HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-23 - Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Packet
AGENDA
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING
Monday, December 23, 2013, 8:30 AM
1717 E Miraloma Ave, Placentia CA 92870
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
Gary T. Melton, President
Robert R. Kiley, Vice President
Michael J. Beverage
Ric Collett
Phil Hawkins
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
5. SEATING OF DIRECTORS
5.1. Reorganization of the Board of Directors and Appointment of Officers for Calendar Year
2014
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors nominate and elect a President and
Vice President and appoint staff to serve as the Secretary, Assistant Secretary and
Treasurer.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any individual wishing to address the Board is requested to identify themselves and state the matter on which
they wish to comment. If the matter is on the agenda, the Board will recognize the individual for their comment
when the item is considered. No action will be taken on matters not listed on the agenda. Comments are limited
to matters of public interest and matters within the jurisdiction of the Water District. Comments are limited to five
minutes.
7. SPECIAL RECOGNITION
7.1. Presentation of Proclamation to Director Gary T. Melton for his Service as President
During 2013
7.2. Presentation of Proclamation to Hank Samaripa, Project Coordinator, for 11 Years of
Service to the District
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine matters, status reports, or documents
covering previous Board instructions. The items listed on the consent calendar may be enacted by one motion.
There will be no discussion on the items unless a member of the Board, staff, or public requests further
consideration.
8.1. Minutes of the Board of Directors Special Meeting held December 5, 2013
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve the minutes as presented.
8.2. Payments of Bills, Refunds, and Wire Transfers
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors ratify and authorize disbursements
in the amount of $678,513.19.
8.3. Progress Payment No. 8 for the Yorba Linda Blvd Pump Station Project
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve Progress Payment No. 8 in
the net amount of $179,001.47 to ECI, Inc. for construction of the Yorba Linda Blvd
Pump Station Project, Job No. 2008-17B.
8.4. Terms and Conditions for Water and Sewer Service with National Community
Renaissance
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve the Terms and Conditions
for Water and Sewer Service with National Community Renaissance, Job No.
201322.
8.5. Construction Contract for Elk Mountain Surge Tank Replacement
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors award the Construction Contract for
the Elk Mountain Surge Tank Replacement for $80,200 to Pascal & Ludwig
Constructors.
9. ACTION CALENDAR
This portion of the agenda is for items where staff presentations and Board discussions are needed prior to
formal Board action.
9.1. Board of Directors Committee Assignments
Recommendation: That the President consider and make recommendations to the
Board of Directors for committee and intergovernmental meeting assignments for
the upcoming calendar year, subject to consent by the Board.
9.2. Board of Director Non-Member Attendance at Committee Meetings
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors consider this matter and provide
direction to staff.
9.3. Adoption of FPPC Form 806 for the Purpose of Reporting Public Official Appointments
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors: (1) adopt FPPC Form 806 as the
District's official form for reporting public official appointments; and (2) direct staff to
post a completed form on the District's website in accordance with the requirements
set forth in FPPC Regulation 18705.5.
9.4. Board of Directors Compensation
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors consider the Directors'
compensation rate for the next calendar year.
9.5. Revised Budgeted Positions for Fiscal Year 2013/2014
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve Resolution No. 13-18
Adopting the Revised Budgeted Positions for the Remainder of Fiscal Year
2013/2014 and Rescinding Resolution No. 13-15.
9.6. Potential Claim Filed by Law Offices of Robert A. Stutman, P.C.on behalf of Mercury
Insurance Group, insurer for Charles Busch.
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors reject the potential claim submitted
by the Law Offices of Robert A. Stutman, P.C. on behalf of Mercury Insurance
Group, the insurer for Charles Busch, and refer it to ACWA/JPIA.
9.7. Completion of 2013 Water Leaders Class and WEF Board Member Participation
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve the participation of Derek
Nguyen as a member of the Board of the Water Education Foundation for calendar
years 2014 through 2016, and authorize his time and related expenses in
accordance with District Policy therefore.
9.8. Annual Membership Dues for Water Education Foundation
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors authorize payment of the District's
membership in the Water Education Foundation for calendar year 2013 at a cost of
$2,500.
