This document summarizes concerns with draft Watershed Management Programs (WMPs) from a non-governmental organization perspective. Key concerns include WMPs relying on non-site specific data, insufficient prioritization of pollutants, unreasonable timelines that extend past permit deadlines, and monitoring plans not able to identify responsible parties for water quality issues. The document calls for WMPs to more specifically classify pollutants, justify strategies to reduce pollution, and not overrely on future changes or adaptive management to meet permit requirements.

1. MS4 Implementation
NGO Perspective
Kirsten James, Science & Policy Director, Water Quality

2. Machado Lake
-Trash TMDL
-Nutrients TMDL
San Gabriel River
- Metals TMDL
Los Cerritos Channel
- Metals TMDL
State of Surface Water Quality
in Los Angeles County
• Every major water body
impaired and regulated
• Over 40 regulations in effect
or under development
• Fines for non-compliance
(up to $37,500 per violation)

3. 2012 LA Permit Requirements:
Permittees may “develop Watershed Management
Programs to implement the requirements of [the
Permit] on a watershed scale through customized
strategies, control measures, and BMPs.” (2012
Permit, at VI.C.1.a.)
In a WMP, permittees must “ensure that discharges
from the Permittee’s MS4 . . . do not cause or
contribute to exceedances of receiving water
limitations” or applicable TMDL provisions. (Id. at
VI.C.1.d.)

4. Common Concerns with Draft WMPs
1. Use of non-site specific data for watershed characterization
2. Insufficient water body-pollutant classification and prioritization
3. Improper and unsubstantiated Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA)
4. Overreliance on regulatory controls and non-MS4 entities
5. Proposed projects lack specificity and fail to incorporate multi-benefit
solutions
6. Compliance deadlines unreasonably long and extend beyond Permit
term
7. Low Impact Development and Green Street requirements
8. Monitoring plans insufficient to characterize runoff and identify
responsible parties

5. Use of Non-Site Specific Data
for Watershed Characterization
• Permittees must evaluate existing water quality
conditions and characterize the current stormwater
and non-stormwater discharges in their watersheds
(Permit at VI.C.5.a)
• Acknowledge that, in some cases, watershed
characterization data may be limited
• No quantitative or qualitative adjustments for data
originating from outside of watershed

6. Insufficient Water Body-Pollutant
Classification and Prioritization
• Permittees are required to classify and
prioritize pollutants in each sub-watershed
(2012 Permit, at VI.C.5.a.ii.)
• Some permittees do not prioritize pollutants
according to 2012 MS4 permit scheme
• In general, permittees review of available data
for water body-pollutant classification and
prioritization is inadequate

7. Improper and Unsubstantiated
Reasonable Assurance Analysis
(RAA)
• Insufficient justification for
assumptions about effectiveness
and scale of proposed pollution
reduction strategies
• Lack scientific rigor or modeling
• Example:
Allege that 25% irrigation reduction
will result in an approximately 60%
reduction in overall dry weather
pollutant loading
Image:brazos.org

8. Improper and Unsubstantiated
Reasonable Assurance Analysis
(RAA)
• Inappropriately rely on
future legislation and
policy changes
• Over-reliance on future
adaptive management
to meet permit
requirements
Image:www.copper.org

9. Overreliance on Regulatory Controls
and Non-MS4 Entities
• Reliance on, or
assumption that, non-
MS4 sources will
eliminate
cause/contribution to
receiving water
exceedances is improper
• Once pollution enters a
permittee’s MS4 system it
is the permittee’s
responsibility

10. Compliance Deadlines
Unreasonably Long and Extend
Beyond Permit Term
• Failure to meet interim and ultimate compliance
with RWLs in a timely manner
• Propose interim TMDL compliance milestones for
TMDLs that are past due and subject to final
compliance limitations

11. Paying for Water in CA
-- PPIC Report (March 2014)
Source: PPIC

12. Successful WQ Funding Measures
Los Angeles– Prop O
• $500 million
• Passed with 76%
Santa Monica – Measure V
• $40 million
• Passed with 67%
Echo Park, City of LA Pier Improvement, City of Santa Monica

13. AB 2403
“Water” means any system of public improvements intended to
provide for the production, storage, supply, treatment, or
distribution of water from any source.

14. Example Projects
• Produce a water supply (such as the diversion of stormwater
flow for groundwater recharge);
• Displace demand for existing water uses (such as a recycled
water project that offsets demand for potable water);
• Projects and activities that protect the quality of existing
water supplies (such as a stormwater quality project that
prevents contamination of existing potable water sources).

15. Prop 218 Reform
Section 6 of Article XIII D thereof is amended to read:
(c) Voter Approval for New or Increased Fees and Charges.
Except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and stormwater and
urban runoff management, or refuse collection services, no
property related a property-related fee or charge shall not be
imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is
submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property owners
of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the option of the
agency, by a two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in the
affected area. The election shall be conducted not less than 45 days
after the public hearing. An agency may adopt procedures similar
to those for increases in assessments in the conduct of elections
under this subdivision.

16. Water Bond ($7.545 Billion )
Protecting Rivers, Lakes, Coastal Waters and Watersheds ($1.495
Billion)
• $327.5 – Multibenefit Watershed Projects by State Conservancies
• $200 – Enhanced Stream Flows by Wildlife Conservation Board
• $100 – Urban Creek Restoration (Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers)
• $20 – Multibenefit Urban Watershed Projects by Competitive Grant
• $475 – Fulfilling State Obligations in Water Settlements
• $285 – Watershed Restoration Projects by Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
• $87.5 – Delta Water Quality & Ecosystem Restoration
• Regional Water Security, Climate, and Drought Preparedness ($810
Million)
• $510 – Allocation to Each Hydrologic Region
• $100 – Urban and Agricultural Water Conservation
• $200 – Stormwater Management

17. Steps Forward
• Encourage your City to move forward under AB 2403
• Support larger Proposition 218 Reform
• Weigh-in on Water Bond guidelines, etc.
• Think creatively
• Street measures (e.g. METRO Measure X)
• Public/private partnerships
• City Manager’s Funding Options Report

18. And Remember…NGO
Partnerships Can Help
Protest Hearing: March 12, 2013