2. • NPDES Permit & TMDL Programs
• Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure
• Protest Hearing Process
• Board Direction
• Parcel Tax vs. Parcel Fee/ Other Options
• Future Actions
Summary

3. • New permit is complex
• New water quality monitoring requirement
• EWMP or WMP by June 28, 2013
• Significant Funding Commitment
• Non-compliance risk is real
NPDES Permit and TMDL

4. Background
• Original focus of enforcement of Clean Water Act was aimed at point-
sources of water pollution (i.e. factories, sanitary sewer treatment
plants)
• Since mid-1990’s enforcement focus has moved to urban runoff –
through municipal NPDES Permits
• Unique problems with urban runoff:
• Sources of pollution are diverse
• “Legacy” pollutants
• No dedicated funding source/fees governed by Proposition 218
• Federal and State funds are limited
• Limited public awareness of pollution problems/solutions
• Unresolved scientific, technical, and legal issues require solutions
• Unprecedented level of involvement by the cities in new permit

5. Development of a Regional Funding Source
• ASCE 2002
• LA County sponsored AB 2554 to address Proposition 218
issues
• AB 2554 was based on “situs” parcel fee
• Regional, local and FCD “return”
• Clean Water Clean Beaches Initiative
• Typical residential parcel fee $54 LACFCD
10%
Watershed Groups
50%
Cities
40%
Fee Distribution

6. Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure
• Board of Supervisors opened protest hearing
from January 15 to March 12, 2013
• Protesters included individuals, public
schools, businesses, and some cities
• Supporters included individuals, some cities, and
environmental organizations
• 113,696 (5.16%) protests

7. Major Unresolved Issues
• School exemption
• Exemption for cities with existing fees
• Religious & Non-profit exemption
• Business concerns
• Lack of Sunset Clause
• Inadequate recognition of existing improvements
• Many cities failed to provide specific projects
• No hardship exemptions

8. Proposed Changes
• School Education as “in-kind” services
• “Sunset” and “Dusk” Clause alternatives
• Credit Program

9. Board Direction
• Additional outreach to stakeholders
• Investigate Options
• Report due in 90 days (June 2013)

10. Comments
• Board understands the high cost of stormwater programs
• Process needs to start from Cities
• County is exploring all options
• Cities need to be involved
• City customization
• Educate elected officials
and the community
• Election issues/timing

11. Future Actions
• Involvement of Government Stakeholders -
Cities, Schools & Community Colleges
• Involvement of Additional Stakeholders – BIZ
Fed, Environmental Community, etc.
• City Managers/Public Works Officials Meeting - Contract
Cities and LA Division of the League June 27 at 12 PM
• Develop issues, form CM Task Force, with report &
recommendations

12. LA County Website for Clean Water, Clean Beaches
Initiative www.lacountycleanwater.org/
Draft Ordinance
www.lacountycleanwater.org/files/managed/Docume
nt/727/Ordinance%20V3.5pdf
Draft Implementation Manual
www.lacountycleanwater.org/files/managed/Docume
nt/728/Implementation%20Manual%20V3.5pdf
Resources

13. Engineer’s Report:
www.lacountycleanwater.org/files/managed/Docume
nt/623/Fee%Methodology/pdf
Sample Projects
www.lacountycleanwater.org/pages/map
Contacts:
Phil Doudar, LA County
DPW, PDOUDAR@dpw.lacounty.gov
Ken Farfsing, City of Signal Hill
kfarfsing@cityofsignalhill.org
Resources