Monday, June 29, 2015
Thursday, June 18, 2015
$20 billion tax-hiking No New Parks Plan is Ok'd by State Board
State Water Board OK's L.A. County's Stormwater Capture Plans
6/17/2015 http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-stormwater-runoff-20150617-story.html
excerpts:
Some environmentalists strongly opposed the plan, complaining that the changes did not go far enough. And cash-strapped municipalities also objected, saying that they could not afford the expense of new stormwater infrastructure.
"The revised draft order represents a gross abuse of power and an abdication of responsibility," said Steve Fleischli, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council water program.
Fleischli said the approved rules allowed municipalities in certain watershed categories to avoid the issue of rainwater reuse and also degraded the state's ability to enforce water quality. He said he feared the regulations would allow some cities to plan water capture systems without ever having to build them.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has argued that stormwater capture could potentially provide more than 253,000 acre-feet of water for Los Angeles County after every inch of rainfall — or nearly 40% of the city of Los Angeles' annual water use.
...While government organizations such as the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works voiced support for the revised permit, a number of municipalities said they were alarmed by the potential cost.
Gardena City Councilman Dan Medina said compliance with the permit threatened to "bankrupt our city and probably force it into a disincorporation."
Medina said a consultant had told the city that belonging to an enhanced watershed management program could cost the city $12 million to $24 million a year.
"The city's general fund is only about $50 million a year," Medina said. "Nearly 80% of that goes to public safety."
...Board Chair Felicia Marcus told municipal officials that the estimates seemed too high....
-----------------------------------
SEE THIS DOCUMENT, AT PAGE 3, PARAGRAPH 5 FOR LA COUNTY'S OWN ESTIMATE OF THE $20 BILLION COST
http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/93934.pdf
6/17/2015 http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-stormwater-runoff-20150617-story.html
excerpts:
Some environmentalists strongly opposed the plan, complaining that the changes did not go far enough. And cash-strapped municipalities also objected, saying that they could not afford the expense of new stormwater infrastructure.
"The revised draft order represents a gross abuse of power and an abdication of responsibility," said Steve Fleischli, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council water program.
Fleischli said the approved rules allowed municipalities in certain watershed categories to avoid the issue of rainwater reuse and also degraded the state's ability to enforce water quality. He said he feared the regulations would allow some cities to plan water capture systems without ever having to build them.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has argued that stormwater capture could potentially provide more than 253,000 acre-feet of water for Los Angeles County after every inch of rainfall — or nearly 40% of the city of Los Angeles' annual water use.
...While government organizations such as the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works voiced support for the revised permit, a number of municipalities said they were alarmed by the potential cost.
Gardena City Councilman Dan Medina said compliance with the permit threatened to "bankrupt our city and probably force it into a disincorporation."
Medina said a consultant had told the city that belonging to an enhanced watershed management program could cost the city $12 million to $24 million a year.
"The city's general fund is only about $50 million a year," Medina said. "Nearly 80% of that goes to public safety."
...Board Chair Felicia Marcus told municipal officials that the estimates seemed too high....
-----------------------------------
SEE THIS DOCUMENT, AT PAGE 3, PARAGRAPH 5 FOR LA COUNTY'S OWN ESTIMATE OF THE $20 BILLION COST
http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/93934.pdf
Monday, May 18, 2015
High Speed Hearing Endorses Bad L.A. Creeks Plan
UPDATE: we got to speak after waiting 5 hours, for 2 minutes, to protest
the new $20 Billion L.A. water pollution cleanup plan which was
originally supposed to include restored river and creek parks but now is
an engineering firm's pipe dream.
MORE:
MORE:
------------------------------------------------
If you support expanded parks from our Creeks to our Peaks, come to the L.A. County Board of Supervisor's meeting on Tuesday May 26th and tell them to Keep their promise of new parks as part of the L.A. stormwater cleanup plan.
The
plan is a near complete reversal of longtime plans to turn concreted
creeks throughout L.A. into restored and expanded parts of the park
system, instead largely relying on turning existing public parks and
playgrounds into pollution catch basins. This crummy plan also features a
massive tax hike which county planners are trying to sneak past all of
us to avoid a rebellion like occurred in 2013. For what happened in 2013, read this: L.A. County to revise proposed parcel tax to fight polluted runoff
The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy wrote this in their
comment letter: "There seems to be a bias against projects on private
land..." in the plan. The SMMC supports land acquisition to create new
"multi-benefit stormwater cleanup parks" that include wildlife habitat.
They stated: . We "recommend inclusion of these types of acquisition
projects and this approach in the plan. "
To read the full letter: http://smmc.ca.gov/pdf/attachment3990_Comment%20Letter.pdf
http://ballona-news.blogspot.com/search/label/Restoring%20and%20Unpaving%20Local%20Open%20Spaces%20to%20Clean%20Up%20Santa%20Monica%20Bay%20Beaches
Saturday, May 16, 2015
CREEKS TO PEAKS
WHAT L.A.'S PARK SYSTEM COULD LOOK LIKE -- IF L.A.'S CONCRETED CREEKS WERE TURNED INTO PARKS
TELL L.A. LEADERS TO KEEP THEIR PARKS PROMISE!
Public hearing is May 26th by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in Downtown L.A.
