Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Total Maximum Daily Loadsfor Trash
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Why a TMDL for Trash?
• Required by the Clean Water Act-- when a waterbody does not meet water quality standards.
• In 1998, U.S. EPA found that the L.A.River did not meet water quality standards, due to trash.
• Federal Consent Decree compelled U.S. EPA to establish a trash TMDL for the L.A. River by March 22, 2002.
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
January 11, 2001
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Narrative Objectives for Trash
• “Waters shall not contain floating materials including solids, liquids, foams, and scum in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial use.”
And
• “Waters shall not contain suspended or settable material in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.”
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
TMDL Elements
• Numeric Targets
• Assimilative Capacity
• Waste Load Allocations
• Implementation Plan
• Monitoring
• Means of Compliance
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Numeric Target
• Numeric Target = Zero Trash Discharge– Litter laws establish zero, no legal level of litter– Waterbody does not assimilate trash– A single piece of trash can have an negative
impact on beneficial uses– No studies to support a higher number– Inherent margin of safety
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Assimilative Capacity
• Do gross pollutants like trash assimilate in the waterbody?
–Trash does not “dissolve”–Trash is not a typical “suspended
solid”
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Waste Load Allocations
• Municipal Stormwater Permit– By Area x Default Generation Rate– Applied at end of storm drain
• No allocation to non-point sources
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Baseline Monitoring Goal
• Obtain representative data by land use to calculate base load allocations
• Watershed-wide data to be used in establishing baseline allocations– Rewards cities that have already implemented
BMPs• Flexibility in allowing cities and the county to
collaborate efforts
Trash Reduction ScheduleTrash Reduction ScheduleYear Baseline
MonitoringImplementation Waste Load
AllocationCompliance Point
1Yes
Not Required None No compliance point.
2 Yes Not Required None No compliance point.
310/1/03--9/30/04
(optional) Year 1 90% of Baseline No compliance point.
410/1/04--9/30/05
(optional) Year 2 80% of Baseline No compliance point.
510/1/05--9/30/06
No Year 3 70% of Baseline First compliance point
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Trash Generation Ratesby Land Use
• Residential• Commercial• Industrial• Transportation and Utilities• Mixed Urban• Open Space and Recreation• Agriculture• Water
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Means of Compliance
• Anti-litter campaign and good house keeping
• Partial capture devices in storm drain catch basins
• Full capture devices in storm drain systems
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Measuring Reduction in Litter
Effectiveness of Anti-Litter Campaign and Good Housekeeping
Annual measurement for a 30-day period during high litter season to establish the daily litter rate.
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Example Full-Capture Systems
• Full Capture = Zero Trash
• Full Capture defined– 5 mm Mesh– 1 hour – 1 year storm
Year BaselineMonitoring
Implementation Waste LoadAllocation
Compliance Point
1Yes
Not Required None No compliance point.
2 Yes Not Required None No compliance point.
310/1/03--9/30/04
(optional) Year 1 90% of Baseline No compliance point.
410/1/04--9/30/05
(optional) Year 2 80% of Baseline No compliance point.
510/1/05--9/30/06
No Year 3 70% of Baseline First compliance point
Trash Reduction ScheduleTrash Reduction Schedule
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Trash TMDL Approved
• Regional Board adopted on 9/19/01
• State Board approved on 2/19/02
• Office of Administrative Law on 7/16/02
• USEPA approved on 8/1/02
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
City of Arcadia et al. V. State Water Resources Control Board
• Coalition for Practical Regulation (CPR) cities file suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in July 2002
• Parties stipulate transfer to San Diego County Superior Court
• 12/23/03 San Diego County Superior Court Rules
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Appeal
• Water Board and Cities appeal selected Superior Court Judgements
• Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate, rules on 1/26/06
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Water Board Appeal
• Water Board failed to conduct assimilative capacity study
• Water Board failed to conduct cost/benefit or consider economic factors
• TMDL inappropriately applied to Estuary, when Estuary not listed on 303(d) list
• Water Board failed to comply with CEQA
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Court of Appeal - Ruling
• Assimilative Capacity– Federal law does not require the regional board to
conduct assimilative capacity study before adopting the Trash TMDL.
– Evidence shows that because of the nature of trash, including styrofoam containers and other materials, that are undiluted by water, in contrast to chemical pollutants, and dangers to wildife of even small amounts of trash, an assimilative capacity study would be difficult to conduct and of little value.
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Court of Appeal - Ruling
• Water Board failed to conduct cost/benefit or consider economic factors– Water Boards sufficiently complied
• Discusses costs of collecting and disposing of trash
• Discusses costs of various types of compliance measures
• Includes capitol and O&M costs
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Court of Appeal - Ruling
• TMDL applied to L.A. River Estuary– Administrative record contains several pictures of
trash deposited in the Estuary during high flows, . . .– TMDL identification of the Estuary as impaired
could have been clearer, but we conclude it was sufficient to put all affected parties on notice, and does not meet the arbitrary and capricious standard.
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Court of Appeal - Ruling
• Water Board failed to comply with CEQA – Agree with Superior Court finding that the
regional board’s environmental checklist was deficient and there is sufficient evidence of a fair argument that the project may a have a significant effect on the environment, thus necessitating and EIR or functional equivalent.
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Cities’ Appeal
• Zero target unattainable
• Failure to allocate load allocation
• Beneficial Uses
• Scientific Methodology
• Administrative Procedures – Un-listed waterbodies
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Court of Appeal - Ruling
• Zero target unattainable• “A zero limit on trash within the meaning of the
Trash TMDL is attainable because there are methods of deemed compliance with the limit.”
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Court of Appeal - Ruling
• Failure to assign a load allocation to nonpoint sources:– Agrees with Superior Court judgement that the
although the Clean Water Act focuses on both point and nonpoint sources . . . nothing in the Act demands that a state adopt a regulatory system for nonpoint sources.
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Court of Appeal - Ruling• Beneficial Uses
– The Cities make no showing of prejudice. Swimming and bathing by the homeless are only two among numerous other beneficial uses that the Cities do not challenge and there is no suggestion that the numeric target of zero trash in the LA River would have been less stringent without consideration of the factors the Cities raise,
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Court of Appeal - Ruling
• Scientific Methodology• The Cities failed to establish the Water
Boards’ scientific data is inadequate or scientifically invalid. The Water Boards have not “failed to conduct on-going studies……and the record reveals studies relied upon by the Boards”.
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
Court of Appeal - Ruling
• Administrative Procedures – Un-listed waterbodies
• The trash TMDL sufficiently notified affected parties of the inclusion of the Estuary as an impaired water body, and the load allocation for nonpoint sources is necessarily zero
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - March 16, 2006
A View of the River Without Trash
The End