proposal on storrawater quality would not be
known.
.......I.........................................................................................11 ......
...........I.................................................................
..................
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: December 29,2003
TO: Transportation and Water Infrastructure Committee
FROM09 I Public Works Director
SUBJECT: STORMWATER LEGISLATION
There are several storrawater and water quality related legislative proposals that are of concern to the
County. Below is background information on several proposed or pending legislation.
1. House Resolution►6
Background
HR6 is an energy bill that has a provision in it that would provide"safe harbor"to gasoline
producers for claims against their use of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether(MTBE). MTBE has
been used by some gasoline producers as a fuel additive over the last several years. This fuel
additive, however, has contaminated the drinking water of hundreds of communities
nationwide. Certain proposed provisions of HR 6 would retroactively block legitimate
MTBE lawsuits that communities have already filed. In addition,these proposed provisions
of HR6 would eliminate defective product lawsuits which are the primary means
communities use to have oil producers clean up contaminated water supplies from fuels
containing MTBE. The result is that MTBE clean up costs are shifted to local communities.
Those same local communities that were not originally responsible for adding the MTBE to
gasoline fuel.
The proposed safe harbor provisions should be eliminated from HR6. It has been pointed out
that congress never mandated that MTBE be used as a fuel oxygenate so congress is not
obligated to provide safe harbor for gasoline producers. Gasoline producers do not have to
use MTBE,as ethanol provides the same benefit without contaminating our water resources.
Recommendation
It is expected that these provisions will be dropped from HR6,however,if that is not the case
then staff recommends sending the attached letter to Senators Feinstein and Boxer.
...........................................................................................................I........
................I.................................................................................
................
2. Federal Senate Bill 1664
BackUound
S 1664,the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003,would allow EPA to charge fees
to the chemical industry to fund their Hazard Review of Pesticides Program. The
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)lists waterbodies in Contra Costa County and the
Bay Area as impaired due to excessive levels of pesticides as part of the Clean Water Act,
Section 303d list of impaired waterbodies. Water quality research and studies have shown
that the main toxicity problem is ultimately traced to commonly used,pesticides that are
available in hundreds of consumer products. More importantly,the studies have shown that
even if the pesticides were used according to the label instructions, they still may cause
wastewater and stormwater toxicity. These product labels,therefore,should be modified to
prevent product uses that would create this toxicity problem.
EPA determines appropriate label instructions during the initial registration and subsequent
re-registration of pesticides for use. The EPA has recognized this problem with product
labels and has embarked on a program to identify potentially problematic uses of pesticides
and to work with manufacturers to modify or eliminate these uses from those listed on
product labels. Unfortunately,the EPA needs funding to complete this important work. For
the last six years congress has passed a rider to appropriations bill that prevented EPA from
charging the chemical industry for the cost of their Hazard Review Program,which includes
pesticide re-registration and tolerance review programs. These programs were intended by
Congress to be self-supporting. Federal Senate Bill 1664 would allow the EPA to charge the
chemical industry to conduct their Hazard Review Program.
Recommendation
Staff recommends supporting Senate Bill 1664 and submitting the attached letter to Senators
Feinstein and Boxer.
3. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10
Background
In 1996 the voters approved Proposition 218. Proposition 218 requires a vote of the people
before local government can impose a tax,fee,or assessment. Section 6C ofProposition 218
exempts fees or charges for water, sewer, and refuse collection from the ballot provisions.
This exemption provision covered most water related activities except stormwater. The City
of Salinas established a stormwater fee several years ago, claiming that stormwater was
either polluted wastewater,and therefore exempt from Proposition 218,or it was a resource
for recharging their water wells for potable water and therefore exempt from Proposition 218.