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/lacfcd/ewmppeir/
Monday, September 29, 2014
comments on L.A. City and County urban runoff cleanup plans (ie., wetland pollution plans)
Get Your Comments in Today by 5 pm
(September 29th) on Plan to Clean up L.A.'s Beaches: hint, the devil is
in the details, which so far do not exist
Comments are due today to gbegell@dpw.lacounty.gov
sorry for the lateness, but I'm "swamped".
Just copy and paste if you agree.
The 15 page NOP document is here http://LACoH2Osheds.com
...Rex
-------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR DRAFT PROGRAM EIR FOR ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS FOR L.A. COUNTY
September 29, 2014, 1:30 pm
From Rex Frankel, director, Ballona Ecosystem Education Project,
I understand why no one but myself attended the NOP hearing on September 9th in Marina Del Rey. You have no specific projects to analyze for environmental impacts. You are attempting to analyze the environmental impact of words, not specific actions. It is impossible to analyze the impacts of no stated physical projects, just as it is impossible to analyze those unstated projects’ impacts on the environmental setting, ie., the proper baseline, because you have no specific locations for these unspecified projects. Thus all you can say is to analyze the entire county. The two most essential parts of an environmental analysis are missing here: specific projects and specific sites. You have the process all backwards here, and thus, commenting on this NOP in any specific manner is impossible.
Some background: In 2002, local governments settled lawsuits and agreed to consent decrees and promised to stop violations of bacterial health codes at our beaches by 2021. This agreement gave the public agencies an extension beyond the original deadline of 2013 but only if the projects created new parkland and river corridors that could catch and clean water before it fouled the beaches.
In 2006, L.A. City proposed its first big plan under this agreement, an Implementation Plan for the Santa Monica Bay Beaches watersheds. This plan was sent back for redrafting by the RWQCB as it only reached 2% of its target and thus, would not accomplish the goal in the consent decree.
Also in 2006, L.A. city proposed the Integrated Resource Plan which mainly focused on building 25 Hyperion-style urban runoff treatment plants which would have cost the average homeowner ratepayer $400 a month. This plan went nowhere.
In 2012, the County Supervisors tried to quietly approve a $300 million per year property tax hike to build a non-existent list of runoff cleansing and capturing projects. Howls of opposition arose and that plan went nowhere. The public wanted to know what they were paying for.
Now, you are finally starting to design the cleanup plan. But how can you ask the public to weigh in on the scope of the environmental analysis of that plan, when your description of that plan contains no specifics? Your stated plan to defer the environmental analysis of specific project impacts to when each one is up for approval thus ignores the cumulative impacts and therefore is “piecemealing”, by starting major momentum of a project that is composed of many necessary parts, yet deferring analysis and the controversy to a multitude of separate EIRs and CEQA documents and public hearings, all the while public input is diffused. We never get to weigh in on whether we like the complete plan because the Program EIR has no specifics to arouse concern and the real project discussion is delayed until much later in a way that requires massive efforts by the public to keep track of the success of the big plan.
The people who will pay for this plan want to see the specifics before you raise our taxes to pay for it. We want expanded and unpaved river corridor parks. We do not want the plan to include converting existing wetlands and wildlife habitat into pollution dumps and sumps. We want what we were promised, not a lame compromise that puts the cleanup burden on existing public lands, parks and house front yards. We want a complete plan for us to judge whether it will accomplish its promises and goals before you produce an EIR, not the other way around.
Please put me on the notification list for all actions relating to this project. Thank you.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
NEW: Slide presentations on the Ballona Wetlands Restoration Project
https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/BallonaCrittersAtRiskFromStateSBulldozingPlans#
https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/BallonaRestorationPlanSPollutedWaterProblem#
https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/BallonaHistoricalMapsAndPhotos#
https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/EvolutionOfTheStateSRestorationPlansForBallona#
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/05/ballona_wetlands_sierra_club.php
https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/BallonaRestorationPlanSPollutedWaterProblem#
https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/BallonaHistoricalMapsAndPhotos#
https://picasaweb.google.com/Rare.Earth.fotos/EvolutionOfTheStateSRestorationPlansForBallona#
AND, THE L.A. WEEKLY POSTED AN EXCELLENT STORY FEATURING OUR SIDE OF THIS STORY:
Monday, November 2, 2009
Parks and Wetlands to Share land in South Bay
Torrance eyes new sports fields in Dual- Use Treatment Wetland Basins
Posted: 10/13/2009 , Daily Breeze
PHOTOS: https://picasaweb.google.com/rexfrankel/SouthBayStormwaterWetlandCatchBasinParks
A
Torrance sump adjacent to Bishop Montgomery High School on Torrance
Boulevard may someday be the site of three athletic fields. (Brad
Graverson Staff Photographer)
And city officials see an enhanced storm-water runoff program that will collect, conserve and clean water.
Both will come to fruition if a $6 million proposal to build three multiuse sports fields at the Bishop Montgomery Basin behind the Torrance Boulevard high school and a passive park at the Ocean sump near Sepulveda Boulevard occurs as envisioned.
The first public step in the process occurs at 7 p.m. tonight and again Nov. 18 in the cafeteria at Anza Elementary School, 21400 Ellinwood Drive, when city officials unveil plans for the 7-acre basin adjacent to Bishop Montgomery. Another meeting is scheduled for the same time and place Nov. 4 to discuss the trails, restored habitat and open space proposed for the 9-acre Ocean sump. "Neither of these projects would use any potable water," said John Dettle, acting city engineer. "We would use recycled water plus urban runoff to keep the grass growing." Municipal officials first proposed the idea in March 2008 and have been refining plans for the two sumps ever since. The idea is to help the city meet regional requirements for cleaning urban runoff in winter months while simultaneously creating two new parks. The function of the basins, which have existed for decades to help drain what was once a flood-prone city, would not change.
