spring 2005 california runoff rundown newsletter

8/3/2019 Spring 2005 California Runoff Rundown Newsletter

1/16

Flexible Farm ing:Growers Adapt toRunoff Regulation

approaches to con trolling run off to

creeks, drain s and canals.

Famously independent,

Californ ias growers h ave respon ded

to th e challenge to reduce polluted

run off by developin g strategic

alliances not only among them-

selves but with watershed groups

and oth ers interested in p rotecting

water qu ality. Singly an d in coali-

tions, growers have started m on itor-ing ru n off for p esticide residu es,

sedimen t, nu trien ts, m etals and

other contaminants that m ake up

nonpoint source pollution.

Differen t app roach es are being

tried in different parts of Californ ia

th at are attun ed to regional differ-

ences in grower comm un ities,

clim ate, irrigation practices, etc. The

A N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E W A T E R E D U C A T I O N F O U N D A T I O N

CONTINUED ON PAGE 3

Spr i ng 2 005

BY GLENNTOTTEN

Sou rces of water pollution in

Californ ia are m any and

diverse, and one of the last to

be brought un der state regulation is

run off from irrigated agricultural

land s. Growers in t h e states major

farm ing areas are facin g, some for

th e first t im e, new requirement s to

m onitor run off and , when found , to

clean it up. The developm ent o f

conditional waiver programs by

several region al water b oards is

challenging growers on millions of

acres of irrigated land to adopt new

Spr i ng 2 005


2/16

Edi tors

Rita Schm idt Sudman

Sue McClu rg

Writers

Glenn Totten

Gary Pitzer

Edi tor ia l Assi s tance

Julia Au

P h o t o s

California Departm ent of Water

Resources

Scott Lyle

Sacramen to Valley Water Quality

Coalition

Selica Pott er

D e s ig n a n d La y o u t

Curt Leipold,

Graphic Commun ications

The Water Education Foundat ion th anksall the sources and experts who reviewed

this newsletter for balance and accuracy.

Water Education Foun dation

717 K St., Suite 317

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 444-6240

Fax (916) 448-7699

e-mail: feedback@wateredu cation .org

W e b p a g e : w w w . w a t e r e d u c a t i o n . o rg

Pres ident

Hen ry Vaux Jr., Ph.D.

Execut ive Direc tor

Rita Schm idt Sudman

Grant Davis, Th e Bay Institute

Denn is Dickerson ,McGuire Environm ental, Inc.

Steve Fagun des, State W ater Resources Control Board

David Gu y, General Man ager, N orthern California W ater Association

Beth Jines, State Water Resources Control Board

Dan iel Merkley, State Water Resources Control Board

Michele Stress, San Diego Count y Department of Public W orks

Sam Ziegler, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency

Olen Zirkle,Ducks Unlimited

Nonpoint source water pollution has emerged as Californias and

the nations top water pollution problem. The Water Education

Foun dation is proud to be at th e forefront of this emergin g issue

with The Runoff Rundown, a newsletter that will focus on how stakeholdersan d regulators are using creative strategies to ad dress th e challenges posed

by n on point source pollution . It is our hop e th at th is n ewsletter will

become a forum for sharing real-world experiences that have contributed

to reducin g non point source pollution .

This first issue ofThe Runoff Rundown focuses on a very recent effort to

control n on point source water pollution : the u se of cond ition al waivers in

th e agricultu ral sector. Thou gh th is effort is still in its infancy, agriculture

h as formed alliances both within its own ranks and with various watersh ed

groups to address the pollution problems posed by runoff from irrigated

lands.

In futu re issues, we plan to b ring you m ore exam ples of successful

strategies being used across California to keep nonpoint source pollutants

out of the waterbodies we all depend on for a host of uses. If you have a

story to tell about h ow to reduce non point source water pollution , we hope

youll sh are it with your p eers th rough The Runoff Rundown. x

The Runoff Rundown is published by th e

Water Education Foundat ion, an im par-

tial, non -profit organization, wh ose

mission is to create a better understandin g

of water issues and help resolve waterresource problem s through edu cational

programs.

The Runoff Rundown is published th rough

a grant from the State Water Resources

Cont rol Board with fundin g from th e U.S.

Environm ental Protection Agency under

th e Federal Non point Source Pollution

Con trol Program (Clean Water Act Section

319). I ts cont ents do n ot represent

positions of the State Board or U.S. EPA,

and neither organization has endorsed the

contents .

2 THERUNOFFRUNDOWN SPRING 2005

Em ail yo ur story ideas to Glen n Totten , gtotten @w atereducatio n.o rg


3/16

two main m odels that have

em erged for growers to com ply with

the conditional waivers are water-

shed-based coalitions involving

growers and oth er organization s orsingle farmers who hold individual

waivers but wh o m ay band togeth er

to carry out th eir mon itorin g

responsibilities.

Participants an d m any observers

are en couraged th at th e respon se to

date from th e agricultural com m u-

n ity may offer the best ho pe yet of

reducing on e of the largest sources

of contam inated run off to Califor-

n ia waterbodies. Som e obstacles

remain , includin g legal issues, and

n ot all growers have sign ed up forwaiver coverage, but a con sensus

seems to h ave em erged th at cooper-

ating amon g them selves and with

Regional Boards that have adopted

con dition al waivers is a better

strategy for growers th an resistan ce.

This issue o fThe Runoff Rundown

focuses on the different approaches

taken by Californias agricultural

comm un ity an d regulators to reduce

contam inated run off from irrigated

lands.

Cen tral Val ley Coal i t ion sWh ats going on on th e groun d is

just am azin g. Th e folks out on th e

groun d h ave really stepped up and

m ade this happen , en th uses David

Guy, general man ager of the No rth-

ern California Water Association

(NCWA) and an organizer of th e

Sacramen to Valley Water Q uality

Coalition, wh en h e talks about th e

coalit ion approach t h at character-

izes the Central Valleys approach to

runoff control. The coalition is oneof nine that h ave formed in th e

Cen tral Valley in respon se to a

cond ition al waiver program for

irrigated run off adop ted in July

2003 b y th e Cen tral Valley Region al

Board. Since then, the Central Coast

Region al Board h as adopt ed a

waiver, and the Los Angeles Re-

gional Board is working on one.

By far the biggest laboratory in

wh ich t he con ditional waiver

app roach is being used is th e vast

expanse covered by th e CentralValley Region al Board , wh ich

extends rough ly from Redding to

Bakersfield. The region includes

m ost of the acreage supporting

Californias $33 billion agricultural

industry.

