The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05242005 - C34 ContraTO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS jr FROM: MAURICE M. SHIU, CHIEF ENGINEERosta DATE: MAY 249 2005 County-�,. asrA'coux'� SUBJECT: WATER QUALITY LEGISLATION — HOUSE RESOLUTION 6 33io- SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION "COMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Chair of the Board to sign a letter to Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer with concerns on HR 6,the energy bill. FISCAL IMPACT This legislation has the potential for increasing program costs for our clean water program if MTBE clean up costs are shifted from oil companies to local government. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: [K SIGNATURE: _ /14- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE -oo-�. APPROVE OTHER r SIGNATURE(S): Q�S&�ACTION OF BO a � V APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON UNANIMOUS ABSENT // ) MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE AYES: NOES: DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Contact:Mitch Avalon(313-2203) R1ViA:lz G:1GrpDatalAdminlMitch\bo12005\HR 6 5-24-05.doc ATTESTED 01 JOHN S EN,CLERK F THE BOARD OF SUPERVIS S c: J.Sweeten,County Administrator S.Hoffman,AssistantCounty Administrator M.Avalon,Deputy Public Works Director G.Connaughton,Flood Control gt D.Freitas,Clean Water Program BY: / ,DEPUTY S.Goetz,Community Development R.Goulart,Community Development J.Kopchik,Community Development County Counsel P.Schlesinger,Alcalde&Fay SUBJECT: WATER QUALITY LEGISLATION—HOUSE RESOLUTION 6 DATE: MAY 249 2005 PAGE: 2 of 2 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND BACKGROUND: i (a Congress is considering an energy bill that has a provision n 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 the energy bill would retroactively block legitimate MTBE lawsuits that cu iunities have already filed. In addition, these proposed provisions 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. This is not fair, as local communities were not originally responsible for adding the MTBE to gasoline fuel. Theproposed safe harbor provisions should be eliminated from HR 6. It has been pointed out that Congress never mandated 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. Lastyear Congress considered an energy bill with the same MTBE provisions but it did not pass. The Board at that time (on February 3,2004)took a position against the MTBE provisions. CONSEt UENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County's position and concerns regarding this legislative proposal on stormwater quality would not be known. •t The Board of Supervisors Contra John Sweeten Clerk of the Board Costa and County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106Colla (925)335-1900 Martinez,California 9455.3-4068 ty John Gioia,District 1 Gayle B.Uilkema,District II • y Mary Piepho,District III r w Mark DeSaulnier,District IV Federal D.Glover, District V _. May 24, 2005 VIA FAX (202) 228-3954 (415) 393-0710 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 bili. 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 unfunded mandate on our fiscally strapped communities. It has been estimated that the cost of cleaning up MTBE- contaminated drinking water supplies throughout the nation will exceed $29 billion. r Senator Feinstein May 24, 2005 Page 2 If Congress decides the current MTBE provisions should remain in the energy bill, then Congress should ensure the clean up costs are not passed on to local government. This could be accomplished by, for example, adding a surcharge onto the sale of gasoline to fund the clean up costs. Please support removing from the energy bill these provisions 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, or provide a funding source to pay for the clean up costs. Sincerely, Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema Chair, Board of Supervisors GBU:RMA:lz GAGrpData\Admin\Mlitch120051HR6 Feinstein Ltr 5-24-05.doc c: Senator Barbara Boxer M. Shiu,Public Works Director 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 Contra John Sweeten The Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board and County Administration Building Costa County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106County (925)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-4068 John Gioia,District I Gayle B.Uilkema,District 11 *;', ,`i* Mary Piepho,District Ul Mark DeSaulnier,District IV Federal D.Glover, District V May 24, 2005 VIA FAX (415) 956-6701 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 ca iunities 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 conununities - 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 unfimded 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 May 24, 2005 Page 2 If Congress decides the current MTBE provisions should remain in the energy bill, then Congress should ensure the clean up costs are not passed on to local government. This could be accomplished by, for example, adding a surcharge onto the sale of gasoline to fund the clean up costs. Please support removing from the energy bill these provisions 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, or provide a funding source to pay for the clean up costs. Sincerely, Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema Chair,Board of Supervisors GBU:RMA:lz G:\GrpData\Admin\Mitch\2004101-041HR6 Boxer Ltr.doc C: Senator Dianne Feinstein M.Shiu,Public Works Director 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