In fact, the goal is to improve how they work, enhancing both the quantity and quality of water that's collected and used to recharge groundwater supplies, Dettle said. The city has set aside $1million for preliminary design work and hopes to apply for state and local water improvement grants to create the parks. There's room for up to three youth soccer fields complete with lights at the Bishop Montgomery basin that could also be used for Pop Warner Football and other sports. "We get constant calls from people complaining they don't have a place to practice or play," said Mayor Frank Scotto, a long-time official with the Hawthorne-based American Youth Soccer Organization, which began in Torrance 45 years ago. "A lot of groups have such a need for more youth fields in the city, it would be very disappointing to me if we could not accomplish this." City officials don't expect many people to object to improving the landscaping and installing trails, but otherwise leaving the Ocean basin in a largely undeveloped state. But it's unclear how neighbors of the Bishop Montgomery basin will react to converting the quiet space into busy, lighted ball fields. With lights below the grade of surrounding homes, it's hoped the illuminated fields will not spill unwanted glare into nearby living rooms. Dettle said he has received only one call from a nearby resident about the project so far and that person was in favor of it. Still, youth sports officials acknowledge that playing games from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on a weekend - complete with a blaring public address system in the case of Pop Warner Football - can create conflict. "When we play, the neighbors always complain about the noise or the PA system or parking on the street," said Dan Lankford, president of Torrance Youth Football & Cheer, whose 400 participants are spread over three different parks and school fields. He hopes a new directional sound system that doesn't blast the entire neighborhood will solve the noise issue. Parking isn't expected to be a problem since the high school already has large lots. Dick Monod de Froideville, AYSO commissioner for Torrance's Region 15, is also eyeing the new sports fields, which would sit on the border of two fast-growing AYSO regions. "It's in an ideal location," he said. "(Region 15) used to be a program of 900 (kids) and now we're a little over 1,000. The city of Torrance is running out of space for sports venues."
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:A5TItD6iKX8J:www.dailybreeze.com/ci_13548805+%22torrance+eyes+new+sports+fields%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Monday, February 16, 2009
-
If You Support Unpaving Ballona Creek , its Buried Streams and Filled-In Wetlands -- Come to this Public Workshop Held by the L.A. City Sanitation Department
If You Support Unpaving Ballona Creek , its Buried Streams and Filled-In Wetlands -- Come to this Public Workshop Held by the L.A. City Sanitation Department
INVITATION FOR STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP: March 3, 2009, at Hyperion treatment Plant in Playa del Rey
TIME/DATE: March 3, 2009 from 1:00 to 3:30 pm Hyperion Treatment Plant, Conference Room 116 12000 Vista Del Mar, Playa Del Rey , CA , 90293
DEVELOPMENT OF TMDL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS IN THE BALLONA CREEK WATERSHED: WORKSHOP II
Dear Stakeholders: On behalf of the Ballona Creek watershed cities and agencies, Dr. Shahram Kharaghani (Division Manager of the Watershed Protection Division, City of Los Angeles ) would like to request your participation as a stakeholder in the second Implementation Plan Development Workshop for the Bacteria, Metals and Toxics TMDLs in the Ballona Creek watershed. These Implementation Plans will be developed over the next 2 years and have the overall goal of reducing urban runoff pollution to comply with TMDL requirements for the Ballona Creek watershed. More specific goals of the Implementation Plans are the following: . Identify pollution hot spots and prioritize the drainage areas to be addressed; and . Identify Best Management Practices for reducing pollution by urban runoff and select and verify potential locations for implementation. The TMDL Implementation Plans will be completed in 2009 (Bacteria TMDL), 2010 (Metals TMDL) or 2011 (Toxics TMDL). Several stakeholder workshops will be scheduled to support this process. The first workshop was held on November 6, 2008 and focused on the initial characterization of the Ballona Creek watershed.
This second workshop will focus on the next steps:
. BMP types and process selection
. Breakout sessions focusing on specific areas of the watershed
Your participation as a stakeholder is important to provide input to the development of the Implementation Plans.
For more information and to RSVP please contact Ida Meisami at, Ida.Meisami.Fard@lacity.org or (213) 485-3999. Please RSVP by February 19, 2009 with your name and the number of guests that will be in attendance.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Tracking the Lost Streams of Ballona Creek
The report titled "Seeking Streams" was written and published in 2001 by students at Cal Poly Pomona, and is described as "A Landscape framework for urban and ecological revitalization in the upper Ballona Creek watershed of Los Angeles"
One of its authors, Jessica Hall, writes a blog here: http://lacreekfreak.wordpress.com/
(Hall and BEEP's executive director Rex Frankel were also quoted extensively in http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/the-lost-streams-of-los-angeles/14973/)
published the fall of 2006.
Here is the Full Report:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5SGRAMv8RXuYkJiX2JQUnQwR1E&usp=sharing
Monday, March 17, 2008
-----
Good News About Unpaving and Restoring Nature in L.A....
