Not the most exciting or controversial topic, but still a good heads up - Louisville residents will see an extra $2 a month on their water bills to pay for storm water drainage improvements and water pollution reduction efforts. Commercial property owners will see a fee based on the sq. footage of non-porous surface area. The money goes to WASH.
The WASH - "Watershed Approach to Stream Health" Project is a partnership of Boulder County, Boulder, Longmont, Louisville, Erie and Superior. (Lafayette's non-involvement is a post for another time.) WASH is an effort to educate people on how to lessen their polluting habits re: natural watersheds.
Most people probably do not know it is illegal to allow any type of chemical to run off their property into stormdrains. This applies to residential and commercial property. This includes spraying off the side of a retail store and/or the sidewalk, rinsing a paint brush outside over pavement, any type of powerwashing going into the gutter, and more. These are federal watershed protection regulations, and WASH is a joint effort to let people know about the rules.
Each WASH community has an ordinance that says: "No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the storm drainage system or watercourses any materials other than stormwater." From lawnmower oil to Windex to 55-gallon drums of industrial solvents, they're all considered bad in the same way.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Water Quality Control Division grants stormwater permits to communities. If they don't meet the standards, they (the communities) can be fined. Of course, figuring out where pollutants are coming from is not always that simple. Tests showing toxins in Coal Creek don't tell you the source, which can be quite diverse and diffuse. Hence the proactive WASH education campaign.
Find out more at the WASH website. Read the "Who Are We?" section for deeper detail.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
WASH is more than just a compliance measure for federal rules, because those rules do not cover "any type of chemical," only harmful ones. The full force of "watershed protection" is a feature of local regulation.
It's interesting to note that Lafayette's non-participation in the WASH project allowed it to opt out of some of the more restrictive "watershed approaches to stream health." Despite the liberty to adopt minimal regulations, if anything, Lafayette's regulations appear as restrictive as any other jurisdiction (compare Lafayette code 104-56 to Louisville code 13.36.060).
By the way, if I use Windex when washing my car at home, neither federal nor local enforcement agents are going to show up, it's not illegal.
My understanding in the ordinance language is that nothing, and this is not qualified, nothing besides stormwater can be allowed to run off your property into stormwater drains. While it is true no federal agents will show up, I have been told there are no exception to this run-off rule.
However, there is no practical way to enforce this, so education is the most important effort. There are a few businesses that have sprung up to address the requirements of the law, that uses baffles and sump pumps etc. to keep water used in outdoor cleaning from running off the property.
The problem is that although municipalities have various wording exemptions for residential car washing, for example, they can't articulate every possible activity and non-stormwater ingredient someone may use on their property. Sweeping restrictions are the only alternative.
Don't get me wrong, I support them in this case (surprise!) One, it is more logical to be absolute in the regulation, as over time and in aggregate any combination of various cleaners, fertilizers, solvents, etc. people could add up to being a problem (How's that for a debateable premise) and two the impracticality of enforcement makes behavioral changes unlikely. So there's no real impact to the average person's life.
It becomes incumbent on the government and its agents (WASH) to educate and at the same time present compelling evidence that our run-off behavior is detrimental to the environment. Logical persuasion is the only way to achieve the goal, and the otherwise sweeping mandate of govenment is held to that standard.
I stand corrected. It appears the federal regulations do consider anything "other than stormwater" (and not otherwise covered by a discharge permit) to be an illicit discharge.
Still, there are many aspects of the regulatory scheme that require implementation and augmentation by local authorities. For example, federal regulations apply to the municipal stormwater agency, not generally to me as a homeowner. So, if an enforcement authority showed up at my doorstep and cited me for using Windex, I would certainly argue that the car washing exemption provided for in local law gives no notice that some part of is not not subject to that exemption.
Perhaps problems with the definition of car washing will be solved over time, but there is the lingering question of how the Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge of "pollutants," can be used to justify regulation that assumes anything that is not stormwater is an illicit discharge. I see that your post is correct in that even spraying off the sidewalk is considered an illicit discharge, but how often does this actually constitute pollution?
Referring to our theme about the County Commissioners, I am not aware whether the County operates a stormwater drainage system that would be subject to the "municipal" regulations. There is a good chance that parts of the unincorporated County would not be sidewalk spray and Windex-free without the County stepping up to the WASH program.
But all this is just trivia regarding the "debatable premises" that are used to justify regulation. When, for example, we read about the cornucopia of prescription drugs that are passing through our water supply, I would agree with your assessment that sweeping regulations might be considered (though this off-the-cuff example is not a stormwater issue as much as a water treatment problem)... I just continue to be puzzled with the different standards of evidence we should apply to different forms of "proactive" regulation.
What I found most interesting on the local front is that Louisville's $2 surcharge is presented as a water quality (e.g., WASH-related) program, but it is also a flood control and drainage infrastructure program, like the utility the City of Lafayette is considering. In Lafayette, we will probably see a similar program emphasized as drainage and flood control, given the City's recent history with inadequate storm water facilities.
