The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Watershed Management Division has targeted the Sun Valley Watershed “…to solve the local flooding problem while retaining all stormwater runoff from the watershed, increasing water conservation, recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, and reducing stormwater pollution.”495 This aggressive plan involves several stakeholders and has implemented a variety of on-site BMPs as well as stormwater infiltration retrofits and diversions.
In Ventura County, the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program has implemented various stormwater quality improvement projects and BMPs. In the City of Moorpark, College View Dog Park diverts all stormwater to infiltration basins and can retain 100% of the water during average rainfall periods. Walnut Acres Park has both on-site and off-site infiltration capability. The City of Ventura implemented downtown parking lot retrofits including curb cuts, bioswales, and permeable pavers and have applied similar features for green street projects.496 A notable green street project was implemented at the Ventura County Government Center. This project implemented an innovative infiltration system through the installation of 4,805 linear feet of pervious concrete gutters to capture stormwater from the Government Center’s parking lot. The captured stormwater is filtered through an infiltration trench that flows into dry wells for groundwater recharge. Furthermore, in the Ventura River Watershed, Happy Valley Bioswale was designed to mimic natural processes to remove pollutants in stormwater runoff. This filtration system includes a baffle box at the entrance which removes trash, sediments, and small particles and is followed by a natural soil and plant filtration system to further treat the stormwater and allows for a thriving habitat.497 With the issuance of the Order, stormwater capture projects such as the abovementioned will allow for further expansion on a watershed scale and create consistency within the region.
In addition, there are a number of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) established by the Los Angeles Water Board that incorporate recycled water programs as potential implementation actions to meet TMDL requirements. These potential actions focus on both traditional water recycling and the newer stormwater recycling approaches. Such recycled water programs reduce reliance on potable water supplies by expanding water recycling and aiding in the reclamation of poor quality, unconfined groundwater supplies. The capture, treatment and use of stormwater could augment these techniques as well. On-site capture of stormwater helps prevent the water from being contaminated by urban by-products to begin with and the use of this high-quality resource could reduce the unnecessary use of potable water for non-potable needs. 495 http://www.sunvalleywatershed.org/watershed_management_plan/wmp-0ES.pdf. 496 Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, Presented on September 13, 2018 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/watershed_ management/workshops/docs/VCWPD_20180913_RB_PermitRenewal_FINAL-1.pdf. 497 Happy Valley Bioswale, uninc.vcstormwater.org/projects/happy-valley-bioswale.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-380
XIV. STATE MANDATES
Article XIII B, section 6(a) of the California Constitution provides that whenever “any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the state shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service.” No provision of the Order constitutes an unfunded state mandate subject to subvention under Article XIII B, section (6)(a) of the California Constitution.
A. Renewal of the Permits Is Not a New Program Or Higher Level of Service As a threshold matter, MS4 permitting is not a “program” as that term is used in Article XIII B, section (6). The California Supreme Court has defined a “program” for purposes of Article XIII B, section 6, as: (1) programs that carry out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or (2) laws which, to implement a state policy, impose unique requirements on local governments and do not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state. (San Diego Unified School Dist. v. Commission on State Mandates (2004) 33 Cal.4th 859, 874 (reaffirming the test set forth in County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46, 56); Lucia Mar Unified School District v. Honig (1988) 44 Cal.3d 830, 835.)
An NPDES permit for MS4 discharges arises from the Clean Water Act, which forbids everyone – individuals, businesses, state governments, tribal governments, local governments, etc. – from discharging pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States without an NPDES permit. (33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 402, 502(5); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.21, 122.22, 123.25.) The Clean Water Act requires permitting of private and governmental (federal, state, and local) sources of stormwater and nonstormwater alike. (33 U.S.C. § 1342(p); 40 C.F.R. § 122.26.) The Permittees here must have a permit because they discharge pollutants, not because they operate an MS4.
See, County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46, 58 ([“Although local agencies must provide benefits to their employees either through insurance or direct payment, they are indistinguishable in this respect from private employers. In no sense can employers, public or private, be considered to be administrators of a program . . . .”].) All polluters, whether private or public, must get a permit. (See, e.g., City of Richmond v. Com. on State Mandates, (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1199 (new law made “the workers’ compensation death benefit requirements as applicable to local governments as they are to private employers,” and therefore did not impose a new program or higher level of service.)
To be sure, the permit conditions provide a public benefit, but that is not the same thing as providing services to the public. There is a critical distinction between a law or executive order that requires local governments to provide a public service, and one that address the conduct and happens to cover local governments – and other entities such as private industry – because they engage in the conduct. This principle is best illustrated by County of Los Angeles v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1538. There, the Department of Industrial Relations enacted statewide safety regulations that governed all public and private elevators. (Id., at pp. 1540–1541.) The county argued that the regulations created a mandatory, reimbursable “program” because “all passenger elevators in all county buildings are necessary for the performance of peculiarly governmental functions . . . .” (Id., at pp. 1545–1546, italics omitted.) Rejecting that argument, the court explained that “the critical question is whether the mandated program carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, not whether the elevators can be used to obtain these services.” MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-381
(Id., at p. 1546, italics omitted.) In other words, a state law providing that local governments have to comply with the same safety rules as everyone else does not constitute a state mandated “program.” The same is true here. The Permit does not require Permittees to operate an MS4. Rather, it implements a body of state law that provides that, if a local government operates an MS4, it must take steps to mitigate pollutant discharges, like all other polluters. The fact that the specific permit here is issued to local governments does not render the permit a program that carries out a “governmental function” particular to local government or a permit that imposes unique requirements on the local governments.
Even if an MS4 permit could be considered a “program,” the requirements of the Order do not constitute a new program or a higher level of service as compared to the requirements contained in the previous permits issued by the Los Angeles Water Board to the Permittees. The overarching requirement to impose controls to reduce the pollutants in discharges from MS4s is dictated by the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)) and is not new to this permit cycle. The inclusion of new and advanced measures as the MS4 programs evolve and mature over time is specifically anticipated under the Clean Water Act (55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 48052 (Nov. 16, 1990); 61 Fed. Reg. 43761 (Aug. 26, 1996); USEPA “Interim Permitting Approach for Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations in Storm Water Permits,” EPA 833-D-96-001 (September 1996)) because the experience gained in implementation of existing permits and ongoing technological developments help direct appropriate adaptation of the programs to better address pollution. Such new and advanced measures refine existing measures to improve the effectiveness of the ongoing program and do not constitute a new program or higher level of service. And while the new or advanced measures may result in additional costs to the Permittees, resulting new costs is not the test for a higher level of service. “If the Legislature had intended to continue to equate ‘increased level of service’ with ‘additional costs,’ then the provision would be circular: ‘costs mandated by the state’ are defined as ‘increased costs’ due to ‘an increased level of service,’ which, in turn would be defined as ‘additional costs.’” (County of Los Angeles v. Com. on State Mandates (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1191, quoting Workers’ Compensation Mandates Decision, supra, 43 Cal.3d. at p. 55.)