Up Your Alley: Chicago's 2,000 miles of alleys are being repaved with porous materials to allow rain to seep into the soil and restore the underground water table. The new pavement, made of recycled materials, also reflects heat rather than absorbing it, helping reduce energy costs during Chicago's hot summers. —Lea Hartog from Sierra Magazine, http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200803/lol.asp
Torrance may transform sumps for clean water, recreation
By Nick Green, Staff Writer, the Daily Breeze
03/16/2008
Torrance could spend an estimated $134 million for a water treatment plant to comply with stiffer environmental regulations set to take full effect in 2021.
Or, city officials could spend just $4.5 million to build so-called "distributed treatment systems" - essentially wetlands and infiltration basins designed to clean water - at three of Torrance's sumps.
Not surprisingly, city officials are opting for the less expensive solution.
In addition to preventing bacteria-laden stormwater from entering the ocean during winter rains, improving the sumps will have the added benefit of creating new open spaces for public recreation and wildlife habitats.
Two other sumps - one near Bishop Montgomery High School and one called Ocean Basin near Sepulveda Boulevard - could also be improved to both help clean stormwater and provide recreational opportunities.
"We're uniquely positioned to take care of a major problem that larger cities are going to be facing," said Mayor Frank Scotto. "We're on the leading edge, and I am pretty excited we have this opportunity."
Torrance is "uniquely positioned" because of its legacy of the sumps that dot the once flood-prone city.
The sumps were constructed as subdivisions went in, but have not always been universally popular with residents.
In the late 1950s, Torrance was derided as the "city of sumps" by residents who opposed their creation of "Frankensteinian" proportions. Others disliked the skunks or other wildlife seen as nuisances the oases harbored.
Over the years some were filled in or sold, but the sumps are now seen as having practical value.
"The city of Torrance is very lucky to have these open spaces - it's not common," said John Dettle, public works engineering manager. "So we need to take full advantage of these open spaces."
The so-called Stormwater Basin Enhancement Program is part of an effort with neighboring cities to clean up urban runoff during winter months. Similar regulations - which the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board recently accused Torrance and 10 other South Bay cities of violating - are already in effect from April 1 to Oct. 31.
The program will be unveiled Tuesday when the City Council holds its regular meeting at 7 p.m. at the West High Library.
Three of the sumps in West Torrance - the Amie, Henrietta and Entradero basins, named for the nearby streets of the same name - flow into the Herondo drain along 190th Street.
Torrance contains 57 percent of the 2,745 acres that flow into the Herondo Drain, officials said.
Therefore, improving the health of those three basins is seen as the city's best opportunity to clean stormwater.
"That drain exceeds what's allowed in (pollutants) and so that's the one we need to address during wet weather," Dettle said.
Screens across drains would be installed to catch trash.
Wetlands would be constructed to naturally clean polluted urban runoff, while recharging groundwater and providing habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife.
Dettle foresees constructing "wildlife viewing platforms" in some areas.
In addition, the Ocean and Bishop Montgomery sumps would together account for another 26 acres of open space accessible to the public.
At the Bishop Montgomery Basin, three soccer fields - perhaps lighted - that the high school could use are proposed, with recycled water being used for irrigation.
Ocean Basin would offer more passive recreation with trails and infiltration basins to clean run-off.
Using sumps for recreation is not new - Entradero Basin boasts ball fields, for instance - and Scotto wants to see the others opened to the public to boost the city's park acreage. The mayor is a former national director with the Hawthorne-based American Youth Soccer Association.
"I'm excited about the possibility of using those sites in a different way," he said, noting the shortage of soccer fields for AYSO teams. "If people resist the lighting part I can understand that. We hope they're OK with using them as (soccer) fields.
"We're in a situation where these assets are really valuable to us."
WANT TO GO?
What: The Torrance City Council will discuss installing treatment systems at its sumps to clean stormwater and expand recreational opportunities.
Where: West High School library, 20401 Victor St.
When: 7 p.m. Tuesday 3/17/2008.
Information: http://www.ci.torrance.ca.us/
Sunday, November 18, 2007
-----
THE TWO COMPETING PLANS FOR CLEANING UP SANTA MONICA BAY:Natural Treatment by River and Wetlands Restoration, or
At Least 20 Hyperion-Style Treatment Plants Throughout the City
(Click on maps to enlarge)
THE TWO COMPETING PLANS FOR CLEANING UP SANTA MONICA BAY:Natural Treatment by River and Wetlands Restoration, or
At Least 20 Hyperion-Style Treatment Plants Throughout the City
(Click on maps to enlarge)
The above map can be found in the City's Integrated Resources Plan, located on the web at http://lacity-irp.org/documents/v3-runoff-management.pdf
(large 8.4 megabyte file)
(large 8.4 megabyte file)
THE CASE FOR NATURAL TREATMENT METHODS FOR CLEANING UP WATER POLLUTION IN BALLONA CREEK AND SANTA MONICA BAY
By Rex Frankel/March 31, 2007
The Regional Water Quality Control Board has set deadlines for complying with the Clean Water Act for trash, bacteria, and other pollutants in our urban waterways and beaches.
The trash deadlines are very short, a matter of 2-3 years.
The bacteria deadlines are much longer, as compliance is much more complicated, and were set this way:
for the Santa Monica Bay watersheds including Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica, Venice, Westchester, Playa Del Rey and El Segundo, the deadline for full compliance is July 2013 if the Cities choose to merely treat the water and dump it back into the creek or ocean; this is called the standard approach.
the deadline is July 2021 if the cities not only clean up the pollution, but reuse the water, or replenish groundwater aquifers, and/or create wetlands, wildlife habitat and parks as part of the project. This is called the “integrated approach”. If the City chooses this approach, by the interim deadline of July 2013, the City must reduce health code violations at beaches by 25%, and reduce violations by 100% by 2021.
