Mehranian Session 4 "Solution to Pollution"

1. Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4) Permit Process Update
Presented by Maria Mehranian
C.F.O - Cordoba Corporation &
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Member

2. MS4 Permit Timeline
 Timeline
 2001- LA County MS4 Permit
 Includes LA County Flood Control District, LA County, and 84
incorporated cities within LA County
 2006- Permit expired, but was extended pursuant to federal
regulations
 2006, 2007 & 2009: permit was reopened to incorporate
provisions to implement three TMDLs.
 2012- Board reconsiders and amends MS4 Permit
 Many advances were made in stormwater and urban runoff
management that were not reflected in the LA County MS4
permit

3. Need for a New MS4 Permit
 The requirement and framework presented an
opportunity to develop a more effective MS4 Permit
 This was before the increasing severity of the drought
 The New MS4 Permit was the first serious attempt to get
municipalities engaged and educated on developing
storm water cleanup measures
 The process started with over 50 stakeholder workshops

4. Framework for the New MS4 Permit
 Need for local sources of water
 Water quality and water supply are two sides of the same
coin
 We can create sustainable infrastructure while cleaning
the water
 All the discharger’s must be involved in developing and
implementing water management plans
 Now is the time to build stormwater capture infrastructure

5. A New MS4 Permit: How is it different?
 Allowed a 3 year lead time for design & compliance
 Requires that permittees demonstrate that Best
Management Practices reduce pollution
 A Regional Approach to stormwater EWMPs
 Options to meet the goals individually or as a part of a
watershed

6. Stakeholder Concerns
 Majority of Permittees were in favor of leaving the permit
as it was
 Concern that permitting agency would be unable to
effectively compare the different modeling methods
 Concerns that new permit lacks regulation
 Permittees concerned they won’t have funding to
implement proposed plans

7. Positive Impact of MS4 Changes
 WMP is a water quality based permit
 Requires that municipalities determine whether their
programs will reduce pollutant levels
 Encourages innovative and collaborative solutions
 Innovative water quality management approaches will also
lead to increased local water supply and water
infrastructure resiliency

8. From Sustainable Regulation to
Sustainable Infrastructure

9. Sustainable policy leads to
Sustainable Infrastructure
 A total of 17 WMPs were developed
 More dialog among dischargers
 Enhanced resources and capabilities
 Will develop a sustainable infrastructure while meeting
water quality standards
 LA River Revitalization will be the next big test

10. Watersheds

11. Current Draft Submittals
 17 Watershed Management Program Submittals
 Includes 7 Group WMPs
 33 Municipalities/Permittees Participating in Group WMPs
 Groups range in size from 2 to 13
Municipalities/Permittees
 Includes 10 Individual Submittals
 12 EWMP Groups
 EWMPs are not due until June 2015

12. Locations of WMPs
 San Gabriel Valley area
 #7 – East San Gabriel Valley WMP
 El Monte
 Irwindale
 South El Monte
 West Covina
 Walnut
 La Habra Heights
 #8 – Lower San Gabriel River
 #9 & #18 – Alamitos Bay/Los Cerritos
Channel
 #3 – Los Angeles River Upper Reach 2
 #4 – Lower Los Angeles River and Environs
 Compton
 Carson
 Dominquez Channel Area
 Lawndale
 Gardena
 #19 – SMB Jurisdictional Group 7 area in
City of Los Angeles (PV Peninsula)

13. WMPs Status
 10 Individual and Group WMPs have minor deficiencies
 These WMP participants have been provided notice of their
deficiencies
 They now have three months to revise their WMPs and
address deficiencies
 7 of the Individual WMPs were severely deficient and
have been denied participation in a WMP
 These municipalities now must meet baseline requirements

14. General Areas for Improvement
 Many Permittees make assumptions with regard to
predicted pollution reduction without sufficient support
 The Permit allows Permittees to delay reaching the goals by
relying on future legislation and polices to assist in reducing
pollutant levels
 Better assessment related to pollutant contributions from
MS4 discharges
 Greater detail on Watershed Control Measures to meet
early deadlines

15. Examples of Watershed Control
Measures Included in Submitted Plans
 Stormwater capture & use BMPs at public parks
 Infiltration to dry wells
 Constructed wetlands
 Vacant lot ordinance (to address TSS & associated
pollutants)
 Green streets/BMPs in rights-of-way
 LID for new redevelopment
 Enhanced street sweeping

16. Implementation Challenges
 The WMPs are able to estimate implementation cost fairly
accurately, however the plans do not address financing
or funding
 Possible Funding Opportunities
 Proposition 1 will provide funding for some of the projects
included in the WMPs, but not all
 Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act(WIFIA)
program may provide additional funding opportunities
 Drinking water loan program - $400 Million earmarked

17. Next Steps
 Complete Review of Draft WMPs
 Provide Comments to Permittees
 Permittees Revise WMPs
 Complete Review of Integrated Monitoring Programs
(IMP)/Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Programs
(CIMP)
 Continue to Provide Input on EWMPs
 Develop Appropriate Evaluation Standards
 Find Funding for Implementation

18. The Good News
PROPOSITION 1 PASSED !!!!!!!!

19. THANK YOU!