B. The Permit Requirements Fall Under Several Exceptions to Mandates Rules Even if some of the requirements imposed on the Permittees with this renewal could be considered a new program or higher level of service, the following exceptions to a finding of unfunded mandates preclude subvention here:
1. The permit provisions are required by the federal Clean Water Act and implementing regulations:
One of the exceptions to the subvention requirements is that, if the mandate imposes a requirement that is mandated by a federal law or regulation and results in costs mandated by the federal government, no subvention is required unless the statute or executive order mandates costs that exceed the mandate in that federal law or regulation. (Gov. Code, § 17556(c).) The Order implements federally mandated requirements under the federal Clean Water Act and implementing regulations and its requirements are therefore not subject to subvention of funds.
This includes federal requirements to: (i) effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges through the MS4 to receiving waters; (ii) reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable; (iii) include such other provisions as the permitting authority (here, the Los Angeles Water Board) MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-382
determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants; (iv) attain applicable TMDL wasteload allocations; and (v) conduct monitoring and reporting.
Non-stormwater discharge prohibition: Federal law requires that an MS4 permit effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges through the MS4 to receiving waters. (33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(ii).) The Order’s requirements to achieve the effective prohibition of non-stormwater discharges are thus compelled by federal law.
TMDL requirements: The Clean Water Act requires TMDLs to be established for waterbodies that do not meet federal water quality standards. (33 U.S.C. § 1313(d).) The Clean Water Act also requires that MS4 permits include “such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of [] pollutants.” (33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii).) U.S. EPA interprets this provision to mandate “controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and where necessary water quality-based controls.”498 Once U.S. EPA or a state establishes a TMDL, federal law requires that NPDES permits must contain water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any applicable wasteload allocation. (40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B).) Indeed, TMDLs are developed for the purpose of specifying requirements for the achievement of water quality standards in impaired waters (33 U.S.C. § 1313(d); 40 C.F.R. § 130.7) The Order’s requirements for attainment of TMDL wasteload allocations are therefore compelled by federal law.
Several generations of the MS4 permits issued in California have prohibited discharges that cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards in the receiving water. TMDL provisions, including WQBELs, simply add a process for meeting this requirement, generally based on a compliance schedule.
Monitoring and reporting requirements: Federal law requires that NPDES permits incorporate monitoring and reporting provisions. (33 U.S.C. §§ 1318(a); 1342(a)(2); 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.26(d)(2)(i)(F); 122.41(h), (j)-(l); 122.42(c); 122.44(i); 122.48.) The Order’s monitoring and reporting requirements are thus imposed pursuant to federal law.
Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) standard: The Clean Water Act mandates that the Order “require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.” (33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii).) Department of Finance v.
Commission on State Mandates (2016) 1 Cal.5th 749, as modified on denial of rehearing (Nov. 16, 2016) (Department of Finance) analyzed whether the Clean Water Act’s MEP standard required four particular provisions concerning trash receptacles and inspections in the 2001 Los Angeles County MS4 permit. In concluding that the provisions were not required by federal law, the Supreme Court stated that, “[h]ad the Regional Board found when imposing the disputed permit conditions, that those conditions were the only means by which the maximum extent practicable standard could be implemented, deference to the board’s expertise in reaching that finding would be appropriate.” (Department of Finance, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 768.) The Supreme Court further stated that “[s]uch findings 498 Phase I Stormwater Regulations, Final Rule, 55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 47994 (Nov. 16, 1990) (emphasis added); see also Building Industry Ass’n of San Diego County v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 866, 882-887; Phase II Stormwater Regulations, Final Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. 68722, 68737.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-383
are “case specific, based among other things on factual circumstances.” (Id., fn.
15.)
To be entitled to deference, regional water boards must make an express finding that the particular set of permit conditions finally embodied in a given permit is required to meet that federal standard and must support that finding with evidence.
The Los Angeles Water Board expressly finds that the Order specifies requirements necessary for the Permittees to reduce the discharge of pollutants in MS4 discharges to the MEP. Parts IV and VIII establish program requirements for Stormwater Management Program Minimum Control Measures, including programs for public information and participation, industrial and commercial facilities, construction activities, planning and land development, public agency activities, and illicit discharge detection and elimination, among others pursuant to 40 CFR section 122.26(d)(2)(iv). The requirements of these programs represent structural and non-structural water quality control measures that are effective, technically feasible, and generally accepted as appropriate.
Part IX establishes elective program requirements related to Watershed Management Programs (WMP), which provide an alternative compliance path through the preparation of a WMP that allows the Permittees to prioritize water quality issues and propose the specific control measures to address the prioritized issues and achieve the receiving water limitations and numeric WQBELs in accordance with a time schedule. This allowance also provides Permittees with ample flexibility to select, in a customized fashion, the water quality control measures that will reduce pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable.
The Los Angeles Water Board finds that the programmatic requirements of the Order are necessary to meet the MEP standard. The mix of program elements reflects the necessary pollutant reduction expected by the demanding federal MEP standard, but also represents a balancing of competing interests such as effectiveness, regulatory compliance, public acceptance, cost, and technical feasibility. To the extent there may be multiple means of achieving pollutant reductions and that there could be trade-offs between program areas with potentially higher costs and greater pollutant reductions, the permit programs are structured to provide the optimum reduction of pollutants necessary to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. This finding is the expert conclusion of the principal state agency charged with implementing the NPDES program in California and therefore entitled to deference under Department of Finance.
Finally, the Supreme Court in Department of Finance suggested that the inclusion of equivalent or substantially similar provisions by the U.S. EPA in other permits may support a finding that the provisions are necessary to achieve MEP. (Dept. of Finance, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 772.) The Los Angeles Water Board has examined the following U.S. EPA issued permits, among others, and concluded that they contain equivalent and/or substantially similar provisions: Massachusetts MS4 General Permit, Washington D.C. MS4 Permit, Albuquerque MS4 Watershed Permit, Boise/Garden City MS4 Permit, and Guam MS4 Permit. Previous sections of the Fact Sheet identify the specific provisions that are similar in these U.S. EPA issued permits.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-384
2. Permittees have authority to fund the costs through service charges, fees, or assessments:
Even if any of the permit provisions could be considered unfunded state mandates, under Government Code section 17556, subdivision (d), a state mandate is not subject to reimbursement if the local agency has the authority to fund the costs through service charges, fees, or assessments. (Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 398.) Here, Permittees have the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for compliance with the Order.