The city was sued by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The court found in favor of
the city but the decision was appealed to the appellate court,which reversed the decision and
held in favor of the Taxpayers Association. The California Supreme Court declined to hear
2
the case.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board recently imposed new
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements on the
county and the cities in Contra Costa County. These requirements will have a significant
financial impact on the county and cities' clean water programs. ACA 10will provide
clarification to Proposition 218 by including"stormwater and urban runoff management"as
an additional exemption. ACA 10 will allow this issue to be placed before the California
electorate for decision to amend Proposition 218 or not. If ACA 10 is adopted,and if the
California electorate support it, then Contra Costa County will be able to fund our Clean
Water Program similar to a water or sewer utility and raise or lower rates in the same fashion.
The Board took a position of support on ACA 10 on May 6,2003 and authorized sending a
letter of support. ACA 10 became a two-year bill so it would be appropriate to reaffirm the
Boards support.
Recommendation
Staffrecommends the Committee reaffirm its support for ACA 10 and for the Committee to
recommend to the Board the same and to affirm it's support through the attached letter to
Assemblymember Harman,
MMS;R MA;1z
G:iGrpDatalAdmin%H1U12003\12 December\stonnwater Legislation.doc
Attachments
c. Maurice Shiu,Public Works Director
Greg Connaughton,Supervising Civil Engineer
Kevin Emigh,senior Civil Engineer
Bob Faraone,Senior Civil Engineer
Rich Lierly,Associate Civil Engineer
Mark Boucher,Senior Hydrologist
Don Freitas,Stormwater Pollution Control Manager
Tom Dalziel,Senior Watershed Planning Specialist
3
...............................................................
..........................................................
...................................I..........-...-
The Board of Supervisors Contra John Sweden
Clerk of the Board
and
Costa County Administrator
County Administration Building (925)335-1900
651 Pine Street,Room 106 County
Martinez,California 94553-4068
John Gioia,District I
Gayle B.Vilkems,District 11
Millie Greenberg,District Ill
Mark DeSsulaler,District IV
Federal D.Glover, District V February 3, 2004
Assemblymernber Tom Harman
State Capitol
P. O. Box 942849
Sacramento,CA 94249-0067 RE: ACA 10
Dear Asserriblymember Harman:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors reaffirms support for Assembly
Constitutional Amendment 10, which you have introduced into the Assembly. ACA 10
will allow the California public the opportunity to clarify a provision of Proposition 218.
It will allow California voters to decide if water quality and managing our stormwater
should be funded similar to Sanitary Districts and Water Districts.
Water quality issues have continued to poll very high with California voters, as evidenced
by passage of several water related bond issues over the last several years. With this
background, it seems likely the voters will agree that stormwater should be treated the
same as water and sewer with regards to Proposition 218. At this point, the courts have
held that stormwater is not the same.
Again, we support ACA 10 and appreciate your efforts on improving the financial
options for funding stormwater and water quality programs throughout the state.
Very truly yours,
upervis Federal D. G er
Chair,Board of Supervisors
MD:RMA:lz
G:\GrpDatalAdmin\Mitch\2004\0I-04\Haamnan ItrAoc
c: M.Shiu,PWD,Director
A Avalon,PWD,Deputy
G.Connoughton,PWD,Division Head
D. Freitas,Clean Water Program
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS V. f
FROM: TRANSPORTATION AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2004
SUBJECT: STORMWATER LEGISLATION—HOUSE RESOLUTION 6
SPECIFIC REQUESTS)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. Recommended Action:
Authorize the Chair of the Board to sign a letter to Senator's Feinstein and Boxerwith concerns on HR6, if
necessary.
Ii. Financiallmpla
The legislation reported on in this Board Order has the potential for reducing program costs for our clean water
program.