For the Ballona Creek Watershed, including Mar Vista, Del Rey, Culver City, east Santa Monica, Brentwood, Inglewood, Hollywood and West L.A., the final compliance deadline is July 2017 if the standard approach is used, or July 2021 if the integrated approach is used.
Either way, the City needs to get moving as these approaches will take a long time to construct and finance.
For the rest of the City, the water board has not yet adopted cleanup timetables for bacteria in the L.A. River and Compton and Dominguez Creeks.
How Much Water to Capture:
The City’s engineers have determined that in order to comply, they must capture and manage 25% of the City’s total runoff. This is based on the determination by the Water Board that before L.A. was developed, natural sources of bacteria led to high pollution levels on an average of 17 days a year. This is based on a reference watershed, the Arroyo Sequit in west Malibu, which is largely undeveloped and yet bacterial water standards are violated 17 days a year there. Therefore, the City has decided to capture and manage the runoff from all “rain days” except the largest 17 days of flow per year. That’s how the 25% number was arrived at. Since “rain days” include the day of a storm and the next three days (each storm creates 4 days of heavy amounts of runoff), this means that rain days in L.A per year have ranged from 30 in 2003 to 104 in the El Nino of 1998.
As anyone who has seen our creeks flowing on a rainy day knows, this 25% is still an enormous amount of water.
Current City Proposals to Comply with the TMDLS, (called Implementation Plans):
For the Santa Monica Bay watersheds, the Cities of L.A., Santa Monica and El Segundo made this “Integrated” proposal to the Water Board last year:
1. Storage and Reuse sites: use parks, government facilities and schools to capture clean rainfall in cisterns so that it can be reused on-site for landscape irrigation.
Potentially there are 62 acres of vacant urban sites available for this use, too, although 27 acres of this is at LAX Northside. The other acreage is not specified but the only site that comes to mind is at Playa Vista.
2. Divert dry weather runoff to the Hyperion treatment plant or to Santa Monica’s new urban runoff treatment plant. Most of these diversions have been constructed.
If #1 doesn’t work, the Cities proposed these additional “Standard Treatment” projects as a fallback:
3. Three Treatment Plants: at Temescal Canyon Park at Pulga Canyon (the ex-Oxy oil site); South Beach Park in Santa Monica; and LAX Northside (which could be either a treatment plant or a subsurface constructed wetland, which is effectively a gravel filter).
4. Operational Storage Sites: underground storage tanks under all existing beach parking lots would be needed to hold all the water so the treatment plants have more time to treat it; this allows treatment plants to be smaller.
5. Three potential subsurface flow constructed wetlands/gravel filters:
-Will Rogers State Historic Park, using 17 acres of native planted areas out of a total of 34 native planted areas in the park;
-Santa Inez Canyon Park, using 23 acres of native planted areas out of a total of 45 native planted areas in the park;
-El Segundo at Grand Ave and Illinois Street, using 1 acre of native planted areas out of a total of 2 native planted areas in the park;
The Cities’ proposed Implementation Plans proposed to only construct the projects in #1 above, which are projects in 25 parks and government sites, by the interim compliance deadline of July 2013, at which 25% of violations must be eliminated. These sites include 5 parks and street parkways in Venice, 2 parks in Westchester and Playa del Rey, 5 parks in Brentwood and the Palisades, 9 park and civic buildings in Santa Monica and 4 detention basins and the golf course in El Segundo. The problem with this plan is that these 25 projects would only capture around 2% of the Cities’ target runoff goal.
Proposals #3 and 5 could also curtail existing public use of these parks, or could be sited under a landslide (Pulga Canyon)
Based on this huge shortfall, the Water Board rejected this Implementation Plan in April 2006 and directed the cities to present a revised plan by January 2007, to allow the Water Board staff time to analyze it in time for the planned hearing in June 2007. So far, I have not seen nor heard of any revised plan being submitted.
For the 130 square mile Ballona Creek Watershed, City engineers have proposed some similar “integrated” facilities like in the Santa Monica Bay watersheds Plan:
-1. source reduction at schools and parks
-2. redirect dry season runoff to Hyperion sewage plant or to the existing North Outfall Treatment Facility in Culver City
-3. a possible Centinela Creek diversion to a constructed wetlands facility
-4. in-stream treatment by restoration or daylighting (uncovering a buried stream) for dry weather flows
However, because this approach doesn’t add up to managing enough runoff, the cities also proposed these “standard treatment” projects:
-including integrated projects #1 and 2, and eliminating a Centinela Creek treatment wetland and other creek restoration and in-stream cleanup projects; and
-building 3 wet weather treat and discharge (not reuse) plants at a cost of over $900 million in
the upper watershed, probably near La Brea and Venice Blvds., at the lower end of Westwood Creek/Sepulveda channel, and at the confluence of Centinela Creek and Ballona Creeks
Problems with the Cities’ Proposals:
In Neither of the 2 watershed Implementation Plans, or in the L.A. City IRP, is there any consideration of river restoration and removal of concrete or of a citywide network of greenways and treatment wetlands, except for mention in passing. No actual study that makes it possible to compare the merits of the natural treatment and restoration approach to either the source reduction or treatment plant approaches was done. This appears to violate the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires that project approval studies must consider a “reasonable range” of alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce the significant environmental impacts of the proposal. Natural river restoration and treatment wetlands have been documented as an effective and less expensive way to solve our water pollution problems, costing half as much as the “standard” methods. (See L.A. County Public Works Department study summary at this link: http://restore-ballona.blogspot.com/2006/08/river-restoration-is-least-expensive.html)
To read the full final version of the study, click here: Adopted IRWMP, December 13, 2006
Why Go Natural? Alternate Natural Treatment Case Studies:
Natural treatment of water pollution is not some gleam in the eye of environmentalists. It is, in fact, being done right now in communities only a few miles from the Ballona Creek area. We have several examples of natural runoff capture and treatment methods available for us to evaluate their potential, showing that treatment plants are not the only possible pollution solution.