Permittees certainly have fee authority under their police powers. (See, Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7; Freeman v. Contra Costa County Water Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 404, 408 (“It cannot be denied that prevention of water pollution is a legitimate governmental objective, in furtherance of which the police power may be exercised.”); Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 546, 561-62 (holding in part that local governments have the authority sufficient to pay for inspection requirements for commercial and industrial facilities and construction sites to ensure compliance with various environmental regulations in an MS4 permit under their police powers for the prevention of water pollution).
This Fact Sheet demonstrates that numerous activities contribute to the pollutant loading from the MS4. Local agencies can levy service charges, fees, or assessments on these activities, independent of real property ownership. (See, e.g., Apartment Ass’n of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 24 Cal.4th 830, 842 (upholding inspection fees associated with renting property).) The authority of a local agency to defray the cost of a program without raising taxes indicates that a program does not entail a cost subject to subvention. (Clovis Unified School Dist. v. Chiang (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 794, 812 [“To the extent a local agency or school district ‘has the authority’ to charge for the mandated program or increased level of service, that charge cannot be recovered as a statemandated cost.”], quoting Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 382, 401; County of Fresno v. State of California (1991) 53 Cal.3d 482, 487-488.) Permittees have argued in the past that their fee or taxation authority is constrained by article XIII D, section 6, of the California Constitution, also known as Proposition 218. (Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 6, subd. (c); see also Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Salinas (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358-1359.) However, Proposition 218 is not an impediment to Permittees’ fee authority.499 The Constitution has an exception to the voter approval requirements of Proposition 218, “for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services.” (Cal.
Const. Article XIII D, section 6, subd. (c).) In recent years, the Legislature enacted two important pieces of legislation confirming fee authority without the need for voter approval. In Assembly Bill 2043 (2014), effective January 1, 2015, the Legislature amended the definition of “water” for purposes of articles XIII C and XIII D to mean “water from any source.” (Gov. Code, § 53750, subd. (n), amended by Assembly Bill 2043 (Stats. 2014, ch. 78, § 2.) In doing so, the Legislature stated that its act “is declaratory of existing law.” (Stats. 2014, ch. 78, § 1(c).) With Senate Bill 231 (2017), effective January 1, 2018, the Legislature “reaffirm[ed] and reiterate[d]” that the definition of “sewer” for purposes of article XIII D includes:
499 Such authority is also undiminished by Proposition 26, which specifically excludes assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with Proposition 218 from the definition of taxes. (Cal.
Const., art. XIII C, § 1, subd. (e)(7).).
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-385
systems, all real estate, fixtures, and personal property owned, controlled, operated, or managed in connection with or to facilitate sewage collection, treatment, or disposition for sanitary or drainage purposes, including lateral and connecting sewers, interceptors, trunk and outfall lines, sanitary sewage treatment or disposal plants or works, drains, conduits, outlets for surface or storm waters, and any and all other works, property, or structures necessary or convenient for the collection or disposal of sewage, industrial waste, or surface or storm waters.
(Gov. Code, § 53750, subd. (f), and § 53751, subd. (i), added by Senate Bill 231, Stats. 2017, ch. 536, § 2 (emphases added).) These legislative actions confirm that the Permittees have authority to raise fees or charges, without voter approval, for costs related to their MS4s.
In addition, Health and Safety Code section 5471, subdivision (a), gives dischargers fee authority for “services and facilities furnished…in connection with its water, sanitation, storm drainage, or sewerage system.” (Health & Safety Code, § 5471, subd. (a) (emphasis added).) Similarly, Public Resources Code section 40059, subdivision (a)(1), also confers fee authority on counties, cities, districts, or other local governmental agencies for “[a]spects of solid waste handling which are of local concern, including, but not limited to, frequency of collection, means of collection and transportation, level of services, charges and fees, and nature, location, and extent of providing solid waste handling services.” The ability of the Permittees to levy fees, assessments, or service charges to pay for compliance with the requirements of the Order cannot be disputed. In addition to the general authority above, some of the Permittees have specific authority to levy funds to pay for permit compliance. By way of example, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors approved the concept of a countywide NPDES permit program and the use of the Flood Management District (presently the Watershed Protection District) benefit assessment authority to finance it in April 1992. On June 30, 1992, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors adopted a benefit assessment fee for stormwater and flood management in the unincorporated areas of Ventura County and the cities within the County, to be used in part to finance the implementation of a countywide NPDES municipal stormwater permit program.
The Ventura County MS4 Permittees entered into agreement with the Watershed Protection District to finance the activities related to the Ventura County MS4 Permit for shared and district-wide expenses. The Permittees are also given the option to use the Benefit Assessment Program to finance their respective activities related to reducing the discharge of pollutants from their MS4s under the MS4 Permit. Therefore, the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD), through the Benefit Assessment Program, has the authority to impose a fee or charge for implementation of this permit. Furthermore, in 2005, the Legislature authorized the VCWPD to increase property related fees to fund storm drainage service and facilities within its jurisdiction.500 The VCWPD has statutory authorization to levy an ad valorem tax upon all taxable property, an assessment upon all taxable real property in the district, or a fee imposed pursuant to Article XIII D of the California Constitution, to pay the costs and expenses of the district.501 500 Ventura County Watershed Protection Act, California Water Code Appendix, Chapter 46, § 46-12. 501 Ibid.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-386
The LACFCD also has specific statutory authority to levy a tax, fee, or charge to comply with the requirements of the Order, including implementation of approved WMPs. The LACFCD is authorized:
To levy a tax, in compliance with the applicable provisions of Article XIII C of the California Constitution, or impose a fee or charge, in compliance with the applicable provisions of Article XIII D of the California Constitution, to pay the costs and expenses of carrying out projects and programs to increase stormwater capture and reduce stormwater and urban runoff pollution in the district in accordance with criteria established by the ordinance adopted pursuant to subsection 8c. Projects and programs funded by the revenues from the tax, fee, or charge may include projects providing multiple benefits that increase water supply, improve water quality, and, where appropriate, provide community enhancements such as the greening of schools, parks, and wetlands, and increased public access to rivers, lakes, and streams.502
Revenues derived from any tax, fee, or charge imposed would be subject to specific allocations. Forty percent of any revenues derived from any LACFCD tax, fee, or charge is to be allocated to cities within the boundaries of the district and to the County of Los Angeles for implementation, operation and maintenance, and administration of project and programs within their respective jurisdictions. Fifty percent shall also be allocated to pay for the implementation, operation and maintenance, and administration of watershed-based projects and programs, including WMPs.503
Finally, even if voter approval may be required prior to levying fees, that does not mean that a local agency lacks the authority to levy fees. In Paradise Irrigation Dist. v. Commission on State Mandates (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 174, 182, the Court considered whether the majority protest procedure added by Proposition 218 deprived local agencies of authority to impose fees for water service. Article XIII D, section 6(a) requires a local agency to identify parcels subject to a new fee, calculate the fee amount, and provide notice to affected property owners. (Cal.