Continued on Attachment: SIGNATURE: f
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTR�,J;blt
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON February : APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None )
AYES: NOES: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: of an action taken and entered on the minutes of
the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
RMAaz
G:\GrpData\Adnvn\Mitch\bo\2004\Stormwater Legislation HR6 2-3-04.doe 2004
.�y��
Ori%.Div: Public Works(Admin Svcs) February 3, 2004
Contact: Mitch Avalon(313.2203) ATTESTED:
c: J.Sweeten,County Administrator John Sweeten, Clerk of the:Board of Supervisors
S.Holtman,AssistantCounty Administrator
M.Shiu,Public Works Director and County Administrator
M.Avalon,Deputy Public Warks Director
nnaugh
a Coton,Plood Control
S.Goetz,Conamtnity Development
R.Goulatt,Community Development xt
J.Kopchik,Community Development € r n ;
County Counsel By t �, j l t Deputy
i
SUBJECT: STORMWATER LEGISLATION
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2004
PAGE 2
M. Reasons for Recommendations and Background:
On January 5, 2004 the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee considered several stormwater
legislation items. Attached is a memo to the Transportation,Water and Infrastructure Committee dated December
29, 2003 with background information on the storrnwater legislative proposal. House Resolution b may be
revised to address the County's concerns and therefore negate the need for a letter to Congress outlining our
concerns.
V. Consequences of NeLrative Action:
The County's position and concerns regarding this legislative proposal on stormwater quality would not be
known.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
.DATE: December 29,2003
TO: ,Transportation and Water Infrastructure Committee
• ' Public Works Director
FROM. ���aurace Shiu,
SUBJECT: STORMWATER LEGISLATION
There are several stormwater and water quality related legislative proposals that are of concern to the
County. Below is background information on several proposed or pending legislation.
1. House Resolution 6
Backaound
HR6 is an energy bill that has a provision in it that would provide"safe harbor"to gasoline
producers for claims against their use of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether(MTBE). MTBE has
been used by some gasoline producers as a fuel additive over the last several years. This fuel
additive, however, has contaminated the drinking water of hundredsof communities
nationwide. Certain proposed provisions of HR 6 would retroactively;block legitimate
MTBE lawsuits that communities have already filed. In addition,these proposed provisions
of HR6 would eliminate defective product lawsuits which are the; primary means
communities use to have oil producers clean up contaminated water supplies from fuels
containing MTBE. The result is that MTBE clean up costs are shifted to local communities.
Those same local communities that were not originally responsible for adding the MTBE to
gasoline fuel.
The proposed safe harbor provisions should be eliminated from HR6. It has been pointed out
that congress never mandated that MTBE be used as a fuel oxygenate so congress is not
obligated to provide safe harbor for gasoline producers. Gasoline producers do not have to
use MTBE,as ethanol provides the same benefit without contaminating our water resources.
Recommendation
It is expected that these provisions will be dropped from HR6,however,ifthat is not the case
then staff recommends sending the attached letter to Senators Feinstein and Boxer.
2. Federal Senate Bill 1664
Back ound
S 1664,the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003,would allow EPA to charge fees
to the chemical industry to fund their Hazard Review of Pesticides Program. The
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)lists waterbodies in Contra Costa County and the
Bay Area as impaired due to excessive levels of pesticides as part of the Clem Water Act,
Section 303d list of impaired waterbodies. Water quality research and studies have shown
that the main toxicity problem is ultimately traced to commonly used pesticides that are
available in hundreds of consumer products. More importantly,the studies have shown that
even if the pesticides were used according to the label instructions, they still may cause
wastewater and stormwater toxicity. These product labels,therefore,should be modified to
prevent product uses that would create this toxicity problem.
EPA determines appropriate label instructions during the initial registration and subsequent
re-registration of pesticides for use. The EPA has recognized this problem with product
labels and has embarked on a program to identify potentially problematic uses of pesticides
and to work with manufacturers to modify or eliminate these uses from those listed on
product labels. Unfortunately,the EPA needs funding to complete this important work. For
the last six years congress has passed a rider to appropriations bill that prevented EPA from
charging the chemical industry for the cost of their Hazard Review Program,which includes
pesticide re-registration and tolerance review programs. These programs were intended by
Congress to be self-supporting. Federal Senate Bill 1664 would allow the EPA to charge the
chemical industry to conduct their Hazard Review Program.