The Sun Valley Watershed project in the East San Fernando Valley (http://sunvalleywatershed.org/) has been launched in an area that does not have any storm drains and therefore, has severe flooding problems. The retrofit project includes construction of cisterns and infiltration basins, and in many cases using existing gravel pits to hold the stormwater. These pits will also serve as parkland on the upper terraces, while habitat and water storage will be in the lower elevations. The project’s goal is for no rainfall/runoff to run into the L.A. River. This means that any street pollution will be captured and kept from our rivers and beaches.
The South Bay Cities including Manhattan, Hermosa, & Redondo Beaches and Torrance have an equal level of concreting of the landscape as the rest of Los Angeles, in that there is very little open space left. But this region has dramatically less wet weather beach water violations than Ballona and the Santa Monica region. (See study of pollution problems at this link, especially on page 3-15. The study concludes
“In general, dry weather exceedances have been more problematic in Jurisdictional
Groups 5 and 6 than wet weather exceedances.”
The reason can be seen in the many open and unpaved water catch basins throughout the South Bay, which are in fact remnants of a system of vernal pool wetlands that once covered large areas of the sand dune system that the South Bay was built upon. Rainfall is now funneled from developed areas into “sumps” featuring wetland vegetation, as these natural basins are called, whereupon any overflow is carried by a storm drain to the ocean. Because the problematic dry season flows are very small compared to storm flows, they can easily be, and, in fact, are being diverted into the L.A. County sewage treatment plant in Carson. Therefore, the cleanup of the remaining water pollution problems in the South Bay is being accomplished much more easily than in the Ballona Watershed, because much of the natural drainage system was never paved over in the first place.
SUMMARY:
In the Ballona and Santa Monica Bay watershed of the City of Los Angeles, these natural treatment methods have a great potential to provide parks and habitat and they require very little maintenance compared to the “standard treatment” methods. Ultimately the taxpayers need to know the pros and cons of all three methods of compliance; until now, these choices have been made by City Engineers in relative isolation from the general public that will foot the bill.
-----
Are L.A. officials mis-spending Bay Cleanup Funds?
Are L.A. officials mis-spending Bay Cleanup Funds?
From Dailybreeze.com, January 15, 2007
Water bond projects flow slowly
Water bond projects flow slowly
Some L.A. officials and activists say public should be seeing more tangible results from the $500 million measure.
By Kerry Cavanaugh
Staff Writer
More than two years after Los Angeles voters approved a $500 million water bond, only one project has been completed, others remain mired in bureaucracy and some environmentalists have begun to question city priorities.
Passed overwhelmingly in November 2004, Measure O raised property taxes to fund projects designed to keep trash and pollutants out of the Los Angeles River and Santa Monica Bay
In return, voters were promised solid engineering solutions to the city's water pollution and innovative projects to create parks and green space while cleaning up tainted urban runoff.
Since the measure has passed, the City Council has approved $70 million for 10 projects and recommended $28 million for four others.
But only one project has been completed and just a few others have broken ground, frustrating some city leaders who want voters to see the impact of their dollars faster.
"For people like me and (Councilwoman) Janice (Hahn), as well, we have portions of our districts that have really been mired in serious runoff contamination problems and needing more green space," said Councilwoman Jan Perry, who helped initiate the bond measure. "We have a real sense of urgency to get things proposed, funded and built because it takes so long to get public-funded projects built."
But some environmentalists on a Citizens Oversight Committee that reviews each bond project expressed satisfaction with the projects so far, but complained there is no master plan for spending or measuring projects' effectiveness.
And that has heightened concerns as the panel prepares to weigh two lake restorations that could suck up $200 million -- or 40 percent of the bond.
"The lack of a plan has been a real problem. They should have been working on a plan the day after the election," said Mark Gold, who is executive director of Heal the Bay and sits on the oversight committee.
Deputy Mayor Nancy Sutley has proposed an overhaul of the process, including the passage of a master plan and selection criteria to guide funding.
"We want to be sure the money we're spending is really going toward improving water quality," Sutley said. "In anything like this, it's OK once you've been through the first round to take a deep breath and see what parts worked and what parts didn't." But even as the city wrestles with spending the water bond money, there already is growing concern that it will soon run out if not managed carefully or leveraged with state funds.
While a half-billion dollars sounds like a lot of cash, the estimated cost of cleaning the city's dirty water and polluted bay is $8 billion. Shahram Kharaghani, the city's stormwater program manager who is responsible for implementing the bond measure, said the measure helped the city meet some water-quality regulations. But Kharaghani said he'll need $100 million more to comply with trash and bacteria pollution limits.
And to meet upcoming water quality regulations, Los Angeles will need another bond or two -- which could be hard to persuade voters to approve if money from the first water bond isn't spent well.