Const., art. XIII D, § 6, subd. (a)(1).) If a majority of the property owners submit written protests against the fee, the fee may not be imposed. (Id., subd. (a)(2).) The Court held that the “majority protest procedures are properly construed as a powersharing arrangement between the districts and their customers, rather than a deprivation of fee authority.” (33 Cal.App.5th at p. 182.) It explained that, when considering how voter powers affect the ability of local governments to impose fees, courts “presume local voters will give appropriate consideration and deference to state mandated requirements . . . .” (Id. at p. 194, citing BighornDesert View Water Agency v. Verjil (2006) 39 Cal.4th 205, 220.) “Although this power-sharing arrangement has the potential for conflict, we must presume that both sides will act reasonably and in good faith.” (Id., at p. 192.) Further, the fact that, “as a matter of practical reality, the majority protest procedure allows water customers to defeat the District’s authority to levy fees” was not dispositive; “the inquiry into fee authority constitutes an issue of law rather than a question of fact.” (Id. at p. 195, citing Connell, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 401.) “Fee authority is a matter governed by statute rather than by factual considerations of practicality;” it 502 Cal. Wat. Code, § App. § 28-2, subd. 8a.
503 Id., subd. 8b.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-387
is not controlled by whether municipalities have tried and failed to levy fees. (Id.) If there is statutory authority to levy fees, then there is no right to subvention. (Id.) XV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Los Angeles Water Board has considered the issuance of WDRs that will serve as an NPDES permit for MS4 discharges within the Los Angeles Region. The Los Angeles Water Board staff has encouraged public participation in the permit development process. Over a period of three years from May 2018 to May 2021, the Los Angeles Water Board has held multiple listening sessions, workshops, and Board meeting agenda items focusing on issues pertinent to Permittees in both counties. Additionally, Board staff have met with Permittees and interested stakeholders upon request. The following information is provided pursuant to 40 CFR § 124.8(b)(6) and (7).
A. Permittee and Stakeholder Participation in Permit Issuance Process
1. Notification: Intent to Issue a Region-Wide Phase I MS4 Permit On September 5, 2017, the Los Angeles Water Board sent a letter to all Permittees in the Los Angeles Region to announce the Board’s intent to issue a region-wide Phase I MS4 Permit.
2. Working Proposal
On December 10, 2019, the Los Angeles Water Board released a staff Working Proposal to Permittees in the Los Angeles Region and key stakeholders for discussion purposes. This staff working proposal did not constitute either a “draft permit” or a “proposed permit” as defined in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) sections 122.2 or 124.6. The Working Proposal allowed Permittees and stakeholders to provide oral and written input that would facilitate future discussion at board meetings/workshops and aid Board staff in developing the tentative draft permit.
3. Board Meetings and Workshops
The Los Angeles Water Board on many occasions starting in May 2018 had an item on its Meeting agenda to solicit comments and feedback from the Board, Permittees, and stakeholders on the issuance of the Regional MS4 Permit. Board staff has also presented on specific topics during public workshops, some of which were held at a regularly scheduled Board Meeting or special Board meeting (Board Workshop). Most of the meeting and workshop dates are summarized as follows:
a. Board Workshop: May 10, 2018
Board staff presented their monitoring data analysis for the Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River, and Los Cerritos Channel/Alamitos Bay Watersheds and discussed solutions to improve data reporting in the Regional MS4 Permit. b. Board Meeting: June 14, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board had an agenda item to facilitate continued discussion of the Regional MS4 Permit (“MS4 standing item”). The purpose of the “MS4 standing item” was to provide a forum for Board members to discuss, and for Permittees and stakeholders to provide comments on, any aspect of the Regional MS4 Permit. This noticed item provided Permittees and other stakeholders with the opportunity to communicate directly with the Board regarding their interests and concerns about the current permits or pending issuance of the Regional MS4 Permit. The MS4 standing item also provided MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-388
an opportunity for the Board to provide input to staff on permit implementation or development. No action or voting took place during these items. c. Board Workshop: July 12, 2018
Board staff presented their monitoring data analysis for the Upper Santa Clara River, Santa Monica Bay, and Dominguez Channel and Harbors Watersheds and the permit issuance timelines. Additionally, Board staff introduced the specific concepts to include in the Regional MS4 Permit such as new/revised TMDLs, Statewide Trash Amendments, and providing Ventura County Permittees the option to participate in a WMP.
d. Board Workshop: September 13, 2018
Board staff presented their monitoring data analysis for all the watersheds within Ventura County, Permittee-reported costs of implementing the 2010 Ventura County MS4 Permit, and the permit issuance timelines. The Board discussed the regional permit approach as it related to Ventura County Permittees.
e. Board Meeting: October 11, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
f. Board Meeting: November 8, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
g. Board Meeting: March 14, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
h. Board Workshop: April 11, 2019
Board staff addressed economic considerations with regard to issuance of a Regional MS4 Permit based on specific Permittee-reported costs of compliance with the previous permits and summarized some state funding sources. Permittees and stakeholders also provided information on the cost of compliance and funding related topics, such as cost reporting guidance, stormwater utility program management, and available funds from the Los Angeles County Safe Clean Water Program and Ventura County Watershed Protection District Benefit Assessment Program.
i. Board Meeting: June 13, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
j. Board Meeting: July 11, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
k. Board Meeting: September 12, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
l. Board Meeting: October 10, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-389
m. Board Meeting: November 14, 2019
Board staff presented a summary of stakeholder engagement, including the employment of a professional facilitator to better understand the interests, needs and perspectives of stakeholders and to explore areas of mutual agreement that could be reflected in the Regional MS4 Permit. n. Board Meeting: December 12, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
o. Public Workshop: January 7, 2020
Los Angeles Water Board hosted a facilitated stakeholder workshop to discuss the Working Proposal and issues such as what constitutes permit success, addressing cost/timeline challenges, and measuring progress under the new permit.
p. Board Meeting: February 13, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item and presented on the types of comments received on the Working Proposal. Comments discussed included changes proposed to the Minimum Control Measures, monitoring and reporting requirements, watershed management programs, and TMDLs. q. Board Meeting: May 14, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item and presented on the options to consider an extension for the near-term TMDL final compliance deadlines.
r. Board Meeting: July 2, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board had a special board meeting to discuss the schedule for adopting the Regional MS4 Permit with consideration of key issues such as the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, TMDL final compliance deadlines, and inclusion of narrative/BMP-based effluent limitations versus numeric effluent limitations in the permit. s. Board Meeting: July 9, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board had a standing MS4 item.
t. Board Meeting: September 10, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board had an MS4 standing item. Board staff presented information on: changes that were made in the tentative draft in response to comments received on the Working Proposal; the manner of TMDL incorporation; the status of the TMDL final deadlines extension project; economic considerations; and the proposed State Water Board Order on the WMPs and EWMP petitions.