10. REPORTS, INFORMATION ITEMS, AND COMMENTS
10.1. President's Report
10.2. Directors' Report
· CRWUA Annual Conference - December 11-13, 2013 (Beverage)
· ACWA SWAP Presentation - December 13, 2013 (Collett)
10.3. Acting General Manager's Report
10.4. General Counsel's Report
10.5. Future Agenda Items and Staff Tasks
11. COMMITTEE REPORTS
11.1. Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee
· Minutes of meeting held December 17, 2013 at 4:00 p.m.
· Meeting scheduled January 21, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
11.2. Finance-Accounting Committee
· Minutes of meeting held December 16, 2013 at 12:00 p.m.
· Meeting scheduled January 27, 2014 at 12:00 p.m.
11.3. Personnel-Risk Management Committee
· Minutes of meeting held December 10, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
· Meeting scheduled January 14, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
11.4. Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee
· Minutes of meeting held December 10, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
· Meeting scheduled January 6, 2014 at 12:30 p.m.
11.5. Public Affairs-Communications-Technology Committee
· Minutes of meeting held December 2, 2013 at 4:00 p.m.
· Meeting scheduled January 6, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
11.6. Organizational and Efficiency Study Ad Hoc Committee
· Meeting to be scheduled.
11.7. YLWD-City of Placentia Joint Agency Committee
· Meeting to be scheduled.
11.8. YLWD-City of Yorba Linda Joint Agency Committee
· Meeting to be scheduled.
11.9. YLWD-MWDOC-OCWD Joint Agency Committee
· Meeting scheduled January 28, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
11.10. Citizens Advisory Committee
· Minutes of meeting held December 16, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. (To be provided at the next
regular Board meeting.)
· Meeting scheduled January 27, 2014 at 8:30 a.m.
12. INTERGOVERNMENTAL MEETINGS
12.1. Yorba Linda LMAD CAC - December 12, 2013 (Kiley)
12.2. WACO - December 13, 2013 (Hawkins/Kiley)
12.3. YL City Council - December 17, 2013 (Kiley)
12.4. MWDOC Board - December 18, 2013 (Melton)
12.5. OCWD Board - December 18, 2013 (Kiley)
13. BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTIVITY CALENDAR
13.1. Meetings from December 24, 2013 - January 31, 2014
14. CONFERENCES, SEMINARS, AND SPECIAL EVENTS
This section of the agenda is for the Board of Directors to authorize Director attendance at the listed events.
14.1. ACWA SWAP Presentation - December 13, 2013
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors ratify Director Collett's attendance at
this event.
14.2. CASA Winter Conference - January 15-17, 2014
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors authorize Director attendance at this
event if desired.
15. CLOSED SESSION
The Board may hold a closed session on items related to personnel, labor relations and/or litigation. The public is
excused during these discussions.
15.1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation
Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: ACWA/JPIA, et al. vs. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania,
et al. (OC Superior Court - Case No. 00486884)
15.2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation
Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Name of Case: City of Anaheim vs. Ana J. Matosantos, et al. (Superior Court of CA,
Sacramento – Case No. 34-2013-80001529)
15.3. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section
54956.9 of the California Government Code
Related to line break at 1301 North Rose Drive, Placentia CA 92870.
Number of Potential Cases: One
15.4. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section
54956.9 of the California Government Code
Related to written communications from potential plaintiffs threatening litigation.
Number of Potential Cases: One
15.5. Public Employment
Pursuant to Section 54957 of the California Government Code
Title: General Manager
16. ADJOURNMENT
16.1. The next Regular Board of Directors Meeting will be held Thursday, January 9, 2014 at
8:30 a.m.
Items Distributed to the Board Less Than 72 Hours Prior to the Meeting
Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5, non-exempt public records that relate to open session agenda items
and are distributed to a majority of the Board less than seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting will be available for
public inspection in the lobby of the District’s business office located at 1717 E. Miraloma Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870,
during regular business hours. When practical, these public records will also be made available on the District’s internet
website accessible at http://www.ylwd.com/.
Accommodations for the Disabled
Any person may make a request for a disability-related modification or accommodation needed for that person to be
able to participate in the public meeting by telephoning the Executive Secretary at 714-701-3020, or writing to Yorba
Linda Water District, P.O. Box 309, Yorba Linda, CA 92885-0309. Requests must specify the nature of the disability and
the type of accommodation requested. A telephone number or other contact information should be included so the
District staff may discuss appropriate arrangements. Persons requesting a disability-related accommodation should
make the request with adequate time before the meeting for the District to provide the requested accommodation.