Reading your post, I initially thought Tom Hogue would be pleased to learn that his prognostications about the cost and scope of WASH had proven true. However, we have a serious need for a stormwater utility in Lafayette, and now I'm wondering how Louisville ended up getting their utility up and running first.
Recently small "signs" have magically appeared somehow affixed to the sidewalks above storm drains warning residents not to pour any substance down the drain.
Anyway, Alex asks how is it Louisville got its storm drainage utility first. So here is some of the background from my institutional memory.
Lafayette city staff put a proposal on the table two years ago. It was not well done and staff had trouble defending it. What it showed is that for the most part, all of the development that had taken place since the early 90s had adequate storm drainage, required of the developers. What was missing was adequate drainage for the older sections of town, I think mostly north and east. It also had a fee based on the non-permiable part of each property, something that would be almost impossible to calculate within reason.
So the proposal was tabled. The push back was why should residents who had paid for storm drainage as part of the cost of their homes pay twice? But the decisive factor was the bond issue for the new police station was to be voted on that year. Piling that on with the 43% increase in water rates and then a monthly storm drainage fee was thought to be too big a pill to swallow for most conscious voters. (Anaylsis of the actual vote on the PD station is somewhat interesting as the majority of voters in each of the precints in the older parts of town voted against the bond for the new PD station).
So the proposal is back. Once again property owners who have paid once will be asked to pay twice. Seems fashionable in town these days. And the proposal is regressive in that the fee per month is the same for all residential property owners regardless of lot size and non-permiable area. It will take several years before enough money is accumulated to really do anything. And for an event that may occur once every 100 years.
Somehow more and more the residents who can least afford it are seeing the costs of living in Lafayette go up and up. But that is a discussion for another day.
One last comment. I would contend that any one pouring any possible toxic substance down a storm sewer knows it is the wrong thing to.
Good discussion on an important issue. Let's not forget that storm water is usually a much greater problem than small residential releases. This is because storm water accumulates what is left on residential properties, like the Windex residue on your car and driveway, the oil patch under your leaking '53 Chevy, and any number of chemicals that collect on your house and yard from air pollution. Storm water releases are generally much greater in volume, though, so the dilution is also greater. However, in communities like mine (Lafayette Park), the usual run-off from any property never makes it to any stream until a storm event, even then the detention ponds keep a majority of these events from ever making it to a stream. This is most likely why Louisville is spending it's efforts on flood control and drainage. A good wetland has an enormous capacity to curb pollution. Ultimately, I think these type of programs will have a positive effect. Groundwater may be of concern, though.
The education of the community is always a hard sell. It is difficult for anyone to see how a little Windex will hurt, but it's the death by a million cuts. I have noticed new signs on storm drains, which is a good start.
Can't seem to log into my blogger ID anymore - Cyclorado
Cyclorado:
I've found the switchover internally by Blogger to some new programming has caused some glitches: please forward messages to me at the yahoo adress if the problem happens again.
Ironically, I just found some old files by chance after posting regarding WASH. I had downloaded the Powerpoint presentation that Lafayette's staff presented in 2004 regarding the proposed stormwater utility... It has been over 2 years that the utility has been stalled in Lafayette.
Since Kerry had front row seats and I did not (didn't even have cable at that time), I won't debate the quality of the 2004 presentation. Details like the fee structure and basis of assessment (e.g., impervious surface) did seem to become a hang-up, but I recall that the impervious surface calculation, at least, was promoted by at least part of the council. And no doubt citizens are starting to recoil at new fees, assessments, and taxes, and city leaders deserve credit for trying to prioritize. Stormwater and droughts tend to have no voice in City government except when they really become a problem...
So even though I understand the delay, none of the above changes my opinion that the City needs to get serious about moving forward with the utility.
The primary objective of the utility, as I recall, is to implement a drainage and flood control master plan covering the entire city. It is true that most recent developments in the City will not require new stormwater infrastructure due to adequate development standards, but the capital cost of such improvements is not the entire equation. Flood damage, debris from poor drainage, and other liabilities are avoided by implementing the drainage master plan, and such costs would ultimately assumed by the City's taxpayers whether or not they have already "paid" for storm sewers in their neighborhood.
I'd also dispute the contention that the master plan necessarily benefits those who live in older sections of town more than those who do not. I have discussed drainage issues in my immediate vicinity at length with the City Engineer, and I have been assured that I stand a cold chance in hell of anything being done about it since my particular concerns as a homeowner are not even addressed in the master plan.
Even though I will not directly benefit to any greater extent than someone in a newer neighborhood, I support modernizing the City's stormwater program for the benefit of the City as a whole.
I also believe that stormwater improvements offer the opportunity to piggyback other benefits, such as water quality, trails, and maybe even some of the "water wise" landscape treatment that was espoused so eloquently a few years ago but never really took hold in the private developments we've seen since then.
With the recent post on WASH and links from there providing some interesting background on how a very similar stormwater utility is related to water quality and CWA compliance, which costs are also imcumbent on the City, it's time to start looking for ways to improve on the last proposal and get it off the ground.
