Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03061990 - 2.5 a.s THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 6, 1990 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, Torlakson, Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor McPeak ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Federal Non-Point Source Regulations i The Board received the attached report dated March 6, 1990 from Milton Kubicek, Deputy Public Works Director, recommending certain actions relating to compliance with Federal regulations to control non-point source (NPS) pollutants in stormwater. j Supervisor Tom Torlakson referred to efforts being made by Delta Diablo Sanitation District to reduce NPS pollution, and recommended that the sanitation districts be asked to participate in the development of an NPS compliance program. Supervisor Tom Powers commented on the need to identify funding for the NPS program. There being no further discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations of the Public Works Director relative to Federal regulations to control NPS pollutants in stormwater are APPROVED as modified by the Board to include working with the sanitation districts as well as the cities. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Public Works Director and County Counsel are REQUESTED to explore funding mechanisms to implement the program to comply with Federal NPS regulations. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken find entered on the minutes of the cc: Public Works Director Board of Supervisors on the date shown. County Counsel ATTESTED- County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board Supervisors and County Administrator 2 '005 • TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AS GOVERNING BOARD OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, CHIEF ENGINEER DATE: J> 1990 SUBJECT: FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT, NON-POINT SOURCE & REGULATORY PROGRAM FOR STORMWATERS, COUNTYWIDE SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: 1. ACCEPT report from the Chief Engineer on the pending federal regulations to control non-point source (NPS) pollutants in stormwater, and 2. AUTHORIZE the District to assist the County and Cities in the development of a comprehensive program for complying with said NPS regulations, and 3. AUTHORIZE the District to explore the feasibility of enactment of a stormwater utility charge to fund the studies, permits, and pollution control activities dictated by said proposed NPS regulations, and 4. AUTHORIZE the District to work with the County Adiministrator's Office in securing a specialist familiar with NPS issues, and 5. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chairperson to execute the attached agreement for District membership in the organization Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MFK:Iv a:bo27.t2 Orig. Div: Public Works (F/C) cc: County Administrator's Office County Counsel Director of Community Development Public Works Director Accounting Flood Control i r FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT, NON-POINT SOURCE & REGULATORY PROGRAM FOR STORMWATERS, COUNTYWIDE February 27, 1990 Page 2 II. Financial Impact: The cost to the District for organizing the efforts of City and County staffs is estimated to be $15,000 in Fiscal Year 1989-90 and $80,000 in Fiscal Year 1990-91. The future costs for the studies, permits, and pollution control activities required by the NPS regulations will be funded by the Cities and County or another funding source to be developed. These costs could exceed $1,000,000 a year. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: The Federal Water Quality Act of 1987 requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt regulations to monitor and control NPS pollutants entering waters of the United States. Due to the complicated nature of the problem, EPA has experienced difficulty in developing a program implementable by local government. Preliminary notice of the pending regulations occurred approximately one year ago. The final regulations will be published on or before July 20, 1990. It is anticipated that the federal regulations will be implemented by the State Water Quality Control Board through the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB has already required the Counties of Santa Clara and Alameda and their cities to under take NPS studies. In each case, the local county flood control agency is coordinating the activities for their respective city-county agencies. In Santa Clara County, the expenditures have exceed $2.5 million, and in Alameda County they have exceeded $1.5 million. It is anticipated that San Mateo County and Contra Costa County will be required to initiate similar studies in the near future. Attached is a supplemental information memo on this issue. To minimize local costs in meeting the regulations, we need to organize the nineteen agencies in the County having land use authority into a working group having the knowledge of what is required and how best to meet the regulations at a reasonable cost. It is conceivable that the collective cost for meeting the regulations could double if each agency were to get individual NPS permits. In fact, the RWQCB may not permit individual city permits due to RWQCB's limited staffing. It is recommended that the Board authorize the District to help organize the county and city staffs to meet the pending NPS regulations. The tasks to be performed by the District are: * develop a detailed understanding of the NPS program, * help the Cities develop the necessary data bases required as a part of the permit process, * develop agreements for sharing program costs, * develop the regional permit utilizing the knowledge gained by Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, * develop long range funding alternatives for the NPS program, * provide technical expertise on NPS regulations for city and county staffs. It is also recommended that the Board approve District membership in Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies (BASMA). Our County can avoid considerable costs if we utilize the knowledge already gained by our counties. Santa Clara County has been involved in this issue for over two years. The proposed membership in BASMA is the nine Bay Area Flood control Districts. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: The County and its Cities will not be prepared to meet the new federal NPS regulations when they are adopted this summer. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 255 GLACIER DRIVE, MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DATE: February 14, 1990 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: J. Michael Walford, Chief Engineer SUBJECT: Nonpoint Source Pollutants Contamination of our water resources is diminishing our standard of living. This was the theme of the late 1960s and early 1970s. In answer to this problem, Congress on October 18, 1972 overrode a Presidential veto and enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Prior Federal Acts had the states in a dominate position; however, in the 72 Act the Federal Government, through the Environmental Protection Agency, assumed a dominate role in adopting and•defining the water pollution control problems. Under this law, the Federal Government has dictated to the states the water standards they must meet. The objectives dictated by the Act were to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's water. One of the goals set by the Act in achieving this objective was the elimination of discharges of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985. Pollutants reaching waters had two sources; point and nonpoint. An example of a point source discharge would be the effluent from a sewage treatment plant. A nonpoint source discharge would be the pollutants reaching the streams from all other sources. The 1972 Act stressed control of the point source pollutants. To assist the states in controlling point source pollutants, the Federal Government set up a series of grants. The treatment facilities required to control the point source discharge were very costly and the Federal Government through its 75:25 grant program furnished approximately 45 billion dollars to the states over a 15 year period. For the most part, the Federal grants have inspired the state and local governments to undertake construction of the facilities necessary to control the pollutants in the effluent from sewage treatment plants. In the eighteen some odd years that have passed since the enactment of the 1972 Clean Water Act, it has become apparent that the pollutants from the nonpoint source discharges equal or exceed some of the pollutants from the point sources. In fact, some of the pollutants are almost 100 percent nonpoint source discharge. Two examples are: debris and litter from public and private properties and silt due to erosion. While neither of the two examples mentioned above are toxic in their own right, they do create an Board of Supervisors February 14, 1990 Page 2 unsightly environment when the debris collects or the silt fills the marshes. This filling also diminishes the food supply for small fish, other aquatic animals, and wildlife that depend on marsh areas for their habitat. Because of the problem created by the nonpoint source discharge, the Congress in 1986, again over a veto of the President of the United States, amended the 1972 Act. The 1986 amendment shifted the emphasis of the Federal Government from point source to nonpoint source pollutants, but it did not include any funding. The Act requires the states to report to the Federal Government on whether or not the point source controls had eliminated the pollution problem. The State of California appointed the Water Quality Control Board as the agency to develop the report. This agency developed the San Francisco Bay Plan which concerns itself with the nine counties that discharge into the Bay. The Bay Plan required these counties to make a determination if their waters meet the Clean Water standards. If it is determined that after treatment of the point source pollutants, the waters did not meet acceptable standards, the county would be required to take some kind of corrective action. Therefore, the Bay Plan requires each of the counties to make a determination of whether or not the waters flowing to the Bay meet the Clean Water Standards set by the Federal Government. If they do not, the county will have to develop and adopt the measures necessary to meet the Standards. The determination study may require that waters at various locations within the County be sampled to determine both the type of pollutant and its concentration. The gaging requirements and staff time to make these measurements could be very expensive. Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, the first two counties to become involved with answering the dictates of the State and the Bay Plan have each spent approximately $1.5 million on studies alone. The Bay Plan may require Contra Costa County to perform this study in 1990 and 1991. The investigation required by the Bay Plan will determine whether or not Contra Costa County meets the standard, and, if not, the County must develop an action plan of corrective actions. The action plan, among other things may consider two vastly different methods of removing the contamination from the water. The first approach would be removal after contamination. Because of the volume of stormwater involved, this approach would be very costly. The other approach is control at the source of the pollutant. Control at the source involves keeping the pollutant out of the water and can be either active or passive. Active approaches might include such things as street sweeping and litter pickup. Passive approaches may involve the passing of ordinances to require the private sector to reduce pollutant discharges or to take other corrective measures. . v Board of Supervisors February 14, 1990 Page 3 In conclusion, while the Federal Government budgeted $45 billion to correct the point source pollutant problem, not one cent is being provided to the states and counties to correct the nonpoint source problem. Further, with the current economic picture