SPECIAL REPORT * Cities upset about proposed rules for cutting storm runoff from new developments are raising . . . : A Torrent of Opposition

Cities throughout Los Angeles County--which suffers the worst urban runoff problem in the nation--are waging an intense battle against a proposed mandate that would help prevent toxic pollutants, bacteria and viruses from contaminating ocean waters.

The standard proposed by the region’s water quality board would force Los Angeles County cities to fundamentally change how large new projects--from shopping centers to housing subdivisions--are built. If enacted, it would be the U.S.’ most far-reaching restrictions on polluted storm water.

Cities would have to ensure that new developments capture either 85% of the runoff from a storm in a 24-hour period or the first three-fourths of an inch of rain. The standard would apply to new commercial projects of more than 100,000 square feet and all new gas stations, auto repair garages, restaurants and subdivisions of 10 or more houses.

Officials of about 50 cities, including Los Angeles and other beach communities, have joined with developers to fight the proposal through letters and in speeches at a packed public hearing held last month by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Because the costs of complying with the proposal are unknown, the city leaders are unconvinced that the benefits would be worth the expense, and they are asking for a thorough economic study. They also want any standards to be voluntary.

“Obviously a beach city wants to have its beaches pristine, but it’s a matter of cost,” said Neil Miller, Manhattan Beach’s public works director.

Of the county’s 85 cities, only Santa Monica--already a leader in cleaning up its polluted beach waters--has supported the runoff limits.

“The amount spent . . . is most likely a small percentage of total construction costs. The benefits, however, are regionwide,” wrote Craig Perkins, the city’s director of environmental and public works programs, in a letter to the water agency.

The agency’s executive officer, Dennis Dickerson, does not need the support of his governing board or the cities to set the runoff limits. But he has wavered in the face of the opposition, and this month he postponed any action until at least January.

Dickerson said he wants to first try to educate city leaders and persuade them to change their minds or, if necessary, agree to a compromise. He declined to say, though, whether he is willing to turn the limits into voluntary guidelines.

“Hopefully, we can craft a document that will respond to some of the concerns of the cities but also ensure a strong level of environmental protection,” he said.

The Los Angeles region, with so many people and so much pavement, faces an almost insurmountable challenge in cleaning up its voluminous runoff. The debate over how to contain the pollution has dragged on for a decade.

Massive amounts of oily waste, pesticides, metal residue and other pollutants flow to the sea from streets and parking lots, even on dry summer days. Runoff also carries human viruses and bacteria from sewage that can give swimmers, especially children, diarrhea, respiratory infections and other illnesses.

Since 1986 the federal Clean Water Act has required municipalities to reduce storm water runoff “to the maximum extent practicable.” But experts say Southern California lags behind many other urban areas because of the huge size of the task and resistance to land use restrictions.

In the Southland, attempts to wrest any control of development from municipalities have long been considered taboo, and the runoff measure has allied cities with developers in a fight against local environmentalists.

Mark Gold, executive director of the environmental group Heal the Bay, said the push for standards governing new development “has been our biggest fight for a decade” in the campaign to clean up runoff, the leading source of pollution in Santa Monica Bay.

David Beckman, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, accused the cities of “a bunch of denying and deflecting and delaying.” The proposal is far from a cure-all but “shows that the water board is finally getting serious about storm water control,” he said.

“It only covers new development and redevelopment, so it should not be construed as something that will magically solve the storm water problem. But it should prevent it from getting worse,” Beckman said.

On even a dry summer day, polluted runoff from the county’s 10 million people would fill the Rose Bowl. Year-round, it contaminates beaches within roughly 100 yards of river mouths and storm drains. On a rainy day, the runoff renders all beaches unsafe.

In Los Angeles County, most runoff flows into three waterways: Ballona Creek, which empties into the ocean at Marina del Rey; Malibu Creek, which ends at Surfrider Beach; and the Los Angeles River, which flows into Long Beach Harbor. Smaller storm drains are sprinkled along the coastline.

The proposal is designed to sharply reduce runoff from new buildings in all but severe storms.

Developers and city planners would have a range of options for compliance. They could leave grassy swales and other open space so runoff could seep into the ground instead of flowing into storm drains. However, because land is at a premium in the county, most developers are likely to seek other options, such as building detention ponds, using permeable pavement or installing filters in curbside drains.

Xavier Swamikannu, who directs the regional board’s storm water program, stresses that cities would have the flexibility to decide how each individual project must comply. The standards are not meant to slow development, he said, but rather to ensure that developments are more environmentally sound.

UCLA environmental engineer Mike Stenstrom, a nationally known expert in urban runoff, said the storm water limits are reasonable and can be achieved with relatively simple and inexpensive design changes at developments.

Builders, however, say there is insufficient scientific basis for setting a specific numerical limit for capturing storm water--and little data on the costs. Every project and piece of land is different, they say, so hard and fast standards are unreasonable.

New Projects Unfairly Targeted, Builders Say

Builders also complain that new projects are being unfairly targeted even though existing development pollutes the most.

“We are concerned that this approach will render some sites undevelopable, placing an unfair burden on property owners and developers,” said John R. Burroughs, vice president of Commerce Construction Co.

Ray Pearl of the Building Industry Assn. of Southern California said providing housing is just as critical as protecting the environment. “We would ask you not to forget human habitat,” he told the water board at a Sept. 16 hearing.

Azusa City Engineer Nasser Abbaszedeh said the proposal could prompt developers to move to neighboring counties that have no runoff limits. “This would cause an inherent regional inequity throughout Southern California,” he said.

The most vocal opposition has come from cities miles from the coast, in southeastern Los Angeles County and the San Gabriel Valley. But surprisingly, the debate has not pitted inland cities against coastal ones. Cities such as Long Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach have shorelines contaminated with runoff flowing largely from inland areas, but even they do not support standards that tell cities how to govern development.

“How much can you foist on the developer and how much can you foist on local government? Do you impose a $20,000 or $30,000 cost on each development without knowing the benefits?” Miller of Manhattan Beach asked. “Nobody is opposed to cleaning up storm water. But to just throw a numerical limit out there and say, ‘Figure out how to do it’--that’s tough for engineers to accept. It just seems premature.”

In unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, builders already must control runoff from the first 0.75 of an inch of rain from each storm. County officials agreed to the requirement, which became effective in June, in a settlement of a lawsuit with local environmentalists.

Outside California, several counties and cities, especially along Chesapeake Bay, have already imposed similar runoff standards--some more stringent. The Los Angeles County program, however, would be the largest. Orange, Ventura and San Diego counties also face threats from runoff, but they have separate storm-water permits with regional boards that impose no runoff limits.

Since July 30, existing businesses and developments in L.A. County have been required to follow a set of “best management practices” outlined in a storm-water permit enforced by the regional water board. But it contains no numerical limits for the volume of runoff controlled. For example, auto repair shops are told to clean up oil leaks and cover waste storage areas, and cities have stenciled “No Dumping” on gutters and mounted multimillion-dollar public education campaigns.

Water officials, however, say public education and general guidelines will never go far enough. Instead, they say, communities must change the very way they are designed.

Swamikannu said runoff pollution is so severe in the Los Angeles area that setting firm limits on new development is “just a starting point” toward meeting federal standards, which require all waters to be safe for fishing and swimming.