I agree with Kerry's final thought - that people know when they're pouring away something possibly toxic they know its wrong. However, my experieince with informing/enforcing regulations re: open space, and other comments I've made to neighbors (plus some introspective analysis) causes me to cynically believe most people don't ever think about what they're doing beyond the immediate benefit to themselves. It's human nature that the stick (or perhaps carrot) of govt. regulations tries to overcome.
I've found the sweeping WASH regulations (coming from the fed/state level) are always first reacted to with dismissive surprise. A "yeah, right" mentality. It combines a bit of disregard that there is a problem with some level of practical assessment that there's no way to really enforce it (so why care) and then the more generic anti-authority sentiment that kicks in when a person imagines getting a ticket for an anti-WASH activity and how ridiculous and random/unfair it would seem.
When I point out specifics to say "believe me, this is true", the gamut of defensive reactions requires a staunch and tactful education campiagn. Hence WASH. And I like that it is a difficult sell. I want regulators to have to describe the problems their regulations address. Justify it.
I'll never forget walking in Chicago with a friend of mine who could only be characterized as a bleeding heart liberal, when he suddenly throws a wrapper into the gutter. In response to my shock at this wanton act of littering, he defended himself by saying that the sewer was made to collect that kind of thing. I really wonder if people are as conscious of their impact as we might like to think. Since that time, the larger and now the smaller municipalities have taken to labeling the storm inlets. Now the question is whether the people who dump paint into their gutter at home have seen those labels and realize the same thing applies to the gutter several blocks away.
While we're calling WASH a regulatory program, I would have to guess that most of the fees to be collected in, say, Louisville are going to infrastructure and education efforts, with only a minor portion of revenues funding enforcement activities.
I agree with the idea that public discourse and critical analysis should always precede regulation. The question then becomes one of standards. Have we amongst ourselves determined that all runoff that is not stormwater should be regulated as pollution, and, if so, how did we come to that conclusion?
I think there is a list of "must do" items with strict deadlines associated with the federal stormwater regulations. So those would be what the collective WASH communities would be implementing. Lafayette also, on its own since it opted out of WASH (bad move). Are all properties in WASH communities assessed $2 per month? Can Lafayette implement their program at this, or lower monthly fee?
Well,folks. All I can tell you is the current presentation and city admin party line is significantly altered from the 2004 one. And if one looks at the infrastructure to be developed, you can see what areas of town are being addressed. So draw your own conclusions.
By the way, code enforcement in Lafayette is consistantly understaffed within the police force and there is high turnover. So public education is the only real practical answer.
Maybe Dan would like to start the discussion of the rationale involved in raising the cost of living in Lafayette which has median income significantly below Boulder Coulder and its effects on low to moderate income residents???
One has to wonder how much the public good is served by making it mandatory for the public who can't afford it to fund it?
Tune in to the visit-ability workshop discussion on January 2nd.
I conclude that storm water fees will be approved so Lafayette can bring in new development. What is visitability and why should I tune in to learn about it?
A lot of catching up to do on this one, so just a couple comments. There are federal requirements that the City of Lafayette has to meet, just as other communities do. While it may be that the newer developments paid for drainage at build, there will always be maintenance and there already exist drainage problems that need to be fixed in the newer parts of town. In addition, we all share the cost and benefit of drainage care in the common parts of town.
We need to address the quality issue with storm water (as others have said), which will largely be an education issue because of the difficulty of enforcement. People don't always make the choice that is best for the storm water quality (it is more fun to wash the car in the driveway than to take it to the car wash!) and therefore the environment that we all share.
As far as charging people for something like storm water management, I think we have to work backwards from the fact that it has to be paid for, and someone has to pay for it. If Lafayette was a city with a billion dollar budget, perhaps those costs could be absorbed by the general fund (still paid for by all through sales, use, and property taxes). Unfortunately, that isn't the case. The proposed rate is comparable to surrounding municipalities and, I believe, is reasonable to insure that we are taking care of storm water both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Meanwhile, we do need to be considering mechanisms for increasing livability and quality of life for our lower income residents, including affordable housing, job opportunities, English classes, early childhood education and opportunities for youth.
Chris Cameron
Dear Anonymous,
Storm water fees have already been approved, but it doesn't have anything to do with bringing in new development. The fees will cover the ongoing completion and maintenance of the city-wide drainage system as well as reaching compliance with the storm water quality component of the federal regulations. Education will be part of that cost.
"Visit-ability" is the concept of building homes to allow a person in a wheelchair to enter your home (at least one entrance is "zero-entry" with no steps, and 36' doorframes) and use your bathroom while visiting (again, a wide door that either swings out, or swings in enough that a person in a wheelchair can enter the bathroom and close the door). It would also include blocks in the walls that bars in the bathroom could attach to later if the residents needed them.
The reason someone should learn about it is because our population is aging and more and more homes are going to need to be retrofitted (possibly in unattractive ways) to allow residents and visitors to function in them. Many of us in the years to come are going to discover that our aging parents have trouble visiting, or that we ourselves could benefit from visitable construction (how many times I carried a stroller with a sleeping child up the stairs...).
Many of these modifications can be made at minimal cost to the builders and with no cosmetic disadvantage.
If you want to know more, you can tune in on January 2 at 6 (or maybe 6:30?)
Post a Comment