(March 28, 2011) The California Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business, taxpayers, and local governments are questioning the science behind new storm water permit requirements that will increase costs with no proven environmental benefits.
Costs could range from tens of thousands of dollars at small businesses and schools to hundreds of millions of dollars at large facilities owned by ports and industrial facilities, according to the coalition.
The coalition is united under the name Workable Approach to Environmental Regulation (WATER).
Thousands of California school districts, local governments, recycling facilities, truckers, manufacturers and other businesses currently comply with an Industrial General Storm Water Permit that requires them to manage storm water runoff through best management practices.
Increased Costs
The State Water Resources Control Board, however, has proposed a revised storm water permit establishing several new requirements beyond U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandates for these public agencies and businesses.
The coalition estimates the new numeric limits will result in hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs with no proven environmental benefits.
In violation of California and federal law, the state water board has scheduled a March 29 hearing on the revised storm water permit and set a final comment deadline (April 18) even though the notice for the rule states that it is “currently not in its complete form.”
The coalition is urging the state water board to support an industrial general storm water permit without numeric limits. Such a permit will protect water quality while minimizing costs to the public agencies and private companies that must comply with it.
Expert Panel
The state water board convened a panel of experts to address questions about imposing “numeric limits” in storm water permits.
Calculating appropriate numeric limits requires the agency to analyze the wide variation in storm water flow conditions, and what controls can be achieved by technology at each category of facility.
The panel suggested that the board needs to re-examine existing data sources and collect new data before it even considers imposing numeric limits.
The state water board staff acted on none of the recommendations before proposing the new permit.
The panel of experts noted: “Whether the use of numeric limits is prudent, practical or necessary to more effectively achieve nonpoint pollution control is a separate question that needs to be answered, but is outside the scope of this panel.”
State law requires that a number of factors be analyzed before development of such a regulation, including measuring its water quality benefits and calculating the cost of compliance.
The state water board staff, however, appears to have written the rules for the permit before doing the analysis.
Coalition Concerns
In addition to voicing concerns with the process the state water board has followed so far in promulgating the proposed permit, the coalition has cited several substantive concerns with the proposal itself:
- Arbitrary numeric limits increase costs without proven water quality benefit.
Requiring numeric limits will be very costly for schools, ports, cities, transit agencies, counties and employers, the coalition points out. With public agencies already facing budget deficits, the permit would mean even further cuts to vital services.
For the private sector, the added costs could mean the difference of hiring or retaining employees and expanding operations and business opportunities.
- Unsound regulation invites costly lawsuits.
By establishing arbitrary numeric limits, the permit will invite costly lawsuits to be filed against cities, counties, sanitation agencies, water treatment agencies and private companies, the coalition comments. There won’t be a chance to discuss whether data really justifies enforcement, because there is strict liability, combined with mandatory penalties.
- Duplicative regulations don’t take into account cumulative impacts.
The cumulative cost of regulations already is a burden for California businesses and public agencies, which are still hurting from the economic recession. In fact, the permit would duplicate many existing regulations already in place to address storm water controls.
- Prohibits cost-effective group compliance.
The existing Industrial General Storm Water Permit allows facility operators in industrially similar operations to comply with the conditions of the permit by participating in a Group Monitoring Plan (GMP). Group monitoring adds a layer of compliance review, streamlines the reporting process and significantly reduces the costs associated with regulatory compliance.
Approximately 1,600 facilities currently participate in 30 Storm Water Monitoring Groups in California. The new draft permit, however, does not provide for GMPs and proposes to remove this cost-effective system for storm water compliance.
Better Way
Coalition members believe there is a better way to address storm water management. The coalition supports efforts to improve water quality and coalition members are willing to take reasonable and measured steps toward this end. Sudden, new, unproven and expensive programs are not appropriate at any time, especially during a period of economic recovery.
In order for WATER to support a new industrial storm water permit program, it must be predictable in terms of costs and effectiveness, gradual with no sudden cost surges and require minimal administrative and compliance costs.
Staff Contact: Valerie Nera