The Cen tral Valleys coalition

approach is a byproduct of the

generally larger agricultural opera-

tions in th e region and o f th e

Regional Boards approach to

waivers. Wh ile th e waiver program

it adop ted in July 2003 allowsind ividu al growers to seek coverage,

the Central Valley Regional Board

encouraged the app roxim ately

25,000 farmers who could com e

un der its term s to join coalit ion s.

Most coalitions report better than

50 percent p articipation am on g

growers in th eir areas of coverage.

The Central Valley Regional

Board was th e first to ado pt a w aiverprogram, which was mandated by

enactm ent of legislation in 1999

(SB 390) that ended a voluntary

approach t o reducing polluted

run off. Althou gh th e term waiver

might imply excusing a party from

com pliance, in fact th e legislation

(Water Code Section 13269) had the

effect of tightening regulation of

polluted runoff from agricultural

operations by giving regional boards

auth ority to attach cond ition s to

such disch arges. Am on g th e cond i-tion s in th e Cen tral Valley Region al

Board s waiver regulat ion s are

requiremen ts that growers mon itor

run off, report th eir fin dings and

clean up sources of disch arges wh en

they exceed established standards.

The m andate to curb non point runof

stems from th e 1987 amen dm ents

to t h e federal Clean Water Act.

Mon itorin g is to occur in th ree

phases. P hase 1 , begun in late 2004

and early 2005, requires sampling of

Flexib le Farm in g

CONTINUED FROMFRONTPAGE

SPRING 2005 THERUNOFFRUNDOWN 3


4/16

ph ysical water param eters (such as

pH, electrical con du ctivity an d

dissolved oxygen), evaluation o f

pesticide u se, drin king water qu ality

(E. coli and organic carbon ) an dtoxicity testing. P hase 2 , to begin

two years after th e start of Phase 1,

repeats the physical parameters

mon itoring, but adds mon itoring

requirements for five classes of

pesticides, eight metals and three

nutrients. P hase 3 , to begin two

years after th e start of Phase 2,

focuses on determinin g if m anage-

m en t p ractices used by farmers yield

statistically significant changes in

waste concentrations of runoff. The

full text of the m on itorin g require-m ents is at www.waterboards.ca.gov/

cent ralvalley/adopted_orders/W aivers/

R5-2003-0826-mrp_qapp.pdf.

Any samples that find toxicity

m ust be reported to th e region al

water bo ard. Sites initially indicat-

ing to xicity are resamp led. Coali-

tion groups m ust file ann ual reports

with th e regional water board by

April 1 sum m arizin g th eir m on itor-

ing activities an d find ings. At a Feb.

14, 2005, m eeting of th e Irrigated

Lan ds Public Advisory Com m ittee,

represen tatives of coalition groups

reported few samples that indicated

toxicity durin g the Phase 1 mon i-

toring.

The regional water board h as not

set a nu m erical or percent age goal

for reducing polluted runoff from

irrigated lands. Rather, its long-term

goal is to p romot e and protect water

quality and improve it wh ere it is

degraded by encouraging growers to

take actions th at will chan ge agri-

cultural practices to redu ce polluted

run off from irrigated lan ds, said

Dan n y Merkley, agricultu ral coordi-n ator for t h e State Water Resou rces

Con trol Board (State Board).

Because regulation of polluted

run off is n ew to m any growers,

th ere has been some resistance to

th e waiver approach. However, th e

Cen tral Valley coalitions h ave

helped smooth the t ransit ion by

actively recruiting growers in th e

Central Valley to seek waiver cover-

age. Coalition s also h ave been

instrumen tal in collaborating with

other watershed-based groups suchas irrigation districts, con servation

groups and even en vironm ental

organizations.

For their membership in a coali-

tion , growers pay a fee, usually

based on acreage, that finan ces th e

groups activities such as prepara-

tion of watersh ed evaluation re-

ports, m on itoring an d reportin g.

Fee structures vary with each

coalition . Coalitions also represen t

th eir mem bers int erests in d iscus-sion s with t h e Region al Board.

There has been som e confusion

over wh o is considered a discharger

of run off un der th e Cent ral Valley

Regional Boards conditional waiver.

Th e sim ple answer is that any

agricultural operation th at irrigates

is covered, bu t to clarify m atters,

the Regional Board issued fact

sheets and a pam ph let called Wh at

is a Discharger (dow n load th e

pamph let at www.waterboards.ca.gov/

cent ralvalley/programs/ irrigated_lands/discharger1.pdf).

Sacram ent o Val l eyCoal i t ionOne of the largest coalition groups

is the Sacramento Valley Water

Qu ality Coalition , coverin g 1.75

m illion acres and m ore than 7,000

participants, most of th em farm-

related ent ities. Its regional p lan for

add ressin g run off from irrigated

lands was approved in 2004.

The Sacram en to Valley com prises22 p ercen t o f Californ ias total

farmland , and p rovides im portan t

habitat for migrating waterfowl

alon g th e Pacific Flyway as well as

for half th e species in Californ ia


Stakeholders attend a m eeting of th e Irrigated Lands Public Advisory Com m ittee.

Runoff sam pling is required un der the condit ional w aiver.


5/16

l isted as th reatened or en dan gered

un der th e En dan gered Species Act.

In add ition, several cities alon g the

Sacramen to River draw th eir drin k-

ing water from t h e river or its

tributaries.

All of these uses mean th e Sacra-mento Valley coalition must coordi-

n ate its activities with m any o th er

interests sharing the watershed,

includin g m un icipalities, Resource

Con servation Districts (RCDs) and

waterfowl group s such as Ducks

Unlimited. But it also means there is

mu ch data on th e watershed th at

already has been collected and can

be used as a found ation on wh ich to

build the monitoring program and

m anagemen t practices.

The Sacramento Valley coalitionwas formed under auspices of

NCWA, which represents more than

70 water suppliers and individual

farmers who irrigate about 900,000

acres of farm land . The coalition s

roots date back to cooperative

efforts in th e mid-1980s to limit

discharges of rice pesticides and

improve h abitat for salmon . It has a

mem orand um of understanding

with an oth er coalit ion , th e Califor-

n ia Rice Com m ission , who se mem-

bers farm 500,000 acres in side th eSacramento Valley coalitions

territory. Und er the agreem ent, th e

two grou ps m eet twice a year, prior

to th e storm and irrigation sam -

plin g seasons, to coordin ate th eir

sam pling plans.