Recommendation
Staff recommends supporting Senate Bill 1664 and submitting the attached letter to Senators
Feinstein and Boxer.
3. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10
Background
In 1996 the voters approved Proposition 218. Proposition 218 requires a'vote of the people
before local government can impose a tax,fee,or assessment. Section 6C ofProposition 218
exempts fees or charges for water, sewer, and refuse collection from the ballot provisions.
This exemption provision covered most water related activities except stormwater. The City
of Salinas established a stormwater fee several years ago, claiming that stormwater was
either polluted wastewater,and therefore exempt from Proposition 218,or it was a resource
for recharging their water wells for potable water and therefore exempt from Proposition 218.
The city was sued by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The court found in favor of
the city but the decision was appealed to the appellate court,which reversed the decision and
held in favor of the Taxpayers Association. The California Supreme Court declined to hear
2
_...... __ _. .....
the case.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board recently imposed new
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements on the
county and the cities in Contra Costa County. These requirements Will have a significant
financial impact on the county and cities' clean Water programs. ACA 10 will provide
clarification to Proposition 218 by including"stormwater and urban runoff`management"as
an additional exemption. ACA 10 Will allow this issue to be placed before the California
electorate for decision to amend Proposition 218 or not. If ACA 10 is adopted, and if the
California electorate support it, then Contra Costa County Will be able to find our Clean
Water Program similar to a water or sewer utility and raise or lower rates in the same fashion.
The Board took a position of support on ACA 10 on May 6,2003 and authorized sending a
letter of support. ACA 10 became a two-year bill so it would be appropriate to reaffirm the
Boards support.
Recommendation
taffreeo mends the Committee reaffirm its support for ACA 10 and for the Committee to
recommend to the Board the same and to affirm it's support through the attached letter to
Assemblymember Harman.
MMS:RMA:Iz
G:IGrpDatMdmin\SHIUl2003112 DecemberiStormwater L.egislation.doc
Attachments
c: Maurice Shiu,Public Works Director
Greg Connaughton,Supervising Civil Engineer
Kevin Emigh,Senior Civil Engineer
Bob Faraone,Senior Civil Engineer
Rich Lierly,Associate Civil Engineer
Mark Boucher,Senior Hydrologist
Don Freitas,Storrawater Pollution Control Manager
Tom Dalziel,Senior Watershed Planning Specialist
3
..... ......_.. ............__....
...... ......... ...._....... ......... ......... _........ .........
_. _....... ......... ...
...... ......... ......._.
...............................
The Board of Supervisors Contra John Sweeten
Costaand Clerk of the Board
County Administration Building !'+ County Administrator
651 Pine Street,Room 106 County (925)335-1900
Martinez,California 94553-4068
John Gioia,District i
Gayle R.Vilkema,District 11
Millie Greenberg,District 111
Mark DeSauinler,District IV
Federal D.Glover, District V
February 3, 2004
Senator Dianne Feinstein
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
RE: HR 6
Dear Senator Feinstein:
The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is integrally involved
with and concerned about the water resources within our County. The District is greatly
concerned that Congress is on the verge of enacting an energy bill (HR 6) with proposed
language that would provide liability immunity to the producers of gasoline with the fuel
additive Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether(MTBE). This fuel additive has contaminated the drinking
water of hundreds of communities nationwide. The proposed provisions of HR 6 would
retroactively block legitimate MTBE law suits that communities already have filed. We request
that this language be removed from the bill.
We fully support a federal phase-out of MTBE, however, we cannot support this proposed "safe
harbor" language for several reasons. Congress never mandated that MTBE be used as a fuel
oxygenate, so Congress is not obligated to provide "safe harbor" for gasoline producers.
Gasoline producers did not have to use MTBE, as ethanol provides the same benefit without
contaminating our water resources.
Additionally, HR 6 eliminates defective product law suits, which are the primary means
communities use to have oil producers clean up contaminated water supplies from fuels
containing MTBE. This means that MTBE cleanup costs are shifted to local communities -
communities that were not originally responsible for adding the MTBE to gasoline.