u. Board Meeting: October 8, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board had an MS4 standing item. Permittees and other stakeholders presented and provided oral comments on the Tentative Regional MS4 Permit.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-390
v. Public Workshop: October 15, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a public workshop to discuss the manner of TMDL incorporation in the Regional MS4 Permit. All Board Members attended. Board staff presented the basis for the proposed manner of TMDL incorporation in the Regional MS4 Permit. Permittees and other stakeholders presented and provided comments on the proposed manner of TMDL incorporation and alternatives.
w. Public Workshop: November 19, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a public workshop to discuss monitoring and reporting requirements in the Regional MS4 Permit. Several Board Members attended. Board staff presented on monitoring and reporting requirements and then held a question-and-answer session. x. Board Workshop: December 10, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a Board workshop to follow-up on the October 15 and November 19, 2020 workshops. Board staff discussed the proposed manner of TMDL incorporation in comparison with that of other MS4 permits issued state-wide and by U.S. EPA. Permittees and other stakeholders also provided comments on the proposed manner of TMDL incorporation and alternatives.
y. Board Meeting: March 11, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board had an MS4 standing item. Permittees and other stakeholders presented and provided comments on the Tentative Regional MS4 Permit.
z. Board Meeting: May 13, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board had an MS4 standing item. Permittees and other stakeholders presented and provided comments on the Tentative Regional MS4 Permit.
aa. Public Workshop: June 22, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a public workshop to discuss Permittee and stakeholder comments on the Revised Tentative Regional MS4 Permit for Permittees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. The first part of the workshop was dedicated to Ventura County Permittees’ and stakeholders’ comments on particular issues of concern and the Regional Board staff’s responses thereto. The second part of the workshop was dedicated to Los Angeles County Permittees’ and stakeholders’ comments and the Regional Board staff’s responses thereto.
4. Meetings with Permittees and Interested Persons
The Los Angeles Water Board staff met with various Permittees and stakeholders upon request. Most of these meetings are summarized below. a. Meeting: January 25, 2016
The Los Angeles Water Board had a teleconference with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments to discuss submission of the ROWD, general questions about the permit issuance process, and general questions about what changes or continuation of permit provisions to expect.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-391
b. Meeting: May 2, 2016
The Los Angeles Water Board held a kick-off meeting with Ventura County Permittees to discuss the preliminary schedule for permit development; identify potential alternative permit structures; and outline some of the major technical and policy aspects of permit development. Twenty-three individuals attended the meeting out of which eight represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other fifteen represented Ventura County Permittees. After a presentation by Permittees on accomplishments, lessons learned, and permit renewal goals, Permittees had an opportunity to ask questions of staff, raise concerns, and explain their expectations for the new permit. c. Meeting: May 16, 2016
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees on TMDLs and the Watershed Management Program. Twenty-three individuals attended the meeting out of which ten represented the Los Angeles Water Board, one represented the State Water Board, and the other twelve represented Ventura County Permittees. Permittees proposed a list of TMDLs to incorporate into the permit. Meeting attendees also discussed the structure of the Watershed Management Program and provisions such as the pollutant prioritization process and the use of existing TMDL implementation plans. d. Meeting: June 8, 2016
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees on time schedule orders (TSOs) and the TSO issuance process in consideration of permit issuance timelines. Eleven individuals attended the meeting out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other eight represented Ventura County Permittees.
e. Meeting: July 15, 2016
Ventura County Permittees held a meeting with the Los Angeles Water Board to discuss the monitoring and reporting program and follow-up on items from the previous meeting. Twenty-one individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other sixteen represented Ventura County Permittees. Meeting attendees discussed pre-meeting materials that were provided by the Permittees giving their recommendations on provisions of the Watershed Management Program and TMDLs.
Additionally, meeting attendees discussed the following items in the monitoring and reporting program: receiving water monitoring sites, constituents to be monitored, and stormwater monitoring program constituents table and requested Permittees’ feedback.
f. Meeting: August 1, 2016
The Los Angeles Water Board had a teleconference with Ventura County Permittees to discuss minimum control measures (MCMs). Seventeen individuals participated in the teleconference where five represented the Los Angeles Water Board, one represented the State Water Board, and the other eleven represented Ventura County Permittees. Meeting attendees discussed pre-meeting materials where Permittees proposed changes to the MCMs in their previous permit.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-392
g. Meeting: October 20, 2016
The Los Angeles Water Board had a teleconference with Ventura County Permittees to provide a status update on the permit issuance process. h. Meeting: August 29, 2017
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with City of Los Angeles to introduce the concept of issuing a Regional MS4 Permit. Thirteen individuals attended out of which eight represented the Los Angeles Water Board and five represented City of Los Angeles.
i. Meeting: August 31, 2017
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees to introduce the concept of issuing a Regional MS4 Permit. Six individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented Ventura County Permittees.
j. Meeting: September 5, 2017
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to introduce the concept of issuing a Regional MS4 Permit. Five individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and one represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. k. Meeting: September 21, 2017
Ventura County Permittees held a meeting with the Los Angeles Water Board to present to Ventura County Public Works Directors information about the permit renewal process, the Regional MS4 Permit concept, costs, funding, and the Statewide Trash Amendments. Twenty-eight individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and twenty-five represented Ventura County Permittees.
l. Meeting: December 19, 2017
The Los Angeles Water Board had a teleconference with the City of Long Beach to introduce the concept of issuing a Regional MS4 Permit. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and four represented the City of Long Beach.
m. Meeting: April 10, 2018
The City of Long Beach held a meeting with the Los Angeles Water Board to discuss the issuance of a Regional MS4 Permit and the City of Long Beach’s ROWD. Eleven individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and seven represented the City of Long Beach. n. Meeting: August 7, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD. Los Angeles County and LACFCD proposed TSO-related fact sheet language for the Regional MS4 Permit. Six individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and three represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-393
o. Meeting: August 10, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees to discuss the addition of receiving water and outfall stations in the Malibu Creek subwatershed and the non-stormwater screening and outfall monitoring program proposals for the Regional MS4 Permit. Six individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and three represented Ventura County Permittees.
p. Meeting: August 15, 2018
The Los Water Board staff held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD. Los Angeles County and LACFCD proposed regional project downstream solutions and also proposed adding language for the Regional MS4 Permit fact sheet discussing the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM). Seven individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. q. Meeting: September 10, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board held public Listening Session with San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Water Policy Committee (SGVCOG). The Los Angeles Water Board listened to and discussed cost concerns for current WMP/EWMP implementation and timeline for the Regional MS4 Permit issuance. Eighteen individuals were present out of which two were Los Angeles Water Board Members, four were Board staff, and four represented the SGVCOG. Additionally, eight public observers attended representing various Permittees, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other stakeholders.