The Sacramento Valley coalitions

organization mimics its regional

h ydrology with 10 tributary

subwatershed groups feeding into a

central coalition office in Sacra-

m ento. The subwatershed groups

work closely with coalition growers

on m onitor ing, management plans

and other compliance issues. This

nested approach allows for

expression of local viewpoin ts

within th e broader coalit ion and

provides a feedback loop to d issemi-

n ate in form ation from th e coalit ion

leadership to its members, accord-

ing to Gu y. Each subw atershed

group h as developed its own un ique

Cal i forn i a R i ce Com m i ssi on

500,000 acres of rice production in n ine coun ties north of

Sacramento

(Contact: Tim Joh n son , 916/92 9-2264; tjoh n [email protected])

East San Joaq ui n Water Qual i ty Coal i t io n

1.2 m illion acres in th e sub-watersh eds of the lower Stan islaus,

Tuolumne and Merced rivers

(Contacts: Parry Klassen , 559/ 325-985 5; parryk@com cast.n et or

Wayne Zipser, 209 /522-7278, wayn ez@stanfarm bureau .org)

Goose Lak e Reg i on a l Resource Con servat i on D i s t r i ct

Modoc County (Contact: Kim Wolfe, 530/515-9655,

kwolfe7@front iern et.n et)

Root Creek Wat er Distr ict

9,400 acres in Madera Coun ty(Contact: Marc Carpen ter, 559/ 449-2700, mcarpen ter@pp en g.com)

Sacram ent o Val l ey Water Qual i ty Coa l i t i on

1.75 million acres covering 21 counties from Sacramento north to

the Oregon border

(Contacts: Aaron Ferguson, NCWA, 916 /442-8333;

aferguson @n orcalwater.org or Olen Zirkle, Du cks Un limited ,

916/ 851-5346 , ozirkle@du cks.org)

San Joaqu i n Coun ty & De l ta Water Qual i ty Coa l i t i on

500,000 acres in San Joaquin Coun ty and th e Sacramen to-

San Joaqu in Delta region

(Contact: Joh n Meek, San Joaqu in Co un ty Resource Con servationDistrict, 209 /472-7127, [email protected] )

Sout hern San Joaqu i n Val l ey Water Qual i ty Coa l i t i on

4 million acres in the Tulare Lake Basin of Fresno, Kern, Kings and

Tulare coun ties

(Contacts: David O rth , Kings River Con servation District, 559/237-

5567, do rth @krcd.ord or William Th om as, Livin gston & Mattesich,

916/ 442-1111, wth om [email protected])

West l an ds Water D i s t r i ct

600,000 acres on th e west side of Fresn o an d Kings coun ties

(Contact: Th add eus Bettn er, 559/24 1-6215,

tb ettn er@westlan dswat er.org)

Wests i de San Joaqu i n R i ver Watershed Coal i t i o n

550,000 acres on t h e west side of th e San Joaqu in river in Fresno,

Madera, Merced an d Stan islaus coun ties

(Contact: Joseph C. McGahan, Summers Engineering, 209/826-

9696, jmcgahan @summ erseng.com)

For docum ents an d p rogram information on th e Central Valley irrigated

lands waiver, call (916) 464-3291 or visit www.waterboards.ca.gov/

centralvalley/programs/irrigated_lands/index.html#Contact



6/16

leadership style. In some, thecounty agricultural commissionerhas taken the lead role; in others itis an RCD or the county farmbureau, he said.

The first round of monitoring

was completed at the end of Janu-ary, with three samples in theSacramento Valley coalitionsterritory indicating possible toxicitySampling sites include agriculturaldrains, canals, sloughs, creeks andother water courses. Under proce-dures outlined in the conditionalwaiver, samples with toxicity hitstrigger followup tests to determinethe general class of the chemicalcausing toxicity (metals, pesticides,etc.) and the potential source(s) of

the chemical(s) in the watershed.Members of the Sacramento

Valley coalition are charged a feethat pays for the groups monitoringactivities and representation beforethe regional water board. Eachsubwatershed group in the coalitiondetermines its own fee, but they areall based on acreage under cultiva-tion, Guy said. Members of allcoalitions likely will face anotherfee soon because the State Board isconsidering four options for a fee

that would be collected to supportconditional waiver program activi-ties such as enforcement, oversightof coalition groups and preparationof a programmatic environmentalimpact report. More information onthese proposals is available from theState Boards Merkley, at (916) 341-5501, or at www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/programs/irrigated_lands/Presentations/PACFeeProp021405.pdf

Guy said the Sacramento Valleycoalition has made great progress toclear formidable organizationalhurdles, recruit members and startmonitoring. He credited the pre-existing group of rice growers andother stakeholders with helping tospread the coalition concept toother growers in the valley.

One of those stakeholders isDucks Unlimited, a group dedicatedto conserving and restoring wet-lands and waterfowl habitat. Ducks

6 THE RUNOFF RUNDOWN SPRING 2005

The coalition covers 1.75 million acres ofirrigated lands. Source: Sacramento ValleyWater Quality Coalition


7/16

Un limited h as worked closely for

many years with rice growers in the

Sacramen to Valley to p rotect wet-

land h abitat for m igratin g water-

fowl, said Olen Zirkle of th e Ducks

Un limited region al office in Sacra-

m ento. This relationship with ricegrowers and long stand ing relation-

ships with water d istricts allowed

DU to assum e a major role in

formation of th e Sacramen to Valley

coalition, he said.

Ducks Unlimited put togeth er the

watersh ed evaluation report for the

coalition , a cru cial first step toward

developing a m on itorin g plan,

Zirkle said. The organization also

did m apping for th e coalit ion based

on Geograph ic In form ation System

(GIS) m odeling Ducks Un limiteddeveloped earlier with funding from

th e Packard Foun dation.

The data collected for the water-

shed evaluation report h elped

coalition leaders iden tify high

priority drainages for monitoring. A

total of 28 sites are being m on itored

in Ph ase 1. Of th e first storm season

samp les collected in Jan uary 2005,

toxicity as defined by th e region al

water boards criteria was exhibited

at th ree sites, said Aaron Ferguson,

regulato ry affairs specialist forNCWA. Non e of the th ree toxicity

hits reached the significant

th resh old for which th e waiver

requires a more rigorous Toxicity

Identification Evaluation (TIE), he

said, bu t coalition leaders met with

subwatershed groups to discuss the

findings.

A Con tras t in StylesCoalition groups emerged as th e

comp liance tool of choice in th e

Cen tral Valley, but t h e Cent ral

Coast, Region 3, extend ing from

Santa Cruz to n orth ern Ventu ra

Coun ty, took a differen t path .

There, growers are required to file

individual notices of inten t to seek

coverage un der th e Central Coast

Region s waiver, but th ey h ave th e

option of join ing a cooperative

m on itoring program. That coopera-

tive mon itorin g program is bein g

m anaged by a

nonprofit group

Central Coast

Water Quality

Preservation,

Inc. (CCWQP)

that conductsm onitor ing but

does not repre-

sen t th e growers

in t h eir dealin gs

with th e re-

gional water

board.