If the energy bill is passed as proposed, this would become yet another unfinded mandate on
our fiscally strapped. communities. It is estimated that the cost of cleaning up MTBE
contaminated drinking water supplies throughout the nation will exceed $29 billion.
Senator Feinstein
February 3, 2004
Page 2
Please support removing these provisions from the energy bill that would have severe
consequences on local government and special districts that are responsible for the quality of our
ground water and surface water resources.
Sincerely,
pervisor Federal D. Glover
Chair, Board of Supervisors
MMS:RMA:lz
0:\GfpData\Admin\Mitch\2004\01-04\HR6 Feinstein Ltr.doc
c: Senator Barbara Boxer
M.Avalon,Deputy Public Works Director
G.Connaughton,Flood Control
S.Wright,Flood Control
D.Freitas,Clean Water Program
T.Dalziel,Clean Water Program
P.Schlesinger,Alcalde&Fay
The Burd of Supervisors Contra Clerk�ofthhee Board
CostaCountyCounty Administration Building County Administrator
651 Pine Street,Room 106 County (925)335-1900
Martinez,California 94553-4068
John Giola,District I
Gayle B.Uilkema,District If `
Millie Greenberg,District Ill ,
Mark UeSsuinier,District IV
Federal D.Glover, District V
February 3, 20044
Senator Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
RE: HR 6
Dear Senator Boxer:
The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is integrally involved
with and concerned about the water resources within our County. The District is greatly
concerned that Congress is on the verge of enacting an energy bill (HR 6) with proposed
language that would provide liability immunity to the producers of gasoline with the fuel
additive Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether(MTBE). This fuel additive has contaminated the drinking
water of hundreds of communities nationwide. The proposed provisions of HR 6 would
retroactively block legitimate MTBE law suits that communities already have filed. We request
that this language be removed from the bill.
We frilly support a federal phase-out of MTBE, however, we cannot support this proposed "safe
harbor" language for several reasons. Congress never mandated that MTBE be used as a fuel
oxygenate, so Congress is not obligated to provide "safe harbor" for gasoline producers.
Gasoline producers did not have to use MTBE, as ethanol provides the same benefit without
contaminating our water resources.
Additionally, HR 6 eliminates defective product law suits, which are the primary means
communities use to have oil producers clean up contaminated water supplies from fuels
containing MTBE. This means that MTBE cleanup costs are shifted to local communities
communities that were not originally responsible for adding the MTBE.to gasoline.
If the energy bill is passed as proposed, this would become yet another unfunded mandate on
our fiscally strapped communities. It is estimated that the cost of cleaning up MTBE-
contaminated drinking water supplies throughout the nation will exceed $29 billion.
Senator Boxer
February 3, 2404
Page 2
Please support removing these provisions from the energy bill that would have severe
consequences on local government and special districts that are responsible for the quality of our
ground water and surface water resources.
Sincerely,
S ervisor Federal D. Glover
Chair, Board of Supervisors
MMS:RMA:tz
G:\GrpData\Admin\Mitch\2004\01-04\HR6 Boxer Undoe
c: Senator Diane Feinstein
M.Avalon,Deputy Public Works Director
G.Connaughton,Flood Control
S.Wright,Flood Control
D.Freitas,Clean Water Program
T.Dalziel,Clean Water Program
P. Schlesinger,Alcalde&Fay
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS eo
FROM: ,. TRANSPORTATION AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DA'T'E: FEBRUARY 3, 2004
SUBJECT: STOR.MWATER LEGISLATION—SENATE BILL 1664
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
1. Recommended Action:
Support Federal Senate Bill 1664,the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 and authorize the Chair of
the Board to sign a letter of support to Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.
11. FinancialImnact:
The legislation reported on in this Board Order has the potential for reducing program costs for our clean water
program.