r. Meeting: September 19, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss future workshops of the Regional MS4 Permit and the state-wide bacteria provisions. Four individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
s. Meeting: October 26, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with NGOs to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit, specifically on incorporation of robust development/redevelopment standards such as capturing the 90th or 95th percentile rainfall, potential incorporation of BLM, and provide a public platform for Permittee monitoring data. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Heal the Bay, Los Angeles Waterkeeper (LA Waterkeeper), and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
t. Meeting: December 19, 2018
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit issuance process and the Safe, Clean Water Program. Four individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-394
u. Meeting: January 18, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with the NGOs to discuss Los Angeles County monitoring data. Seven individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other three represented Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC.
v. The Las Virgenes – Malibu Council of Governments Governing Board Meeting: February 19, 2019
The Las Virgenes – Malibu Council of Governments Governing Board held a public Listening Session with the Los Angeles Water Board. The Los Angeles Water Board listened to and answered queries about the Regional MS4 Permit issuance timelines, concerns about funds from the Safe, Clean Water Program in relation to EWMP compliance schedules, and future special studies on natural sources. More than 22 individuals attended out of which two were Board Members, four were Board staff, and sixteen represented the Las Virgenes – Malibu Council of Governments Governing Board and the Malibu Creek EWMP group members. Public observers included NGOs and other stakeholders.
w. Meeting: February 20, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss the Safe, Clean Water Program. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
x. Meeting: February 26, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with several Los Angeles County Permittees. Fifteen individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board, and twelve represented Larry Walker Associates (LWA), Richard Watson & Associates (RWA), City of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County. LWA proposed compliance mechanisms and Regional MS4 Permit language for addressing bacteria. y. Meeting: March 8, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with the NGOs to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit to discuss these organizations’ request for a shorter permit. Eleven individuals attended out of which three represented Los Angeles Water Board, two represented State Water Board, and the other six were from Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC.
z. Meeting: March 20, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD. Los Angeles County and LACFCD proposed Regional MS4 Permit language for the Safe, Clean Water Program, discussed the upcoming April 2019 Board workshop, and proposed reconsidering TMDLs rather than requesting TSOs to extend TMDL compliance schedules. Seven individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-395
aa. Meeting: June 19, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with the NGOs to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit timelines, removal of the WMP/EWMP distinction in the Regional MS4 Permit, and annual report proposals for reporting on compliance with regional projects in the WMP/EWMP. Nine individuals were in attendance out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC. bb. Meeting: June 25, 2019
Ventura County Permittees held a public Listening Session with the Los Angeles Water Board. The Los Angeles Water Board listened to and discussed WMP development and implementation concerns, cost concerns, compliance with wet weather bacteria TMDLs, and permit issuance timelines.
Thirty individuals attended out of which three were Los Angeles Water Board Members, four were Board staff, twenty-one represented Ventura County Permittees, and two were public observers representing CASQ Engineering and the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District.
cc. Meeting: July 8, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss cost analysis of some EWMPs with consideration of funds from the Safe, Clean Water Program. Los Angeles County and LACFCD also proposed specific TMDLs for the Board to reconsider. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
dd. Meeting: July 17, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to present information about planning versus actual costs on specific regional projects and continue the discussion on TMDL reconsiderations and cost analysis of some EWMPs with consideration of funds from the Safe, Clean Water Program. Four individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
ee. Meeting: August 22, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with City of Los Angeles to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit issuance timeline, Safe, Clean Water Program, and TMDL final compliance deadlines. Five individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented City of Los Angeles.
ff. Meeting: August 26, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees to discuss the Los Angeles County Permit markup provided to us in 2016 proposing permit language, permit issuance process, and follow-up on the previous meeting with the Ventura County public works directors. Fourteen individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and ten represented Ventura County Permittees.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-396
gg. Meeting: August 28, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss priority TMDLs for Board’s reconsideration, upcoming presentations at Board meetings on regional projects, and permit issuance schedule. Nine individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. hh. Meeting: September 9, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss economic considerations, including the cost of compliance, for the Regional MS4 Permit, LACFCD’s dashboard for regional projects, and suggestions for the regional permit requirements. Three individuals attended out of which one represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. ii. Meeting: September 10, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with the NGOs to discuss Permittees’ progress implementing their EWMPs and propose annual report language for reporting on compliance with multi-year efforts in EWMPs. Five individuals were in attendance out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other three represented Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC.
jj. Meeting: September 18, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss the alignment of Marina del Rey TMDLs with Measure W funding, the regional permit reissuance process, and the upcoming NGO EWMP Report. Six individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
kk. Meeting: September 18, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board had a teleconference with Ventura County, VCWPD, and the City of Agoura Hills to discuss the compliance with Malibu Creek TMDL requirements and the Medea/Palo Comado Stormwater Treatment System in the City of Agoura Hills. Seven individuals were in attendance out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board, two represented the City of Agoura Hills, two represented VCWPD, and one represented Ventura County.
ll. Meeting: October 1, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees to discuss the Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA), source identification component of a WMP, timelines to develop a WMP, upcoming Malibu Creek Bacteria TMDL TSO request, usage of existing TMDL implementation plans for WMP proposals, and regional permit issuance schedule. Fourteen individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and eleven represented Ventura County Permittees.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-397
mm. Meeting: October 16, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss possible extension of TMDL compliance deadlines, regional permit reissuance process, and Los Angeles County’s dashboard of completed regional stormwater projects and green infrastructure projects. Ten individuals were in attendance out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. nn. Meeting: November 20, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss the regional permit reissuance process and possible extension of TMDL compliance dates. Ten individuals were in attendance out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
oo. Meeting: December 16, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with City of Los Angeles to discuss the Ballona Creek TSO extension request and the Working Proposal of the Regional MS4 Permit. Eleven individuals were in attendance out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and six represented City of Los Angeles.
pp. Meeting: December 17, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a facilitated meeting with the NGOs to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit. Ten individuals were in attendance out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board, two represented Heal the Bay, one represented NRDC, and three represented LA Waterkeeper. qq. Meeting: December 17, 2019
The Los Angeles Water Board held a facilitated meeting with NRDC, City of Los Angeles, San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), Los Angeles County/LACFCD, and Ventura County to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit. Fourteen individuals were in attendance out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board, one represented NRDC, three represented City of Los Angeles, two represented City of Monrovia/SGVCOG, two represented Los Angeles County/LACFCD, and two represented Ventura County. rr. Meeting: January 21, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss permit reissuance schedules, TMDL reconsiderations for time extensions, and updates on Measure W. Nine individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
ss. Meeting: January 22, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with NGOs to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit Staff Working Proposal and solicit feedback. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board, and the other four represented Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-398
tt. Meeting: January 23, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with City of Los Angeles to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit Staff Working Proposal and solicit feedback.