About 55

percent of growers in th e Central

Coast Region submitted notices of

inten t by a Janu ary 1, 2005, dead-

lin e, according to Joh n n y Gon zalez,

water resources con trol en gineer forth e State Board. He said t h e target is

to h ave 80 percent en rollm ent by

th e end of 2005. He credited a series

of outreach worksh ops and enroll-

m ent t rain ing sessions cond ucted

by the regional water board prior to

th e Janu ary 1 deadlin e with raisin g

grower awareness and in terest in

seeking con dition al waiver cover-

age.

In addi t ion to th e outreach to

growers, th e Cen tral Coast Region al

Board requ ired all growers in th eregion to seek coverage un der its

conditional waiver, said Dennis

Dickerson, execut ive director o f

CCWQP. That avoided some of the

questions raised in th e Central

Valley about who needed to seek

waiver coverage, he said. Growers in

th e Central Coast Region can op t to

join th e cooperative mon itoring

conducted by CCWQP when they

file their no tices of in ten t.

After a grower in th e Cent ral

Coast Region files a not ice of int en t,

it is placed in on e of two regulatory

tiers. Growers assigned to Tier 1

qu alify for reduced reportin g re-

quiremen ts because they have

comp leted a 15-hou r farm water-

quality education course and a

developed a farm p lan to m anage

run off. Growers in Tier 2 mu st

submit ann ual reports un til th ey

comp lete th e education require-

men ts and th eir

farm plan .

Whereas

Central Valley

growers assess

themselves to

pay for coalitiongroup services,

seed m on ey for

CCWQP cam e

from fund s

derived from

two enforce-

men t set t lemen t

agreements.

These fun ds, approved for distribu-

tion to CCW QP by the region al

water board, are directed to CCWQP

through two foundat ions, Nat ional

Fish eries Wildlife Fou n dation an dthe Comm un ity Foun dat ion of

Mon terey Coun ty. CCWQP is

seeking grant s totaling $2.5 m illion

from state bond fun ds to con duct

m on itorin g to determine agricul-

tural sources of persistent water

quality im pairments in th e region ,

to imp lem ent agricultural man age-

m en t practices in th ree specific

watersheds and to implement

m anagemen t p ractices in

San Luis Obispo an d Santa Barbara

counties.More information about the

Central Coast Regions agricultural

waiver is available from Alison

Jon es at (805) 542-4646 o r by

visiting www.waterboards.ca.gov/

centralcoast/AGWaivers/Index.htm

The Los Angeles Region al Board

(Region 4), covering m ainly th e

coastal watersheds of Los Angeles

and Ventura counties, is working

on an approach th at blends the

coalition s of th e Cen tral Valley

with the individual waiver coverage

of th e Cent ral Coast. The Los

Angeles Regional Board has yet to

propose a conditional waiver, but it

is meeting with stakeholders to

work ou t details of its app roach ,

wh ich m ost likely will include an

offer of individual waivers and a

waiver for a sm all coalition grou p

form ed by the Ventu ra County

Farm Bureau.


Whats going on

on the ground is just

am azin g. The folks

out on the groun d

have really stepped

up and m ade thishappen.

David Guy,

Northern California

W ater Association


8/16


A on e-size-fits-all ap pro ach

won t wo rk in C alifornia, says

Merkley. A form er farmer h im self,

Merkley notes that the diversity of

Californias agriculture and its

h ydrologic region s argues against

a un iform approach. All of thewaiver programs share the same

goal of promotin g and protecting

water quality, with im provemen t

wh ere water quality is degraded,

Merkley said. Within that goal there

is room for different approaches

th at are tailored to variation s in

region al h ydrology, agricultural

practices and comm un ity organiza-

tion, h e said.

But som e of the approach es have

drawn criticism, especially from th e

environm ental commu nity.DeltaKeeper and others have sued

the Central Valley Regional Board,

claim ing t h at b oards waiver violates

Californias Porter-Cologne Act by

exem pting th ousands of growers

from n on point source discharge

lim itation s that apply to mu n ici-

palities and industry (Deltakeeper et

al. v. California Regional W ater

Quality Control Board, No.

04CS00235, Sacramen to Coun ty

S u m m a r yDifferent app roaches are being

taken in different regions aroun d

Californ ia to reduce con tamin ated

runoff from irrigated lands. In the

un ique Cen tral Valley, with its

typically larger growers, coalitiongroup s have emerged to bring

waiver coverage to vast tracts of

land, but in th e sm aller Cen tral

Coast Region it is in dividual farmers

wh o are taking th e lead. Region 4s

approach so far has been a blend of

coalitions and individual growers.

Regulation of run off discharges to

water is new to m uch of the agricul-

tural community, but Merkley says

growers are a resourceful and

resilient lot who will come up with

creative solution s if given leeway todo so. Guy said growers in th e

Sacramen to Valley coalition h ave

taken a can-do approach to th e

Central Valley Regional Water

Boards waiver. Never once in our

coalition meetings have I heard

peop le say, We shou ldn t be d oin g

th is, h e said. Likewise, Dickerson

credited local growers in Region 3

with taking th e initiative to form a

voluntary mo n itorin g organization .

Sup erior Co urt). The case is workin g

its way through th e courts.

Form er State Board Mem ber Gary

Carlton says the waiver program h as

m ade tremend ous progress in on ly

two years, movin g a largely un regu-

lated ind ustry in to po sition t om on itor discharges and develop

m anagemen t practices to reduce

run off. He credits outreach by th e

Cen tral Valley Region al Board to th e

grower comm un ity for successes

that boards program has achieved

so far.

Despite ou treach from coalit ion s

and th e regional water board, some

growers have not sought coverage

un der th e waiver, but progress is

being n oted . Were startin g to reach

a level of awareness amon g growersof th eir need to file, said Bill Croyle

who heads the Central Valley

Region Boards ag waiver program.

Still, a n um ber of issues rem ain

to b e addressed, especially in t h e

Cen tral Valley. There is th e litiga-

tion challenging th e validity of th e

waiver there. Som e growers, no tably

a group in Nevada Coun ty, are

askin g th e Cen tral Valley Region al

Board to con sider a low-im pact

waiver for irrigated lan ds with

m inim al run off. Croyle said re-gional staff h as stud ied th e issue

an d expects to issue a prop osal in

May or Jun e.

An oth er issue th at could come up

soon is exten sion of the Cen tral

Valley Regional Boards waiver to

groundwater. One coalition leader

called th at a h ot bu tton issue for

farmers. Croyle said Central Valley

Regional Board staff will meet with

th eir State Board cou n terparts to

clarify groundwater issues before

proceeding with an y extension to

groundwater.