A
Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRAT R
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 3, 2004 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None )
AYES: NOES: 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: of an action taken and entered on the minutes of
the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
RMAJZ
G\Gtpi),ata\Admin\Mitch\bo\2004\Stormwater Legisiation S1664 2-3-04.doc
Orig.Div: Public Works(Admin Svcs)
Contact: Mitch Avalon(313.2203) ATTESTED: February Ts2004
J.Sweeten,County tant0oAdministrator John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
S.Hotfrnan;AssistantCounty Administrator
M.Shio,Public Works Director and County Administrator
M.Avalon,Deputy Public Works Director
G.Conaaughton,Flood Control
S.Goetz,Community Development _
R.Goutan,Community Development q
J.Kopchik,Community Development Y ! p y
County Counsel B €: ! De ut
P.Schlesinger,Alcalde&Gay
i
_...... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...._.... .111.1.
... ... ............... ......... ......... .._...... ...._.... ......... ......... ......... .......... ........ .........
SUBJECT: STORMWATER LEGISLATION
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2004
PAGE: 2 '
Ill. Reasons for Recommendations and Backiround:
On January 5, 2004 the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee considered several stormwater
legislation items. Attached is a memo to the Transportation,Water and Infrastructure Committee dated December
29, 2003 with background information on the stormwater legislative proposal.
V. Consequeuees of Negative Action:
The County's position and concerns regarding this legislative proposal on stormwater quality would not be
known.
..... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _......__...----
.
..... ........... ......... _........ ......... ......... ...._.... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... .........
_ _ ................................
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: December 29, 2003
TO: ransportation and Water Infrastructure Committee
IFROM: aurice Shiu, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: STORMWATER LEGISLATION
There are several stormwater and water quality related legislative proposals that are of concern to the
County. Below is background information on several proposed or pending Iegislation.
1. House Resolution 6
Background
HR6 is an energy bill that has a provision in it that would provide"safe harbor'to gasoline
producers for claims against their use of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether(MTBE). MTBE has
been used by some gasoline producers as a fuel additive over the last several years. This fuel
additive, however, has contaminated the drinking water of hundreds of communities
nationwide. Certain proposed provisions of HR 6 would retroactively;block legitimate
MTBE lawsuits that communities have already filed. In addition,these proposed provisions
of HR6 would eliminate defective product lawsuits which are the primary means
communities use to have oil producers clean up contaminated water supplies from fuels
containing MTBE. The result is that MTBE clean up costs are shifted to local communities.
Those same local communities that were not originally responsible for adding the MTBE to
gasoline fuel.
The proposed safe harbor provisions should be eliminated from HR6. It has been pointed out
that congress never mandated that MTBE be used as a fuel oxygenate so congress is not
obligated to provide safe harbor for gasoline producers. Gasoline producers do not have to
use MTBE,as ethanol provides the same benefit without contaminating our water resources.
Recommendation
It is expected that these provisions will be dropped from HR6,however,if that is not the case
then staff recommends sending the attached letter to Senators Feinstein and Boxer.
1
. .... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
....................._... ....._.... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
2. Federal Senate Bill 1664
Background
S 1664,the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003,would allow RPA to charge fees
to the chemical industry to fend their Hazard Review of Pesticides Program. The
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) lists waterbodies in Contra Costa County and the
Bay Area as impaired due to excessive levels of pesticides as part of the Clean Water Act,
Section 303d list of impaired waterbodies. Water quality research and studies have shown
that the main toxicity problem is ultimately traced to commonly used pesticides that are
available in hundreds of consumer products. More importantly,the studies have shown that
even if the pesticides were used according to the label instructions, they still may cause
wastewater and stormwater toxicity. These product labels,therefore,should be modified to
prevent product uses that would create this toxicity problem.
EPA determines appropriate label instructions during the initial registration and subsequent
re-registration of pesticides for use. The EPA has recognized this problem with product
labels and has embarked on a program to identify potentially problematic uses of pesticides
and to work with manufacturers to modify or eliminate these uses from those listed on
product labels. Unfortunately,the EPA needs funding to complete this important work. For
the last six years congress has passed a rider to appropriations bill that prevented EPA from
charging the chemical industry for the cost of their Hazard Review Program,which includes
pesticide re-registration and tolerance review programs. These programs were intended by
Congress to be self-supporting. Federal Senate Bill 1664 would allow the EPA to charge the
chemical industry to conduct their Hazard Review Program.