The City of Los Angeles specifically discussed suggestions for the Watershed Management NOI submittal schedule and content, monitoring and reporting requirements, Planning and Land Development MCM, trash reporting requirements, Industrial/Commercial Facilities Program MCM, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program MCM, and filming BMPs under the nonstormwater discharge prohibitions. Fourteen individuals attended out of which seven represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other seven represented the City of Los Angeles.
uu. Meeting: January 27, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with The Nature Conservancy to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit Staff Working Proposal and solicit feedback. The Nature Conservancy discussed suggestions on how to incorporate and encourage nature-based solutions into the Regional MS4 Permit. Six individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other three were from The Nature Conservancy. vv. Meeting: January 28, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Ventura County Permittees to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit Staff Working Proposal and solicit feedback. Ventura County Permittees specifically discussed suggestions to edit timelines for WMP submittals, Statewide Trash Amendment provisions, TMDLs, MCMs, and monitoring. Twenty individuals attended out of which eight represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other twelve represented Ventura County Permittees.
ww. Meeting: February 19, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss permit reissuance timelines, TMDL extension requests, and Measure W fund distribution status. Eight individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other three represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
xx. Meeting: February 21, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with NGOs to discuss permit reissuance timelines and general comments on the Working Proposal of the Regional MS4 Permit. Eight individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other three represented Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC.
yy. Meeting: March 2, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a meeting with the City of Los Angeles to discuss TSO implementation progress and the challenges of implementing the MS4 permit. Six individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other two represented City of Los Angeles.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-399
zz. Meeting: March 18, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a teleconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss the status of the Regional MS4 Permit considering the COVID-19 pandemic. Six individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
aaa. Meeting: April 15, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a teleconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss the status of the Regional MS4 Permit, share updates on monitoring and project implementation considering the COVID-19 pandemic, and discuss the status of Measure W. Nine individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
bbb. Meeting: April 21, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a teleconference with the City of La Habra Heights to discuss the Regional Permit and concerns from the City, which included TMDL compliance and comingling discharges. Ten individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented the City of La Habra Heights.
ccc. Meeting: April 23, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a teleconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the issuance schedule of the Regional MS4 Permit, TMDL compliance date related comments on the Regional MS4 Permit working proposal, the Inner Cabrillo Beach Bacteria TSO, and the Ballona Creek Bacteria TSO. Ten individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented City of Los Angeles. ddd. Meeting: May 28, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a teleconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the extension of TMDL compliance schedules alongside Regional MS4 Permit issuance, the Inner Cabrillo Beach Bacteria TSO, and questions on shoreline monitoring considering the pandemic. Eight individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented City of Los Angeles.
eee. Meeting: June 2, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss the status of the Regional MS4 Permit including a tentative issuance timeline and workshop opportunities, share updates on project implementation considering the COVID-19 pandemic, and discuss the status of Measure W. Eight individuals attended of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
fff. Meeting: June 8, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a Listening Session with the Los Angeles River Upper Reach 2 Group to discuss their comment letter of February 5, 2020 on the Working Proposal and some of the responses to those comments.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-400
Fourteen individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other twelve represented the Los Angeles River Upper Reach 2 Group.
ggg. Meeting: June 25, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit schedule and Measure W projects. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented the City of Los Angeles. hhh. Meeting: July 23, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss EWMP implementation target load reduction/volume capture goals and the associated costs and schedules. Nine individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented the City of Los Angeles.
iii. Meeting: August 27, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the Tentative Regional MS4 Permit, the TMDL deadline extension project, the upcoming Board meeting, and potential customization of the Industrial/Commercial Facilities MCM in the revised WMP. Nine individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented the City of Los Angeles. jjj. Meeting: August 27, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss TMDL deadline extensions and updates on the Safe Clean Water Program. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
kkk. Meeting: September 8, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Ventura County Permittees to discuss changes between the Working Proposal and tentative draft, the manner of TMDL incorporation in the permit, and future workshops.
Seventeen individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other twelve represented Ventura County Permittees. lll. Meeting: September 9, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss the Tentative Draft permit and TMDL deadline extensions. Nine individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
mmm. Meeting: September 22, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit Annual Report requirements and the future Manner of TMDL incorporation workshop. Nine individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-401
Board and the other five represented Heal the Bay, LA Waterkeeper, and NRDC.
nnn. Meeting: September 23, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the Industrial/Commercial MCM and permit language about Measure W. Ten individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other six represented the City of Los Angeles.
ooo. Meeting: October 21, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss TMDL deadline extensions, the Safe Clean Water Program, and share updates on WMMS and WRAMPS. Ten individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other six represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. ppp. Meeting: November 18, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to discuss TMDL deadline extensions and the upcoming MS4 workshop on monitoring and reporting. Nine individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other five represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
qqq. Meeting: November 30, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with The Nature Conservancy to discuss comments on the Planning and Land Development MCM. Six individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other two represented The Nature Conservancy. rrr. Meeting: December 16, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss TMDL manner of incorporation into the Regional MS4 Permit and reopener language in the TMDL Basin Plan Amendments for the TMDLs being considered under the TMDL deadline extension project. Nine individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
sss. Meeting: December 17, 2020
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with City of Los Angeles to discuss potential impacts on the State Board Water Quality Order addressing the WMP/EWMP petitions, potential revisions to the RAA limiting pollutant approach, and timeline for aquatic toxicity test species sensitivity screening. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented City of Los Angeles. ttt. Meeting: January 20, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to follow-up on the schedule for the TMDL BPA extension project and any outstanding issues with regards to the Regional MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-402
MS4 Permit. Ten individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other six represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
uuu. Meeting: January 28, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the TMDL Basin Plan Amendment extension project, the Regional MS4 Permit adoption schedule, trash reporting forms, and future revisions to the City’s WMP. Nine individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other six represented the City of Los Angeles.
vvv. Meeting: February 3, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with VCWPD, Los Angeles County/LACFCD, City of Los Angeles, City of Monrovia, a consultant representing the Los Cerritos Channel Watershed Management Group, and consultants from Larry Walker Associates representing Ventura County Permittees. Participants discussed the manner of TMDL incorporation in the permit (BMP versus numeric effluent limits approach), TMDL time extensions, and the schedule for permit adoption. Fifteen individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board, one represented VCWPD, two represented the City of Monrovia, one represented the Los Cerritos Channel Watershed Management Group, two represented the City of Los Angeles, two represented Ventura County Permittees, and two represented Los Angeles County/LACFCD.
www. Meeting: February 17, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to follow-up with the TMDL Final Compliance Deadline Extension Project and the schedule for the Regional MS4 Permit. Nine individuals attended out of which five represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD. xxx. Meeting: February 25, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the Regional MS4 Permit adoption schedule, the Ballona Creek TSO, and requested continued support from the Board for City of Los Angeles’s regional projects under the Safe, Clean Water Program. Nine individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other six represented the City of Los Angeles. yyy. Meeting: February 25, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the Upper Los Angeles River EWMP Group to discuss updates to the EWMP RAA and the impact of the State Board Order WQ 2020-0038 on the Regional MS4 Permit.