Mean wh ile, th e Cen tral Valleys

waiver is sched uled to expire Dec.

31, 2005. Staff h as proposed th at it

be exten ded to th e end of 2006 to

allow tim e to review at least two

season s of data from water qu ality

mon itoring and th e man agement

plans submitted by coalition

groups. x

Two bills that would am end provisions of state law pertaining

to con ditional waivers have been int roduced in th e state

Legislatu re. On e m easure, SB 646 b y Sen . Sh eila Kueh l, D-Los

Angeles, would amend Water Code Section 13269 to prohibit issu-

ance of a con ditional waiver for an y disch arge into a water body th at

is ident ified as imp aired u n der Section 30 3(d) of th e Clean Water

Act. It also wou ld require payment of an an n ual fee as a condition of

coverage un der an y con dition al waiver issued by th e State Board or a

regional water board.

The secon d b ill, AB 1271 by Assem blym em ber Sam Blakeslee, R-

San Luis Obispo, specifically targets the Central Coast Regional

Boards cond itional waiver. It would ad d Section 1 3275 to th e Water

Code to prohibit the Central Coast Regional Board from requiring a

person subject to its cond itional waiver for irrigated agricultu ral

discharges to m on itor the disch arges more than on ce every two

years if the regional water board finds that the results of the most

recent m on itorin g in dicate only a minim al am oun t of waste in th e

disch arges. To get co pies of eith er bill, visit http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/

bilinfo.html


9/16


CONTINUED ONPAGE 10

Statew ide TMDLGuidance in

Preparation

Aguidance document to h elp

region al water boards de

velop an d establish Total

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) is

un der developmen t by the State

Water Resources Control Board. The

guidan ce is design ed to facilitate th e

developm ent of plans to address

imp aired waters in o ver 1,800waterbody/pollutant combinations

in Californ ia that currently do n ot

m eet th e standards n ecessary to

protect b en eficial uses, includin g

dom estic and m un icipal supp lies,

recreational uses, fish, wildlife and

aqu atic resources and agricultural

supp ly. On e waterbody can be listed

for num erous pollutan ts. Th e State

Board was scheduled to vot e on th e

statewide policy at its March 16

m eetin g, but t h e vote was deferred.

TMDLs are emerging as the keyregulatory tool for measuring

pollutant loads and allocating

responsibility for improving the

quality of the states waters. A

TMDL is th e maximu m amo un t of a

pollutant th at a waterbody can

assimilate without exceeding water

quality stan dards. Th e guidance

includes an eight-step recom-

mended process for identifying

actions th at will lead to restoration

of waterbody con ditions and ulti-

m ate rem oval of th e impaired water

design ation . The p rocess recogn izes

that adapt ive man agement act ions

will be needed as new information

emerges. For more information,

con tact Ken Harris at (916) 341-5500

or [email protected]. x

Th e application o f pesticides

over, directly to or n ear waters

of the United States does not

require a Nation al Pollutan t Dis-

charge Elimination System (NPDES)

perm it if th e application is consis-

tent with all relevant requiremen ts

(those relevant to protecting water

qu ality) un der th e Federal In secti-

cide, Fun gicide an d Roden ticide Act

(FIFRA), according to an interpretive

statem ent issued in Janu ary by the

U.S. En vironm en tal Protection

Agency. However, the agency said it

is still reviewin g th e circum stances

un der wh ich a pesticide applied

according to FIFRA requirements

might later become a waste subject

a discharge permit.

The statem en t clarifies a

longstanding p olicy that a Clean

Water Act perm it is n ot requ ired

wh ere application o f a pesticide inor near waters of the U.S. is consis-

tent with FIFRA requirements, EPA

said. Clarifying th is issue is critical

because con fusion over permitting

requirem ents could keep public

health officials from preventing or

respon ding to an infestation of

m osquitoes or from controllin g an

invasive species, said Benjamin

Grum bles, assistant EPA adm inistra-

to r for wat er. EPA ackno wledged

th at i ts interpretation is con trover-

sial and said it expects to b e sued on

th e issue.

In Californ ia, discharges of

pesticides in waters of the U.S. are

governed by several statewide

general NPDES permits issued by

th e State Board after a March 2001

decision by th e U.S. Court o f

App eals for the N inth Circuit in

Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation

District(243 F.3d 52 6). Curren tly

th ere are two such perm its, on e for

aquatic weed con trol and on e for

aqu atic vector con trol. Californ ias

general NPDES permits for dis-

charges of aqu atic pesticides are

available at: http://

www.waterboards.ca.gov/aquatic/

index.html.

The EPA in terpretive statem en t

an d pro posed rule are available at:

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/agriculture#pesticides. x

US EPA Issues PesticideInterpretation


10/16

1 0 THERUNOFFRUNDOWN SPRING 2005

State Board Defers San Francisco Bay

Mercury TMDL

Th e State Board h as deferred

approval of a TMDL for

mercury in San Francisco Bay

adopted in 2004 by the San Fran-

cisco Region al Water Board. After

considering adjustm ents to th e

TMDL, th e State Board op ted t o

disapprove th e TMDL. That action

will give th e Region al Board an d

stakeholders a year or m ore to

discuss chan ges. The d isapp roved

TMDL for San Fran cisco Bay in -

cluded numeric targets of 0.2

m illigrams of m ercury per kilogram

(mg/kg) of fish tissue an d d ry

sedimen t and less th an 0.5 m g/kg

wet weigh t for bird eggs. U.S. EPAth reatened to disapprove the TMDL

because it said th e goal of attain ing

a four-day n um eric average m ercury

water qu ality ob jective of 0.025

m icrogram s per liter would take

m ore than 120 years to achieve.

Much of th e mercury contamina-

tion o f the Bay dates back to th e

Gold Rush era, when runoff from

m ercury m ining o peration s settled

in sediments. Mercury

bioaccum ulates in fish , a process

th at m akes it available to h um ans

who consume the fish. Several state

h ealth ad visories h ave been issued

cautioning against eatin g man y

types of fish cau ght in t h e Bay. For

m ore information, con tact Rik

Rasmu ssen at (916) 341-5549 orrrasm [email protected]. x

Relief Ordered

for Boat Sew age

T

h e State Board h as issued a

general order requiring

add itional facilities to beinstalled in Huntington Harbour

an d Newp ort Bay to collect sewage

from boats. The order requires three

additional pu m pout facilit ies and

th ree dum p stations to be installed

in Huntington Harbour and five

additional pu m pout facilit ies and

th ree dum p station s for Newport

Bay. Th e ad dition al facilities are

n eeded, accordin g to th e State

Board, t o redu ce disch arges of

sewage from recreation al boats th at

h ave affected ben eficial uses such asshellfish harvesting and water

contact recreation .