Recommendation
Staff recommends supporting Senate Bill 1664 and submitting the attached letter to Senators
Feinstein and Boxer.
3. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10
Background
In 1996 the voters approved Proposition 218. Proposition 218 requires a vote of the people
before local government can impose a tax,fee,or assessment. Section 6C ofProposition 218
exempts fees or charges for water, sewer, and refuse collection from the ballot provisions.
This exemption provision covered most water related activities except stormwater. The City
of Salinas established a stormwater fee several years ago, claiming that stormwater was
either polluted wastewater,and therefore exempt from Proposition 218,or it was a resource
for recharging their water wells for potable water and therefore exempt from Proposition 218.
The city was sued by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The court found in favor of
the city but the decision was appealed to the appellate court,which reversed the decision and
held in favor of the Taxpayers Association. The California Supreme Court declined to hear
2
the case.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board recently imposed new
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements on the
county and the cities in Contra Costa County. These requirements will have a significant
financial impact on the county and cities' clean water programs. ACA 10 will provide
clarification to Proposition 218 by including`°stormwater and urban runoff management"as
an additional exemption. ACA 10 will allow this issue to be placed before the California
electorate for decision to amend Proposition 218 or not. If ACA 10 is adopted, and if the
California electorate support it, then Contra Costa County will be able to fund our Clean
Water Program similar to a water or sewer utility and raise or lower rates in the same fashion.
The Board took a position of support on ACA 10 on May 6,2003 and authorized sending a
letter of support. ACA 10 became a two-year bill so it would be appropriate to reaffirm the
Boards support.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Committee reaffirm its support for ACA 10 and forthe Committee to
recommend to the Board the same and to affirm it's support through the attached letter to
Assemblymember Harman.
MMS:k.MA;lz
G:\GrpData\Admin\SHIU\2003\12 DecemberlStormwater i egislation.doc
Attachments
c: Maurice Shiu,Public Works Director
Greg Corniaughton,Supervising Civil Engineer
Kevin Emigh,Senior Civil Engineer
Bob Faraone,Senior Civil Engineer
Mich Lierly,Associate Civil Engineer
Mark Boucher,Senior hydrologist
Don Freitas,Stormwater Pollution.Control Manager
Tom Dalziel,Senior Watershed Planning Specialist
3
The Board of Supervisors Contra John sweeten
F Clerk of the Board
COStaand
County Administration Building County Administrator
651 Pine Street,Room 106 County (925)335-1900
Martinez,California 94553-4068
John Gioia,District !
Gayle B.Uitkema,District 11
Millie Greenberg,District Ill j '
Mark DeSaninier,District iV a
Federal D.Clover, District V February 3, 2004
Senator Dianne Feinstein Senator Barbara Boxer
United States Senate United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building 112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington,DC 24514 Washington, DC 20510
RE: S 1664
Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer:
The Contra Costa County Board. of Supervisors, acting as the Board of Supervisors for the County of
Contra Costa and the Board of Director's of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, support Senate Bill 51664, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003.
This Senate Bill 51664 would remove the congressional ban (rider) on charging fees to the chemical
industry for the Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA)hazard review of pesticides.
Our Board is very concerned and interested in the quality of the stormwater originating in our
watersheds and flowing through our creeks to the Sacramento River Delta and the San Francisco Bay.
We are also keenly interested in providing water quality in the most effective and efficient manner and
have taken proactive steps to do so, such as adopting an Integrated Pest Management policy designed to
reduce pesticide use.
Senate Bill 51664 would provide the necessary funding to the EPA to identify the appropriate uses for
various pesticides and to accurately reflect those uses and restrictions on label instructions. This would
greatly reduce the misuse of pesticides and significantly improve water quality.