ITEM NO. 5.1
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
To:Board of Directors
From:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Presented By:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Dept:Administration
Prepared By:Annie Alexander, Executive
Secretary
Subject:Reorganization of the Board of Directors and Appointment of Officers for
Calendar Year 2014
SUMMARY:
Pursuant to the Board of Directors' Rules for Organization and Procedure (Resolution No. 11-15), a
President and Vice President of the Board shall be elected annually at the first regular meeting of
the Board in December of every year. In addition to the selection of the President and Vice
President, the Board is required to appoint the Municipal Corporation Officers of Secretary,
Assistant Secretary and Treasurer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors nominate and elect a President and Vice President and appoint staff to
serve as the Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Treasurer.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee discussed this matter at its meeting held
November 22, 2013 and recommends....
DISCUSSION:
The powers and duties of the President are described in Section 30578 of the California Water
Code and the Board of Directors' Rules for Organization and Procedure.
The President's duties prescribed by state law are:
Sign all contracts on behalf of the District.
Perform other duties imposed by the Board.
The President's duties prescribed by the Rules for Organization and Procedure are:
Assume the chair of the Presiding Officer immediately after election.
Make Committee assignments, subject to consent of the Board, annually before the first
meeting of the Board of Directors in January of the subsequent year.
Conduct the proceedings of the Board.
Sign all ordinances, resolutions and contract documents approved and adopted by the Board.
The Vice President will serve as the Presiding Officer in the absence of the President.
In addition to the selection of the President and Vice President, the Board is required to appoint the
Municipal Corporation Officers of Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Treasurer. The duties of these
Officers are prescribed by the Water Code and the Rules for Organization and Procedure.
The Secretary, or Assistant Secretary in the absence of the Secretary, attests all ordinances and
resolutions approved and adopted by the Board, countersigns all contract documents approved and
adopted by the Board, prepares the minutes of each meeting held by the Board, and performs all
duties prescribed by Section 30000 et seq. of the California Water Code, the Rules for Organization
and Procedure, and as imposed by the Board.
The Treasurer also performs all duties prescribed by Section 30000 et seq. of the California Water
Code, the Rules for Organization and Procedure, and as imposed by the Board.
A member of the Board can not serve as the General Manager, Secretary, Assistant Secretary or
Treasurer. However, the same person can be appointed as General Manager and Secretary or
Secretary and Treasurer. The General Manager can not serve as the Treasurer.
There is no additional compensation for serving as Secretary, Assistant Secretary or Treasurer if
the individual is an employee of the District. The Board is allowed to set compensation for appointed
individuals who are not employees of the District.
Approved by the Board of Directors of the
Yorba Linda Water District
12/23/2012
RC/PH nominating RK as President.
PH/RK nominating RC as Vice President.
Approved 4-0-1 with MB voting No.
MB/GM appointing SC as Secretary, AA as
Asst Secretary, and DL as Treasurer.
Approved 5-0
ITEM NO. 8.1
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
Subject:Minutes of the Board of Directors Special Meeting held December 5, 2013
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors approve the minutes as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
120513_BOD_-_Minutes.doc BOD Mtg Minutes 12/05/13 Minutes
Approved by the Board of Directors of the
Yorba Linda Water District
12/23/2013
MB/RC 5-0
1
MINUTES OF THE
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING
Thursday, December 5, 2013, 3:00 p.m.
1717 E Miraloma Ave, Placentia CA 92870
1. CALL TO ORDER
The December 5, 2013 Yorba Linda Water District Board of Directors Special
Meeting was called to order by President Melton at 3:00 p.m. The meeting was
held in the Board Room at the District’s Administration Building located at 1717
East Miraloma Avenue in Placentia, California 92870.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
President Melton led the pledge.
3. ROLL CALL
DIRECTORS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Gary T. Melton, President Gina Knight, Human Resources and Risk Mgr
Robert R. Kiley, Vice President Bryan Melton, Human Resources Technician
Michael J. Beverage
Ric Collett
Phil Hawkins
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
The following items were taken out of order.
ACTION CALENDAR
6.2. Executive Recruitment Search for the Position of General Manager
Mrs. Knight explained that staff had contacted 11 firms requesting
proposals for recruitment services for the position of General Manager.
Six firms responded. The Board and staff then reviewed and discussed
each of the proposals.