Twelve marinas at the two water

bodies are required to complete

construction of the new facilities

th is year. Existin g pu m pou t facilities

and d um p stations at Hun t ington

Harbour and Newport Bay were

found by th e Santa An a Region al

Water Board to be inadequately

m aintained an d of insufficien t

n um ber to service the growin g

n um ber of recreational boats using

th ose water bo dies. Th e State Board

said t h e add itional facilities are

n ecessary for both water bod ies to

comp ly with a federal prohibitionon discharges of treated or u n -

treated sewage to environm entally

sensitive areas such as shellfish

beds, coral reefs, fish spawn ing

areas, and drin king water sources.

A cop y of th e Stat e Board s order is

at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/

resdec/wqorders/2004/wqo/wqo2004-

0017.pdf.

For more information on theorder, contact D iane Edwards at

(916) 341-5908 o r

[email protected]. x


11/16

Total Maxim um Daily Load (TMDL) stan dards establish t h e allow

able amoun t of a specific pollutant th at a waterbody can absorb.

TMDLs establish n um eric ind icators of water quality an d assignproportional responsibility among discharge sources for controlling the

pollutan t. An up date on recen t TMDL activity by Californ ia Region al

Water Quality Con trol Boards:

San Franc i sco B ay (Reg i on 2 ) Hearin gs sched uled for April 20 an d

Jun e 15 on TMDL for path ogen s in Tom ales Bay Watershed

Contact: Farhad Ghodrati, 510/622-2331; documents available at

www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/TMDL/

Tomales%20Bay%20Pathogens/tomalesbaypathogens_basin_plan.pdf

Los Ange les (Region 4) Public hearin g sched uled for Jun e 2 on

TMDLs for metals and tox ic pollutants (PCBs, m etals, p olyarom atich ydrocarbon s, historic pesticides) in Ballon a Creek

Con tact: Rebecca Christman , 213/576-6757, or visit

www.w aterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/htm l/m eetings/tm dl/

tmdl_ws_ballona_creek.html#05_0328

Col orado R i ver (Reg i on 7 ) Adopted TMDL Jan. 19, 2005, of 200

m g/L for sedim entatio n/ siltation in th ree Im perial Valley agricul-

tural drainage system s that empty into the Salton Sea (to view staff

reports, visit www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/tmdl/

TMDL_Status.htm

San ta Ana (Reg i on 8 ) Adop ted TMDL for bacterial in dicators for

primary recreational uses in the Middl e Santa Ana River WatershedCon tact: Hope Smyth e, 951-782-4493; staff report available at

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/pdf/02-03-05/18.pdf

www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/pdf/02-03-05/18.pdf

San Di eg o (Reg i on 9 ) Adopted dissolved copper TMDL for Shelter

Islan d Yach t Basin Feb. 9, 2004

Con tact: Lesley Dobalian, 858/ 637-7139, or

[email protected] ; docum en ts available at

www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/tm dls/

shelter%20island.html#SIYB_TMDL

Adopted total n itrogen and total ph osph orus TMDLs for Rainbo w

Creek 2/9/2005Con tact: Ben jamin Tobler, 858/46 7-2736 [email protected];

documents available at ww w.wat erboards.ca.gov/san diego/tm dls/

rainbow%20creek.html#TMDL_Rainbow

Hearing schedu led for April 28, 2005, on TMDL for copper, lead and

zinc in Chollas Creek

Contact: James Smith, 858/467-2732 or jsmith@waterboards, ca.gov;

documents available at ww w.wat erboards.ca.gov/san diego/tm dls/

chollas%20creek%20metals.html#cc_metals

SPRING 2005 THERUNOFFRUNDOWN 1 1

CONTINUED ONPAGE 12

Non point Source

Funding

Opportunities

Need fundin g for a project toreduce or eliminate

n on point source discharges?

Several funding opportunities

current ly are available from state

an d federal sou rces, in cludin g:

Integrated Reg i on a l Water

Ma n a g e m e n t Gr a n t P r o g r a m

provides grants from Proposition 50

for development and implemen ta-

tion of Integrated Regional Water-

shed Man agem ent Plans. These

grants are for projects to p rotect

comm un ities from d rought, protectand improve water quality, and

imp rove local water security by

reducing dependence on imported

water. Fun din g for th is grant

program is split between the Depart-

ment of Water Resources and the

Stat e Board . The agen cies will utilize

a joint ap plication process for

awardin g grant s. Plann ing grant

applications are due May 12, 2005,

and implementation grant applica-

tion s are due July 14, 2005. For

m ore information please checkhttp://www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov/

grants/integregio.cfm an d http://

www.waterboards.ca.gov/funding/

irwmgp/index.html.

Dai ry Water Qual i ty

I m p r o v e m e n t G r a n t P r o g r a m

provides funding from Proposition

50 bon d fund s for regional and on -

farm dairy projects to add ress water

qu ality im pacts from dairies. Guide-

lin es for th e program will be com -

pleted by June 2005 after consulta-

tion with all affected parties and the

public. Draft guidelines are available

for pub lic review un til April 15, 2005.

App lication s for grant fun ds will

then be requested and spending

m ay begin by early 2006. For furth er

inform ation see http://www.waterboards.

ca.gov/funding/dairy.html.

Th e Agri cu l tura l Dra i nage

Loan P rogram was created by the


12/16


Water Con servation and Water

Qu ality Bon d Act of 1986 t o add ress

treatment , storage, conveyance or

disposal of agricultural d rainage

water th at th reaten s Californ ia

waters. Th ere is a fun din g cap of

$20 m illion for im plemen tationprojects an d $100,000 for feasibility

studies. See more information at

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/

funding/agdrain-index.html.

Th e Agri cu l tura l Dra i nage

Ma n a g e m e n t Lo a n P ro g r a m

provides loan an d grant fun ding for

Drain age Water Managemen t Un its.

Drain age Water Management Units

are land an d facilities for th e treat-

m ent, storage, con veyance, reduc-

tion or disposal of agricultural

drainage water th at, if disch argedun treated, would pollute or

th reaten to p ollute California

waters. This program is available to

an y city, coun ty, district, join t

power authority, or other political

subdivision of th e state in volved

with water man agem ent. For more

information, check out: http://

www.waterboards.ca.gov/funding/

agdrain-manage.html.

Federal C lean Water Act Section

319(h) NPS Gran t Program is a

federally fun ded p rogram th at providesgrants to limit pollutant effects

caused by n on point source activi-

ties. For more information, contact

Lauma Jurkevics at (916) 341-5498

or ljurkevics@waterb oard sca.gov.