"When we spend this money it's literally a drop in the bucket," said Francine Diamond, a member of the oversight committee.
"We're very serious about making sure the money is well spent. We want to be able to say to the voters (the city) did a good job and we're ready for another water bond." But the bond itself may be making that difficult.
Previous bonds raised taxes to build fire stations, libraries and animal shelters -- straightforward projects the city has handled hundreds of times. But Measure O had a more intangible mandate: Clean the water.
Los Angeles is crisscrossed with 7,300 miles of paved streets, littered with trash, stained with motor oil and fouled with pet waste, fertilizers and toxic chemicals. Rain and irrigation wash the muck into concrete drainage channels that carry it into the river and ocean. Under a 1999 settlement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups, Los Angeles has 13 years to meet more than 60 water quality regulations on trash, bacteria, metals, salts and other pollutants. The measure was designed to raise money to meet those regulations -- and the owner of a $350,000 home will pay about $34 annually over 20 years to fund it. But the ballot measure was deliberately vague because many of the water regulations aren't even written yet.
And it took a year just to appoint the administrative oversight, citizen's oversight committee and create basic project-selection standards to administer the bond money.
"This is uncharted territory. We took a real leap of faith as a municipality," said Council President Eric Garcetti, who helped draft the measure.
"Part of the risk of being first is you have to learn the technology.
"Now that we have some of the lessons from that, we should be able to spend the money a little more quickly and with less guesswork."
City leaders also wanted the bond measure to address community desires. So in 2005, the city asked environmental groups, neighborhood councils, city departments and governmental agencies for project ideas. They submitted 52 ideas that were whittled down to 22.
But from the beginning, there was uncertainty about what would qualify as a water project. And then community groups and nonprofits were expected to prepare detailed, technical proposals -- for free -- and hand them over to the city agencies for implementation.
Eventually, the city hired a consultant, CH2M Hill, to help groups develop concept reports -- at a cost of roughly $30,000 a piece -- with technical water quality analysis.
Stephanie Pincetl with UCLA's Institute of the Environment recently critiqued the first phase of the water bond measure and found a lack of order and unclear guidelines risk "increasing disillusionment with city government" and could hurt future water bonds.
"We don't want to use this money helter skelter, because this project seemed good and that project seemed good, but they didn't have the cumulative effect we need."
-----
RIVER RESTORATION IN L.A. ON FRONT PAGE OF L.A. WEEKLY
RIVER RESTORATION IN L.A. ON FRONT PAGE OF L.A. WEEKLY
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Dear Friends,Our campaign to save the rest of the open spaces in the Los Angeles
area got a big boost with the publication of a huge, extremely
favorable story by Judith Lewis in the November 9th edition of the L.A.
Weekly. To read it, click on this link:
STORY BEGINS:
http://www.laweekly.com/2006-11-09/news/the-lost-streams-of-los-angeles/
WE ARE QUOTED HERE:
http://www.laweekly.com/2006-11-09/news/the-lost-streams-of-los-angeles/5/
The article explains how our beaches and rivers which have serious
water pollution problems can be cleaned up while at the same time
unpaving some of our concrete-covered metropolis, creating more parks
and wildlife habitat and linking together the parks we have.
The article explains how the project to clean up the Bay is mandated
under Federal law and thus presents a great opportunity to restore
natural rivers and wetlands which can help clean up this polluted water
that now runs down our streets, gutters and storm drains straight into
the ocean.
Longtime Ballona advocates were interviewed for the story and we are
very pleased with the result! (We are featured starting in the middle
of the article.)
Also, with the passage by the voters of Proposition 84 last week, more
money is available to buy and preserve parks. The last park bond
approved by voters in 2002 led to public acquisition of 600 acres of the
Ballona Wetlands and the 3000 acre Ahmanson Ranch, two long-fought-over
nearby open spaces.
------------------------------------------------------------
more on river restoration from Judith Lewis' blog:
http://blogs.laweekly.com/judith_lewis/prop-84-dig-up-the-culverts/
Prop 84: Dig up the culverts!
by Judith Lewis, L.A. Weekly
California voters on Tuesday approved Proposition 84, a $5.4 billion
bond measure for clean water and coastal protection that I would have
pushed hard for were I not playing journalist these days. And I was
worried about it-- 84 had been polling inauspiciously.
Coincidentally, the story I wrote about Jessica Hall and her search for
L.A.ís buried streams is on the cover this week. Money from 84 could go
to some of the projects discussed in this story: It’s been earmarked
for projects that prevent toxic runoff from entering the ocean--which
in many ways means returning natural waterways to as close to their
natural state as possible. Nature already did what infrastructure
continually fails to do. I began researching this story thinking that
Hall’s ambitions were sort of far off and visionary, but over the six
months I spent figuring it out, daylighting streams began to seem like
an utterly sensible way to fix our urban water problems. I’m hoping
people get that from the story.