Director Beverage made a motion, seconded by Director Hawkins to
select Koff & Associates to provide the District with recruitment services
for the position of General Manager in the amount of $18,000 plus
reimbursable expenses not to exceed a total of $25,000. Motion carried
5-0.
Mr. Bryan Melton left the meeting at this time.
5. CLOSED SESSION
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at 3:33 p.m. All Directors were
present. Also present was Mrs. Knight.
2
5.1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Pursuant to Section 54957 of the California Government Code
Title: Acting General Manager
The Board reconvened in Open Session at 4:05 p.m. President Melton
announced that no action was taken during Closed Session that was required to
be reported under the Brown Act.
6. ACTION CALENDAR CONTINUED
6.1. Salary of Acting General Manager
The Board discussed the previous and current salary of the Acting
General Manager. Directors Hawkins and Collett noted that this matter
had been reviewed by the GM Compensation Ad Hoc Committee. The
Committee recommended that the Acting General Manager’s salary be
increased by 6% retroactive to November 1, 2013. Additional discussion
followed.
Director Hawkins made a motion, seconded by Director Collett, to
increase the Acting General Manager’s salary by 6% retroactive to
November 1, 2013. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Director Beverage voting
No.
7. CLOSED SESSION CONTINUED
The following Closed Session was not held.
7.1. Public Employment
Pursuant to Section 54957 of the California Government Code
Title: General Manager
8. ADJOURNMENT
8.1. The meeting was adjourned at 4:11 p.m. The next Regular Board of
Directors Meeting will be held Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
Gina Knight
Human Resources and Risk Manager
ITEM NO. 8.2
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013 Budgeted:Yes
To:Board of Directors Cost Estimate:$678,513.19
Funding Source:Operating Funds
From:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Presented By:Delia Lugo, Finance Manager Dept:Finance
Prepared By:Maria Trujillo, Accounting Assistant
II
Subject:Payments of Bills, Refunds, and Wire Transfers
SUMMARY:
Section 31302 of the California Water Code says the District shall pay demands made against it when they
have been approved by the Board of Directors. Pursuant to law, staff is hereby submitting the list of
disbursements for Board of Directors' approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors ratify and authorize disbursements in the amount of $678,513.19.
DISCUSSION:
The major items on this disbursement list are as follows: A check of $179,001.47 to Environmental
Construction, Incorporated for YL Blvd Booster Pump Station November progress payment; and a check
of $71,962.20 to Pascal & Ludwig for Well 21 Project Pump-to-Waste Structure. The balance of
$176,367.21 is routine invoices.
The Accounts Payable check register total is $427,330.88; Payroll No. 25 total is $251,182.31; and, the
disbursements of this agenda report are $678,513.19. A summary of the checks is attached.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
FR 1-F: Continue to Record and Report the Fairly Stated Financial Activities of the District in a Timely and
Transparent Manner to the Board of Directors and Member Agencies
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S):
The Board of Directors approves bills, refunds and wire transfers semi-monthly.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
CkReg122313_BOD.pdf Check Register Backup Material
13-CS_1223.docx Cap Sheet Backup Material
13_CC_1223.xlsx Credit Card Summary Backup Material