For additional information on

th e State Boards fun din g program s

please v isit http://www.waterboards

.ca.gov/funding/index.html. Also,

subscribe to the State Boards

electronic mail list servers at http://

ww w.wat erboards.ca.gov/lyrisforms/

swrcb_subscribe.htm l to get updates

on upcom ing gran t solicitations.

Oth er grant resources include th e

Departm en t of Water Resources

(ht tp://www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov/),

Californ ia Bay Delta Auth ority

(http://calwater.ca.gov/Grant

Opportunities/GrantInformation.shtml)

and two Californ ia fun ding data-

bases (http://getgrants.ca.gov/, http://

www.calwatershedfunds.org/). x

T

h e th em e of this years bien -

nial non point source con fer

ence, to be h eld in Sacramen toNovem ber 7 -9 is Measuring Water

Quality Im provemen ts. The con fer-

en ce will highlight specific projects

an d practices th at successfully

address Californias leading cause of

water quality imp airm ents

nonpoint source pollution.

The focus of the con ference will

be on t he imp ortance of designing

projects to achieve measurable

water quality improvemen ts an d on

techn iques for m on itorin g im prove-

m ent s. Propo sals for oral or po sterpresentat ion s are solicited. Poten tial

topics including:

implement ing agricultural,

urban and other pol lut ion-

control measures;

assessing and evalua t ing

project success;

integrat ing state, federal and

local fun ding;

TM DL im pl em en t at ion and

restoration of impaired

waterbodies;

develop ing and i m p lem en t ing

watersh ed p lans;

protect ing coastal resources;

an d

water qua lity mon itoring and

data managem ent .

The event will offer an opportu-

ni ty to examine and learn from the

n um erous NPS pollution con trol

projects that h ave been supported

by state and federal fun ds, espe-

cially Clean Water Act (CWA)

Section 319 an d Bond Proposition s

13, 40 and 50. It will promo tetechn ology transfer by examinin g

on -th e-ground examples related t o

agriculture, forestry, urban develop-

men t , marinas and boat ing,

hydromodification and habitat

alteration, abandoned mines and

oth er land use activities that affect

water qu ality. The 2005 con ference

will in clude p lenary session s,

con current session s, a poster recep-

tion, a field trip, training workshops

and plenty of networking opportu-

nities.To propose a presentation or

poster, sen d e-mail by May 20 to

Jam ie Mallen at

Jam ie.mallen@tetratech-ffx .com with

your presentation or poster title; the

title of th e federal or state-fun ded

project to be featured in th e presen-

tation; the presenters name, ad-

dress, teleph on e n um ber, fax

n um ber and e-m ail address; and a

presentat ion abstract (brief descrip-

tion of presentation h igh lights and

lesson s learned ).

More in form ation on th e con fer-

ence is available from Kim Wittorff

of th e State Water Resources Con trol

Board at (916) 327-9117 or

kwittorff@wat erboards.ca.gov, or from

Tina Yin of U.S. EPA at (415) 972-

3879 or Yin [email protected]. You

also can get more information at

www.waterboards.ca.gov/nps/

fall2005.html. x

2005 Bienn ial Non point Source

Conference


13/16

t ion s ites and through the m un ici-

pal stormwater permits issued by

region al water board s to cities,

coun ties an d oth er jurisdiction s.

Those local ent ities also p ursue local

ordinances that address the issue.

Stacey Baczkowsi, senior environ-m ental scientist with th e regional

water board, said the m un icipal

permit issued to cities and counties

requires inspections to ensure

comp liance with t he MS4 permit

con dition s. There is some overlap

between the municipal permit and

th e State Boards storm water p ermit

for construction sites, but th ats

inten ded u n der the federal Clean

Water Act, sh e said, n oting th at th e

federal rule calls for a dual system of

regulation to en sure th e mo steffective oversight of con struction

site discharges. Unlike th e state

permit, which is limited to dis-

turbed sites of one acre or more, the

m un icipal permit h as n o such

lim itation s and could b e applied to

sites as sm all as two-tenth s of an

acre.

Unlike past perm it conditions,

the stormwater permit specifies

more detailed steps to achieve

High Court Upholds

San Diego MunicipalStorm water Perm itBY GARYPITZER


Straw m ats, b lankets and gravel bags effectively cont rol runoff.

Edit ors Note: Californias Urban N onpoint Source and Stormw ater programs

are intricately linked in that both address aspects of urban runoff pollution. The

state and regional water boards address urban runoff primarily through the

NPDES permit tin g program as a point source discharge, alt hough th e State Board

nonpoin t source program applies where the runof f is n ot regulated as a permit ted

point source discharge.

Phase I of the Stormwater Program, defined in federal regulations in 19 90 ,includes stormwat er discharges associated w ith industrial activit ies (as defined

by the regulations), construction activities that disturb 5 acres of land or more

and discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving

populations of 100,000 or more. Phase II of the program, defined in federal

regulations in 1999, expanded the program to require NPDES permits for dis-

charges from const ruction sit es disturbing 1 to 5 acres, from sm all MS4s serving

populations less than 10 0,0 00, from some governm ental facilities and from

industrial facilities owned by sm all m unicipalities. Th e expansion of th e

Storm wat er programs t hrough Phase II mean s a greater num ber of comm unities,

businesses, government facilities and industries that generate urban runoff are

subject to NPDES permits.

Th e state Suprem e Court h asdeclin ed to h ear a legal

challenge to t h e San Diego

Regional Water Boards municipal

stormwater permit, considered on e

of th e tough est regulatory con trols

in th e nat ion . Th e courts decision

paves the way for other regional

boards to adopt similarly tough

stormwater con trols.

The case against the state sprung

from th e Region al Board s 2001

issuance of a comprehensive,

municipal separate storm sewer

systems permit (MS4) for San Diego

Cou n ty, 18 cities and t h e San Diego

Unified Port District. The strict

permit con ditions were approved by

th e regional water board to cont rol

th e flow of n on -stormwater dis-

charges to MS4s.

Storm water run off is regulated by

the State Board through its general

perm it for discharges from con struc-


14/16

comp liance. Notin g that any run off

is prohibited that causes a water

body to exceed state water quality

standards established to protect

wildlife and human contact, the

permit states th at projects mu st do

wh atever is n ecessary to ach ieveresults. The p ermit allows certain

n on -stormwater disch arges and

spells out th e type o f effort required

to reduce pollutants at t h e source,

which is described as maximum

exten t p racticable, a very

controversial term t h at is not

defined in federal regulation,

Baczkowsi said.

It m eans doing everyth ing you

can to t h e poin t wh ere its a lim ited

return if you do m ore, she said.

