[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 27 (Tuesday, March 12, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E317]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCERN FOR NEW FLOOD CONTROL RULES

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEPHEN HORN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 12, 2002

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, the goal of improving our environment and 
providing cleaner air and water for future generations is an essential 
one.
  Cleansing our national waterways has been a top priority for me 
throughout my time in public service. At the same time, however, I have 
recognized that we must undertake these efforts in ways that achieve 
important objectives without placing unduly onerous burdens on the 
communities responsible for implementing environmental regulations.
  The cities that share Los Angeles County are now facing precisely 
this challenge as a result of a recent interpretation of storm water 
runoff regulations. As Don Waldie, a city official in Lakewood, wrote 
in an article printed in the February 4, 2002, Los Angeles Times, 
cities throughout Los Angeles County are, ``about to be hit with a 
`storm water tax' of up to $53 billion over the next 10 years to 
attempt what may be impossible--to make the waters of the Los Angeles 
River fishable, swimmable and potentially drinkable.''
  The Coalition for Practical Regulation, comprised of 42 cities 
directly affected by these regulations, has been formed to seek 
sensible solutions to the storm water runoff issue. I am pleased to be 
working with these cities in an effort to secure federal funding for a 
pilot program aimed at finding solutions. We must find solutions that 
will not force cities to choose between cutting essential services or 
drastically increasing local taxes.
  I urge my colleagues to review Mr. Waldie's article, which follows my 
remarks. What is happening to the cities in my district and in those of 
several other Members representing the cities of Los Angeles County, 
may be coming to your area soon. Sensible, affordable solutions must be 
found so that communities throughout the nation do not soon find 
themselves placed in the untenable position now confronting the 
communities of Los Angeles County.

               [From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 4, 2002]

             New Flood Control Rules Muddy the Local Waters

                            (By D.J. Waldie)

       Neither good science nor good technology exists today to 
     test for or remove all the possible contaminants flowing into 
     the county-operated flood control system from lawn watering 
     and cars driving on city streets.
       Yet cities throughout Los Angeles County are about to be 
     hit with a ``storm water tax'' of up to $53 billion over the 
     next 10 years to attempt what may be impossible--to make the 
     waters of the Los Angeles River fishable, swimmable and 
     potentially drinkable.
       But should they be? What if the cost means less money for 
     parks, police, housing and community services?
       What if the cost of turning the Los Angeles River into a 
     mountain stream means severely degrading the quality of life 
     in the small cities along the river's banks?
       Neither the voters nor their elected city and county 
     representatives had the opportunity to have those questions 
     answered because the nine members of the Los Angeles Regional 
     Water Quality Control Board, all appointed by the governor, 
     decided that these questions don't matter.
       The board unanimously adopted in December a revised storm 
     water permit for most of the county's 84 cities that contains 
     44 new quality standards.
       Meeting just one of them--a ``total maximum daily load'' 
     for trash in the flood control channel of ``zero'' by 2012--
     will cost county taxpayers an estimated $1 billion.
       The cost for meeting this standard--and all the others--
     will be covered by new city fees and user charges for 
     property owners or will be taken from municipal funds needed 
     to maintain streets, pay for police or keep community centers 
     open.
       Some of the hardest-pressed cities in the state must remake 
     their budgets to become the Los Angeles regional board's 
     enforcement arm.
       Maywood has a general fund budget of about $6 million. What 
     part of law enforcement in Maywood does the regional board 
     consider appropriate to cut in order to police storm drains?
       In Bell Gardens, enforcement efforts would be equal to 100% 
     of the city's recreation budget. In Huntington Park, it's at 
     least 75%.
       Even worse, these cities face a grinding round of citizen 
     lawsuits under the federal Clean Water Act and fines of up to 
     $27,500 a day if they fail to comply with the board's 
     mandates.
       Cities and the county can be sued even if they make good-
     faith efforts to clean up storm water or if the experimental 
     technologies they use don't work.
       These costs didn't impress the members of the Los Angeles 
     regional board.
       One member waved off concerns, saying cities would find the 
     money somehow.
       In response to such indifference, the county, the city of 
     Los Angeles and most of the county's other cities have 
     appealed the regional board's storm water permit to the State 
     Water Resources Control Board.
       It may be too late, however, to rescue workable storm water 
     regulation from a future of unnecessary conflict and the 
     expense of the inevitable court cases.
       All this could have been avoided.
       We already have a model for negotiating environmental goals 
     into the operation of the flood control system.
       Five years ago, when the small cities of the southeast area 
     of the country were faced with the catastrophic failure of 
     the local flood control system, everyone--the county Public 
     Works Department, the cities, federal agencies and skeptical 
     environmental organizations--sat down (after initial 
     conflict) to work out solutions that restored flood 
     protection and began the environmental revival of the 
     wastelands along the rivers' edge.
       With realistic goals, everyone at the table became an 
     advocate for both the efficient operation of the flood 
     control system and the riverside environment.
       The open space and recreation projects that came out of 
     this process are an integral part of the $100-million, state-
     funded revitalization of the entire Los Angeles River.
       The give and take of negotiation won't satisfy 
     environmental absolutists, who are intolerant of less-than-
     perfect solutions, but the State Water Resources Control 
     Board should at least try.
       The state water board should halt the imposition of the 
     regional board's storm water tax and assert its leadership by 
     joining with the cities, the country and the environmental 
     community in a collaborative review of realistic, 
     scientifically sound and environmentally just goals for storm 
     water quality.

     

                          ____________________