CC - 2003-04 - Ratifying the filing of a lawsuit challenging the Storm Water/urban Runoff•
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-04
0
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, RATIFYING THE FILING OF A
LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE STORM WATER/URBAN
RUNOFF PERMIT FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND
THE INCORPORATED CITIES THEREIN, EXCEPT THE CITY
OF LONG BEACH (NPDES NO. CAS004001)
WHEREAS, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los
Angeles Region ("Regional Board") adopted Order No. 01-182, a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit for Municipal Storm
Water and Urban Runoff Discharges within the County of Los Angeles and the
incorporated cities therein, except the City of Long Beach (hereinafter "NPDES
Permit") on December 13, 2001; and
WHEREAS, in January of 2002, forty-nine cities, including the City of Los
Angeles, as well as the County of Los Angeles, filed administrative petitions with
the State Water Resources Control Board ("State board") challenging the validity
of the NPDES Permit on a number of grounds, including its deletion of the "Safe
Harbor" provisions that existed in the prior 1996 NPDES Permit, the
modifications to the terms of the Permit dealing with Receiving Water Limitations
and the requirement therein that would allow "numeric" limits to be imposed upon
municipalities (without compliance with the "maximum extent practicable"
standard set forth in the Clean Water Act), as well as those provisions allowing
for the automatic incorporation of total maximum daily loads ("TMDL") by the
Regional Board's Executive Officer, the failure of the Regional Board to comply
with the requirements of CEQA or to adopt terms consistent with CEQA, the
imposition of additional inspection obligations on municipalities for various
industrial and commercial facilities, and the attempt by the Regional Board to
rollback the changes that had been made to the Standard Urban Storm Water
Mitigation Plan requirements ("SUSMP Requirements') by the State Board, along
1
with other objectionable terms, including various provisions which infringe upon
the local land use authority of the Cities; and
WHEREAS, although indicating in February of 2002 that it would address
a number of substantive issues raised by the administrative petitions, on
December 18, 2002, after three settlement negotiation sessions that did not lead
to a resolution of the issues, the State Board denied all of the administrative
petitions without providing a hearing to the public, and concluded that the
Petitions "failed to raise substantial, new issues;" and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead ("City") currently supports and funds
efforts to reduce and eliminate storm water pollution. During the five year period
of the prior NPDES Permit, the City implemented additional street sweeping
efforts, increased catch basin cleaning, funded a public information program on
storm water pollution, implemented construction project inspection programs,
implemented a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (the "SUSMP") as
modified by the State Board, completed the site visitation programs, initiated
waste-oil recycling programs and implemented various other storm water
programs; and
WHEREAS, the NPDES Permit contains various language within the
Receiving Water Limitations section (and other provisions of the Permit) which
violate the "maximum extent practicable" standard, and which in many cases,
directly or indirectly seek to impose responsibility on municipalities throughout
the County, to insure that storm water runoff into and from their storm drain
systems, does not violate water quality objectives, including numeric effluent
limits that may be adopted through the incorporation of TMDLs; and
WHEREAS, under the NPDES Permit, the City, along with 83 other
incorporated cities in Los Angeles County and the County of Los Angeles, are
required to expand existing storm water treatment programs, and to implement
2
• 0
new storm water programs which the Regional Board purports will improve the
quality of municipal storm water in a cost-effective manner. However, a cost-
benefit study was never performed by the Regional Board to illustrate that the
new programs will result in cost-effective improvements to storm water quality. In
addition, the Board did not develop or rely upon scientific data to support the
need for the numerous programs to be imposed by the new Permit; and
WHEREAS, under the new NPDES Permit, the City will be responsible for
implementing a comprehensive inspection and surveillance program of industrial
and commercial facilities to "control" storm water and non-storm water runoff
from these facilities. A recent study ordered by the United States Congress and
completed by the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences recommended that storm water programs utilize "adaptive
implementation", and recognized that cities should not be subjected to fines and
legal action while they are developing new and untested storm water programs.
The new NPDES Permit may place the Cities in a constant state of violation, and
will subject all municipalities covered by the Permit to needless lawsuits by
environmental organizations, and exposing the Cities to excessive fines. The
removal of the legal "Safe Harbor," combined with the addition of language
putting the Cities in a constant state of violation, is legally inappropriate and
fundamentally unfair; and
WHEREAS, the revised SUSMP Requirements under the new NPDES
Permit are contrary to a prior order issued by the State Board, and require the
imposition of mitigation measures that are contrary to existing State law under
the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Permit terms infringe upon
traditional local land use authority and the basic powers of local governments;
WHEREAS, the NPDES Permit goes beyond the intent of the Clean Water
Act, and violates the California Porter-Cologne Act, by "micro managing" and
dictating specific programs and a particular manner of compliance on the Cities,
3
0
and by imposing requirements that are not authorized anywhere under State or
federal law; and
WHEREAS, the new NPDES Permit requires that the Cities expand the
current private property site visitation and education program to a mandatory
inspection and enforcement program, that the Cities reduce pollutants in runoff
from private industrial and commercial facilities (including federal and State
facilities) and that the Cities modify their CEQA Guidelines and their General
Plan requirements. All such requirements and programs are being mandated on
the Cities, without any provision for State funding.
WHEREAS, the actions taken by the Regional Board in adopting the
NPDES Permit are inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act
and State Law, will result in the imposition of unsupportable programs on the City
and its citizenry, and will result in the imposition of numerous unfunded mandates
on the City.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. To participate with other Cities in the County with the filing of a
lawsuit challenging Regional Board Order No. 01-182, NPDES Permit No.
CAS004001, Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Storm Water and
Urban Runoff Discharges within the County of Los Angeles and the Incorporated
Cities therein, except the City of Long Beach.
Section 2. To retain Richard Montevideo, Esq., in coordination with other
Los Angeles County Cities, to advise, assist and represent the City in the filing
and in the prosecution of a lawsuit challenging Regional Board Order No. 01-182,
the Municipal NPDES Permit for Los Angeles County and the incorporated Cities
therein, except the City of Long Beach.
4
•
C
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption
hereof.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council this 28th day of January, 2003.
ATTEST: I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
No. 2003-04 was duly and regularly adopted by
the Rosemead City Council at a regular meeting
held on the 28th day of January 2003, by the
following vote:
Nancy Valderramma, City Clerk Yes: Clark, Vasquez, Imperial, Taylor, Bruesch
No: None; Absent: None, Abstain: None
City ClerK
5
0 0