Its not just put tin g in on e [BMP]an d calling it qu its.

In th e lawsuit, Building Industry

Association of San Diego County, et al

v. State Water Resources Control Board,

th e Fou rth District App ellate Cou rt

uph eld th e judgm ent of a superior

court , which amon g other things

ruled th e federal Clean Water Act

provides regulatory agen cies with

broad auth ority to impose stricter

standards, n oting th at Con gress

did not in tend t o substant ively

bar th e U.S. EPA or states fromimp osing stricter stan dards if th ey

are deemed as a necessary an d

workable enforcement m echanism

for achieving th e goals of the CWA.

Jerry Livingston, staff counsel for

BIA, disagrees th at t h e CWA allows

limitless municipal stormwater

permits and t h at the regional

boards, trial and appellate courts

reading of the permit leaves out

MEP entirely. Training programs are

bein g cond ucted with BIA m embers

in conjunct ion with ci ty and county

inspectors on th e proper means to

stay in compliance, he said.

Were tellin g [mem bers] to app ly

best available t ech n ology (BAT) on

sites, he said, noting that maintain-

ing compliance with th e permit is n ot

always directly tied to th e avoidance

of circumstan ces th at cause or con-

tribute to th e exceedance of water

quality stan dards.

The appellate court addressed the

matter of cost through its reference

to livable con trol m easures

approved by th e regional water

board in its inten t to consider th e

econom ic im pact of i ts waterquality rules. This is described as

part o f the iterative process by

wh ich th e state and local govern-

m ents identify poten tial trouble

spots and th e appropriate respon se

of BAT. Accordin g to t h e region al

water board, th e law, as written ,

provides time for permitted entities

to reach com pliance.

One of the primary challenges in

comp lying with t he con ditions of

th e permit h as been keeping costs at

a manageable level, said Scott Lyle,

an associate at Nolte En gineering

wh o works with contractors to

maintain permit requirements.

Sedim ent con trol is m ore strictly

regulated n ow, he said, notin g that

it was n ot un comm on for crews in

th e past to wash excess soil directly

into storm d rains.

Sediment control violations were

at th e h eart of a record $1.26

m illion fine levied by th e Region al

Board in March against th e devel-

oper of a n ew 186-acre business

park in Escon dido. The city was

fin ed $129,000 for th e sam e viola-

tion s because it is respon sible foroverseeing the construction site.

The Region al Board claims JRMC

Real Estate, th e developer of th e

site, allowed sedim en t to flow into

Escon dido C reek directly or th rough

storm d rains for at least 82 days. It

is also alleged that an adequate

Storm Water Pollution Prevent ion

Plan (SWPPP) was not in place for at

least 16 6 d ays.

Perm it h olders are required to

employ temporary and permanent

sediment and erosion controls.

Temp orary m easures are mo re labor-

intensive and include frequent water

qu ality tests and in spection s. The

labor h ou rs really build up, Lyle said

While sediment control is a big

issue, oth er activities of con cern

included the washing out o f con-

crete residue, rinsing o f portable

toilets and onsite litter control,

Baczkowski said.


San Diegos perm it specifies more detailed steps to achieve com plian ce.


15/16

Permanent

features can include

item s such as the

Storm ceptor, a

$10,000-per-unit

runoff man agement

system th at capturesand treats oils and

grease flowing from

imp ervious surfaces.

Oth er techn ologies

emp h asize a natu ral

approach th at incorporates strips of

vegetative growth to con tain run off.

Lyle said b uilders can redu ce th eir

costs by thin kin g about stormwater

run off before groun d is broken on a

project.

The biggest th ing is to catch it

during th e plan n ing stage andincorporate water quality features

into th e design , he said, n oting

th at grass swales an d bioreten tion

basins are com m on ly used. Also

known as rain gardens,

bioretention basins filter storm-

water through a vegetated surface

layer, planting soil and sand bed.

The surge of storm s that brought

unprecedented amounts of rain to

th e region in

m any cases

was too m uch

for som e

construction

sites to

handle.SWPPPs are

designed to

accommodate

the run off

from so-called

first flush storm even ts and n ot

flooding, Lyle said. According to

Baczkowski, sites that were in good

standing prior to th e storm s did

pretty well in keeping with

comp liance wh ile th e problem areas

were likely n ot h elped by th e

on slaught of runo ff.Its case by case, she said.

Theres not a wholesale failure

throughout the region.

Regulators do not make excep-

tions for extraordinary storm even ts

but are willing to work with p ermit

holders to avoid potentially costly

violations. If [perm ittees] show an

effort an d are tryin g to d o a good

job they [regulators] are reason-

able to a certain exten t, Lyle said.

Livingston said industry members

are spen ding m ost of their t im e

sim ply tryin g to keep in comp liance

with th e permit and h ave not

probed th e depth s of th e relative

ben efit of certain con trol strategiesor technologies.

The truth is, rainstorms blow

out everybodys BMPs, he said,

add ing th at its been an absolute

struggle for sites to keep in com pli-

ance during a win ter that has seen

th e San Diego region receive eigh t

inches more than average rainfall.

He said h e is un aware of permittees

ever being granted exceptions du e

to extreme rainfall and th at state

inspectors never fail to issue cita-

tion s durin g site visits, even for th esmallest, inconsequential condi-

tions.

Local jurisdiction s help p ermit-

tees m aintain com pliance where

th ey h ave th e staffin g, Livin gston

said. They are involved in o ur

train ing program s and trying to

keep everybody on th e same page.

Maintaining compliance with the

regulations does cost money, in-

cludin g the h iring of person n el to

develop a SWPPP an d p repare a

n otice of in tent t o com ply. Depend-ing on th e size of the developm ent,

it has been estimated th at comp li-

ance costs add 5 to 10 p ercent to

the overall cost of housing.

Baczkowski said many builders are

unsure of what is required for

compliance and ei ther do noth ing

or mu ch m ore than is required.

Th ey don t wan t an enforce-

m ent action, so they do a lot, she

said, n otin g th at a lot of BMPs are

don e incorrectly.

Straw m ats, blankets and gravel

bags are effective m eth ods to

control run off, although applicators

h ave to ensure proper tech n iques

are followed to prevent sediment

from bein g fun n eled th e wrong way

Baczkowski said. They also need to

be aware that a construction site

chan ges qu ite a bit as a project

moves forward, and that BMPs have

to be adapted to reflect th at. x


Sedim ent control is strictly regulated u nder the permit .

The biggest thin g is

to catch it during th e

plann ing stage an d

inc orpo rate water

quality features in to

the design. Scott Lyle,

Nolte Engineering


16/16

spring 2005 california runoff rundown newsletter

Documents