Ten individuals attended out of which three represented Los Angeles Water Board and the other seven represented the Upper Los Angeles River Group. zzz. Meeting: March 17, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County and LACFCD to discuss the schedule for the Regional MS4 Permit MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-403
adoption and the next steps for the TMDL Final Compliance Deadline Extension Project. Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD.
aaaa. Meeting: March 24, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County, LACFCD, and various consultants representing different WMPs to discuss proposed updates to the WMP RAA in consideration of the State Board Order WQ 2020-0038. Thirteen individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board, three represented Los Angeles County and LACFCD, and the other six represented various consultants representing different WMPs.
bbbb. Meeting: March 30, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the schedule for the Regional MS4 Permit adoption and the next steps for the TMDL Final Compliance Deadline Extension Project.
Eight individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and the other four represented the City of Los Angeles. cccc. Meeting: March 30, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Ventura County/VCWPD, Los Angeles County/LACFCD, City of Los Angeles, City of Monrovia, a consultant representing the Los Cerritos Channel Watershed Management Group, and consultants from Larry Walker Associates representing Ventura County Permittees. This was a follow-up meeting to discuss concerns about the manner of TMDL incorporation in the Regional MS4 Permit. Twelve individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board, two represented the City of Monrovia, one represented the City of Los Angeles, one represented Los Angeles County/LACFCD, one represented Ventura County/VCWPD, one represented the Los Cerritos Channel Watershed Management Group, and two represented Ventura County Permittees.
dddd. Meeting: April 19, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the Upper Los Angeles River EWMP Group to discuss updates to the EWMP RAA in consideration of the State Board Order WQ 2020-0038 on the Regional MS4 Permit. Eleven individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and seven represented the Upper Los Angeles River EWMP Group.
eeee. Meeting: April 21, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Ventura County Permittees to discuss past TMDL final compliance deadlines for the Ventura River Algae TMDL and Kidde and Hobie Beach Bacteria TMDL, benefits of participating in a WMP, and questions about how water quality exceedances trigger enforcement action. Seventeen individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and thirteen represented Ventura County Permittees.
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-404
ffff. Meeting: April 27, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with The Nature Conservancy to discuss the Planning and Land Development MCM in the Tentative Regional MS4 Permit. Six individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board and two represented The Nature Conservancy.
gggg. Meeting: April 27, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the City of Los Angeles to discuss the schedule for the Regional MS4 Permit issuance, TMDL extensions (e.g., TMDL revision, TSOs), and coordination with Caltrans MS4 on upcoming WMP projects. Nine individuals attended out of which three represented the Los Angeles Water Board and six represented the City of Los Angeles.
hhhh. Meeting: April 29, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with the East San Gabriel Valley Group (ESGV Group) to discuss the implications of the 2020 State Board Order, options for participating in the Watershed Management Program, and Trash Discharge Prohibitions requirements and reporting. Five individuals attended out of which two represented the Los Angeles Water Board, one was a consultant Colbert Environmental Group representing the ESGV Group, and two represented the City of Claremont.
iiii. Meeting: May 6, 2021
The Los Angeles Water Board held a videoconference with Los Angeles County/LACFCD and various consultants represented different WMP Groups to discuss the updated RAA approach to address concerns resulting from the State Board Order WQ 2020-0038 and the WMP project implementation schedule. Fifteen individuals attended out of which four represented the Los Angeles Water Board, three represented Los Angeles County/LACFCD, and eight consultants represented various Permittees.
B. Notification to Permittees and Interested Parties
The Los Angeles Water Board notified the Dischargers and interested agencies and persons of its intent to prescribe WDRs for the discharges and provided an opportunity to submit written comments, evidence, and recommendations on the draft permit, including the monitoring and reporting program and fact sheet. Notification was provided through the following: Email to the Los Angeles Water Board’s MS4 Lyris lists and email to the Permittee and stakeholder mailing list on August 24, 2020.
The public had access to the agenda and any changes in dates and locations through the Los Angeles Water Board’s website at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/board_info/agenda/ C. Written Comments
Parties and interested persons were invited to submit written comments and evidence concerning the tentative WDR as provided through the notification process. Comments and evidence were due by mail or email to the Executive Officer at the Los Angeles Water Board at:
MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-405
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
320 W. 4th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013-2343
[email protected]
To be fully responded to by staff and considered by the Los Angeles Water Board, the written comments and evidence were due by 5:00 p.m. on December 7, 2020.
D. Public Hearing
The Los Angeles Water Board held a public hearing on the tentative WDRs during its regular Board meeting on the following date and time and at the following location:
Date: July 8, 9, 16, and 23, 2021
Time: 9:00 a.m. each day
Location: Video and Teleconference Meeting Only
Parties and interested persons were invited to attend. At the public hearing, the Los Angeles Water Board heard testimony pertinent to the discharge, WDRs, and permit.
For accuracy of the record, important testimony was requested in writing.
E. Reconsideration of Waste Discharge Requirements
Any person aggrieved by this action of the Los Angeles Water Board may petition the State Water Board to review the action in accordance with Water Code section 13320 and California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 2050 and following. The State Water Board must receive the petition by 5:00 p.m., within 30 calendar days of the date of adoption of the Order at the following address, except that if the thirtieth day following the adoption date of the Order falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or state holiday, the petition must be received by the State Water Board by 5:00 p.m. on the next business day:
State Water Resources Control Board
Office of Chief Counsel
P.O. Box 100, 1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Or by email at [email protected] For instructions on how to file a petition for review, see http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/public_notices/petitions/water_quality/wqpetition_instr. shtml
F. Information and Copying
The Reports of Waste Discharge, other supporting documents, and comments received are on file and may be inspected and copied at the address above at any time between 8:30 a.m. and 4:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, by appointment. Appointments may be made by following the instructions on the Los Angeles Water Board’s website under “Contact Us,” “Public Records Center” at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/resources/public_records_center.html G. Register of Interested Persons
Any person interested in being placed on the mailing list for information regarding the WDRs and NPDES permit should subscribe to the Los Angeles Water Board’s “Region MS4 DISCHARGES WITHIN THE ORDER NO. R4-2021-0105
LOS ANGELES REGION NPDES NO. CAS004004
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET F-406
4 SW Regional Phase I MS4 Permit” Email List at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/resources/email_subscriptions/.
H. Additional Information
Requests for additional information or questions regarding the Order should be directed to the Unit Chief of the Municipal Storm Water Permitting Unit. The contact name, phone number, and email address are available on the Los Angeles Water Board website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/