it is doubtful if any money will be made available in the near future. Therefore, it appears that the County and local cities face the possibility of having to pay 100 percent of the cost. Concurrent with the state's activities, the Federal government is developing regulations that will require regional permits for all discharges of storm waters into the waters of the United States. These regulations are due to be published on or before July 20, 1990. JMW:ly a:nonpoint.t2 . ✓ J1 u J .i L3YY 11!3V 2, 9 9 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE BAY AREA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES ASSOCIATION This Memorandum of Understanding between the; ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a State of California chartered agency (hereinafter referred to as ACFCWCD) ; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a State of California chartered agency, (CCCFCWCD) ; MARIN COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a State of California chartered agency, (MCFCWCD) ; NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a State of California chartered agency, (NCFCWCD) ; SAN MATEO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, a State of California chartered agency, (SMCFCD) ; THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; a Municipality of the State of California; SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a State of California chartered agency, (SCVWD) ; SOLANO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a State of California chartered agency, (SCFCWCD) ; SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY, a State of California chartered agency, (SCWA) ; is undertaken for the purpose of defining the roles and respon- sibilities of each of these entities in an organization of stormwater management agencies and flood control districts in the nine-county San Francisco Bay-Delta Region to be known as BAY AREA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES ASSOCIATION ( BASMAA) . Hereinafter, signatories to this Memorandum will be referred to as "members" . This Memorandum will be in effect immediately upon signature of at least two agencies. After that time new members may be admitted by a majority vote of the members. Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association Memorandum of Understanding October 30, 1989 ,. Page 2 1. Nature of Understandings Each of the agencies which sign this Memorandum of Understanding agrees to participate in an organization to share resources and information and to cooperate in other ways involv- ing their common interests as managers of stormwater draining into San Francisco, Bay. The main purpose of this organization will be to participate in: a. gathering and disseminating information regarding the qualities of the Bay's waters and tributary waters and sediments and the regulations that govern them, and; b. determining and representing the common interests of stormwater management agencies before the public, the courts, regulatory agencies, the scientific community, the environmental community, industry, and government at all levels, and; determining and representing other common interests and responsibilities of flood control and floodplain management agencies in the nine-county area of the San Francisco Bay drainage basin, and; c. other programs, activities , and organizations includ- ing, but not limited to: (1) The San Francisco Bay - Delta Aquatic Habitat Institute, (2) The U. S . Environmental Protection Agency' s San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary Project, (3) The California State Water Resources Control Board' s San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary Hearings process, (4) The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region' s "Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin" (Basin Plan) review process. (5) The U . S . EPA ' s Nation Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit program under the Water Quality Act Amendments of 1987, (6 ) The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ' s ( BCDC ) regulatory programs. Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association Memorandum of Understanding October 30, 1989 Page 3 2. 'Responsibilities of Members MEMBERS OF BASMAA SHALL a. Appoint a representative to serve on the BASMAA Board of Directors . b. Cooperate in research, education, and lobbying programs to further the interests of stormwater management agencies and flood-control districts in the nine-county San Francisco Bay region. 3. Amendment and Modifications: Supplemental guidance memoranda and information agreements will be formulated to facilitate efficient attainment of objec- tives substantially as indicated herein. Any major revisions in the objectives or scope of the program as outlined herein, which any member of BASMAA may consider desirable or necessary in the future, will be made the subject of supplemental agreements, or may be decided by a consensus of the BASMAA Board of Directors. 4. Limitations: Performance under this agreement is subject to the availability of resources to the parties hereto, for purposes described herein, and subject to revised administrative and personnel policies which may have an effect on the terms of the Understanding. Each party shall assume full control and sole responsibility only for its respective personnel and activities incident to the performance of this agreement consistent with its law('s) . 5. Termination: This Memorandum of Understanding becomes - effective for each member on the date of that member' s signature and shall continue in effect indefinitely from that date. Any member may withdraw upon 90 days' written notice to the Board of Directors, notice to begin with the date of mailing. Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association Memorandum of Understanding October 30, 1989 Page 6 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, APPROVED AS TO FORM: a chartered agency of the State of California B Contra Co to Co my Chairman o the .Board of Attorney Supervisor ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By:_ Deputy