-----
CLEAN BEACHES LAWS STRENGTHENED
L.A.'s Water Board voted unanimously (9/14/06) to enforce Clean Beaches laws; Polluters not happy...CLEAN BEACHES LAWS STRENGTHENED
http://www.healthebay.org/assets/pdfdocs/pressreleases/2006_09_15_bacteriatmdl.pdf
-----
Restored Creeks Can Revitalize Our Cities
Restored Creeks Can Revitalize Our Cities
HERE'S WHAT A CREEK RESTORATION IN A MAJOR CITY LOOKS LIKE:
DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Includes sidewalks and dining areas on walkways elevated above the creekside on stilts; a big difference from the concreted-over and the vertical-concrete-walled creeks in Los Angeles
-----
Politics vs promises in quest for cleaner Bay
Politics vs promises in quest for cleaner Bay
Monday, September 11, 2006
L.A. Weekly's Judith Lewis exposes the politics behind cleaning up Santa Monica Bay and how the promise of Proposition O and Cleaning up the Bay is being compromised by politicians' pork-barrel pet projects.
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/the-story-of-o/14260/
An excerpt from the voter information pamphlet describing Proposition O:
"A YES VOTE MEANS:
Development, and purchase, of land to create water-cleansing landscapes and parkways along and surrounding the Los Angeles River and Ballona Creek to reduce storm water pollution and bacteria that wash into these waterways, through natural filtration and treatment. These parkways provide multiple benefits such as controlling storm water runoff and flooding through increasing percolation areas and by creating open space for habitat preservation and recreation."
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/la/meas/O/
River Restoration is least expensive Santa Monica Bay Cleanup plan; L.A. City plans hearings on their plan for water pollution
Thursday, August 10, 2006
This is Scenario three, which creates connected parks and wetlands throughout L.A. County to help clean up our beaches and rivers.
_____________________________________________________________
L.A. COUNTY'S STUDY SHOWS RIVER RESTORATION IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE AND MOST COST-EFFECTIVE WAY TO CLEAN UP SANTA MONICA BAY
A great study has just come out of the L.A County Public Works Department (August 2, 2006) that analyzes three scenarios for cleaning up the County's polluted runoff that now fouls our beaches. The results are: natural river restoration is the least expensive and has the most benefits! Scenario three is strictly river restoration with treatment wetlands and parks along the rivers, a plan which we support, and which could include the remaining 200 acres of unpaved private land at the Playa Vista development site in the Ballona Creek floodplain. Scenario one is similar to the plan L.A. City has been pushing as part of their TMDL and integrated resources plan with small mechanized runoff treatment plants throughout the city and minimal land purchases. Scenario two is a hybrid of #1 and river restoration concepts with large basins and treatment wetlands scattered throughout the county, but not along the major waterways, and would require a lot of land acquisition. The results are that scenario 1 costs $47 billion and has $7.5 billion in benefits; scenario 2 costs $53 billion and has $8.1 billion in benefits. Scenario 3, however, only costs $27 billion and has $12.5 billion in benefits. The experts have now spoken: river restoration and natural treatment of urban runoff is not only the best plan, it's also least expensive. The full report is available at http://ladpw.org/wmd/irwmp/docs/August%202,%202006%20Workshop%20Materials/IRWMP%20Workshop%20Presentation.pdf
To See the three plans:
And to learn more, go to http://lawaterplan.org and click on the "Documents" tab at the top of the page.
------
L.A. City Releases Final Report on Sewage, Greywater and Storm Runoff Plan
August 8, 2006
The Final Environmental Impact Report for L.A. City's Integrated Resources Plan was released in early September. It can be read at the City's website, http://lacity-irp.org/
Public
hearings have not been scheduled yet, but could take place as early as
October. Here's the City's news release from August, which mis-stated
when public hearings will be held:
To: Neighborhood Council Leaders
From: Department of Neighborhood Empowerment
Subject:
Joint DWP & Public Works Board meeting Notification of an Upcoming
Joint Department of Public Works and LADWP Board meeting to consider
adopting an Integrated Resources Plan and related Environmental Impact
Report for wastewater, recycled water, and stormwater management. As a
result of a joint effort between the Bureau of Sanitation of the
Department of Public Works and LADWP, an Integrated Resources Plan (IRP)
and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was developed which:
· integrates planning for the three interdependent water systems of wastewater, recycled water and stormwater;
· reviews the City's water and wastewater needs for the next 20 years; and
· identifies necessary infrastructure improvements and policy recommendations.
The
IRP and EIR were developed after an intensive 4-year process was
undertaken that was built upon stakeholder preferences. During the
process 21 initial alternatives were narrowed down to 4 alternatives
that were carried through the environmental review process. These
alternatives will meet a 20 percent projected increase in wastewater
flow while maximizing the beneficial use of recycled water and urban
runoff. This will optimize the use of our existing facilities and water
resources, reduce pollution and Los Angeles' dependence on water
imports. The Draft EIR for the IRP was issued for public review in
November 2005. Thereview period ended on March 2006. This is an advance
notice on the near completion of the Final Environmental Impact report
(FEIR) for the Integrated Resources Plan (IRP). It is anticipated the
FEIR along with the IRP recommendations will be forwarded to Council for
certification after consideration by the Board of Public Works and the
DWP Board of Commissioners (Boards). The consideration by the Boards
will be at a joint meeting around the second half of September 2006 with
Council action scheduled around the middle of October 2006. A copy of
the Draft IRP recommendations, a copy of the FEIR and the IRP plan will
be posted on the website www.lacity.org/san/irp before the joint meeting
of the Boards. If you have any questions or would like to provide some
feedback, please contact Mr. Adel H. Hagekhalil of the Bureau of
Sanitation at (323) 342-6225 or Mr. Bill Van Waggoner of LADWP at (213)
367-1138.
Please also see http://lacity-irp.org/ for more information
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated by the head honcho--Spammers don't bother!