Water quality research conducted in California during the mid-late 1990s by stormwater programs,
wastewater treatment plants, and Regional Water Quality Control Boards identified widespread toxicity
in local creeks, urban runoff, and wastewater treatment plant effluent. The maim toxicity problem was
ultimately traced to commonly used pesticides that are available in hundreds of consumer products.
More importantly, the study results indicated that even if the pesticides were used according to label
instructions that they still may cause wastewater and stormwater toxicity. Product labels must be
modified to prevent product uses that would create this toxicity problem. Label instructions are
determined during EPA's review of pesticides.
Based on the water quality data, the EPA listed waterbodies in Contra Costa County and throughout
California as impaired due to excessive levels of pesticides (toxicity) as part of the final 2002 Clean
Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. As a result of the 303(d) listings and other legal
actions, Contra Costa County and local governments in virtually every urbanized portion of the State are
now spending significant and increasingly scarce resources addressing a problem that might have been
avoided at the national level.
Senators Feinstein &Boxer
February 3, 2004
Page 2
A review of monitoring data from around the country shows that municipalities in California are not
alone in this predicament. Results from the United States Geological Survey's (USGS)National 'W'ater
Quality Assessment Program from 1992 through 1996 show that the problem is in fact a national one.
Over 300 samples have been taken from eleven urban streams scattered across the country from Florida
to Connecticut to Oregon as part of the Pesticides National Synthesis Project. in a report on the first
cycle of the program, USGS concluded that "urban and suburban areas are substantial sources o,f'
pesticides to streams. " These results prompted USGS to declare: "Insecticides in urban streams,
largely from use around homes and in gardens,parks, and commercial areas,frequently occur at levels
of concern for aquatic life and may be a significant obstacle for restoring urban streams."
As the agency that sanctions the use of pesticides and lists waterbodies as impaired, EPA is the ultimate
regulatory authority on this issue. The fact that such a widespread problem could be coming from
previously reviewed and readily available consumer products has prompted EPA to start to redouble
their efforts to identify potentially problematic uses and to work with manufacturers to modify or
eliminate these uses from those listed on products labels. Typically, this is done during the initial
registration and subsequent re-registration of pesticides for use. However, in order for EPA to complete
this important task they need funding.
For six years, Congress has passed a"rider"to appropriations bills that have prevented EPA from being
able to charge the industry for the full cost of the government's hazard review programs. The pesticide
registration, re-registration, and tolerance (acceptable residues) review programs were intended by
Congress to be self-supporting. This is noted in two federal pesticide law revisions in 1988 and 1996,
where the costs for these reviews were shifted from the taxpayers to the chemical industry.
Due to the widespread water quality impairments and the necessity for adequate pesticide review
programs, the attachment of Bill S 1664, The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003, as an
amendment to the FY 2004 Senate Appropriations Bill would substitute for and put an end to the
Congressional ban (rider) on charging fees to the chemical industry for EPA's 'hazard review of
pesticides. This is an important step in funding EPA reviews that were mandated.by Congress under the
Food Quality Protection Act in 1996 and ultimately in protecting our nations waters.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue. If you have any questions, please contact Maurice Shiu
at(925) 313-2201 or Mitch Avalon at(925) 313-2203.
Very truly yours,
pervisor Federal D. Glover
Mt7Ra1A:1z Chair, Board of Supervisors
G:ICxpDatalAdndn\M4ch\2003112-031$ill S166tdoc
C: Senator Thad Cochran.(R-NIS)
Senator Tom Harkin(D4A)
Representative Frank Lucas(R-OK)
Representative Sob Goodhette(R-VA)
Representative Charlie Stmhokn(D.TX)
Greg Connaughtort Supervising Civil Engineer,Flood Control
Don Freitas,Contra Corsa Clean Water Program Manager
Tom Dalziel,Senior Watershed Planning Specialist
Y.Schlesinger,Alcahle&Fay