Approved by the Board of Directors of the
Yorba Linda Water District
12/23/2013
MB/RC 5-0
Check No.Date Vendor Name Amount Description
62600 12/23/2013 A Plus Awards By Dewey 17.82 NAME PLATE FOR DELIA LUGO
62599 12/23/2013 Anaheim Wheel & Tire 165.00 MOUNT AND BALANCE TIRE
62601 12/23/2013 Apollo Technologies Inc.430.00 WATER TRTMT - CLOSED LOOPS
62602 12/23/2013 Aramark 595.02 UNIFORM SERVICE
62608 12/23/2013 ARC 20.00 PLANWELL DATA NETWORK
62603 12/23/2013 Associated Laboratories 1,831.30 OCT-NOV ANALYSES
62604 12/23/2013 CalCard US Bank 8,897.74 YLWD VISA
62605 12/23/2013 City Of Anaheim 17,566.18 RICHFIELD,LKVW NOVEMBER
62606 12/23/2013 City Of Placentia 17,037.26 SWR FEES/PLAC SEPT-NOV
62607 12/23/2013 Cogsdale Services Corporation 3,300.00 CHANGE ORDER - QUO 2809
62609 12/23/2013 Culligan of Santa Ana 1,886.30 PE SOFTENER
62610 12/23/2013 Dapper Tire Co. Inc.1,349.14 VEHICLE TIRES
62598 12/23/2013 DEBORAH MERRITT 25.49 CUSTOMER REFUND
62611 12/23/2013 Derek Nguyen 73.45 TRAVEL EXPENSE
62613 12/23/2013 E. H. Wachs Company 440.50 BATTER, RECONNECT CONTROLER
62614 12/23/2013 Eisel Enterprises, Inc.688.50 DEVELOPER 438 METER BOX ETC
62615 12/23/2013 Environmental Construction Inc 179,001.47 PALM AVE BPS PP8 NOVEMBER
62616 12/23/2013 Equarius Waterworks 2,358.72 SYMMETRA PX BATTERY
62617 12/23/2013 Flex Advantage 117.00 FLEX ADV - COBRA ADV
62618 12/23/2013 Grandpoint Bank 9,421.13 PALM AVE BPS RETENTION NOV
62619 12/23/2013 Graybar Electric Co 506.55 PANDUIT/PLC UPGRADES
62620 12/23/2013 Hall & Foreman, Inc 380.00 S&W WELL 21 PROJ NOVEMBER
62621 12/23/2013 Infosend Inc.8,104.77 BILL MAILING
62622 12/23/2013 Jackson's Auto Supply - Napa 1,339.41 MISC VEHICLE PARTS
62623 12/23/2013 John Bogosian 547.19 SHOP TOOLS
62655 12/23/2013 John Decriscio 90.00 CERT WTR TRTMT III DECRISCIO
62656 12/23/2013 Kenny Graff 91.05 BOOT ALLOW GRAFF
62657 12/23/2013 Kidman Law 5,122.07 LEGAL - COVERAGE LITIGATION
62658 12/23/2013 Killingsworth Gear 59.73 SPEEDI-SLEEVE OIL SEAL
62654 12/23/2013 Konica Minolta Business 456.79 PRINTING SERVICE - NOV 2013
62659 12/23/2013 Lee & Ro, Inc.6,375.00 PALM AV BPS NOVEMBER SVCS
62660 12/23/2013 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 225.00 LCW WEBINAR - ETHICS TRAINING
62661 12/23/2013 Mc Fadden-Dale Hardware 144.54 PURCH DECEMBER
62662 12/23/2013 MCR Technologies Inc.1,974.54 SUBMERSIBLE LEVEL TRANSDCR
62632 12/23/2013 MR2 Solutions Inc 17,196.31 NETWK IMP/PWRCON SW3524
62633 12/23/2013 MWH Americas, Inc.33,932.68 FAIRMONT BPS OCTOBER SVCS
62663 12/23/2013 NatPay Online Business Solutions 35.85 DOCULIVERY - OCT-NOV
62635 12/23/2013 Nickey Kard Lock Inc 4,709.63 FUEL - NOV 2013
62636 12/23/2013 Orange County - Tax Collector 35.00 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
62637 12/23/2013 Orange County Water Assn.-Dues 50.00 OCWA MEMBER DUES DECRISCIO
62638 12/23/2013 Orvac Electronics 14.42 25' #3 SOLDER BRAID
62639 12/23/2013 Parts Source Anaheim 5.04 WIX PIN-ON LUBE FILTER
62640 12/23/2013 Pascal & Ludwig Constructors, Inc 71,962.20 S&W WELL 21 PTW DISCHRG STR
62648 12/23/2013 Petty Cash 97.34 PETTY CASH/YARD
62641 12/23/2013 Powerstride Battery 94.73 GROUP 65 BATTERY
62642 12/23/2013 Praxair Distribution 332.81 SPEC MD ALUM 100-200
62643 12/23/2013 Red Wing Shoes - Sta Ana 133.92 SAFETY BOOTS ISAIS
62644 12/23/2013 Robert Kiley 254.08 TRAVEL EXPENSE - REIMBURSEMENT
Yorba Linda Water District
Check Register
For Checks Dated: 12/13/2013 thru 12/23/2013
62645 12/23/2013 Rootx 4,805.74 40LB BOX OF ROOTX
62646 12/23/2013 Southern Calif Edison Co.2,616.89 PLUMOSA DR,MIRALOMA-NOV
62647 12/23/2013 Southern Calif Gas Co.16,743.90 NOV SVCS, SEVERAL SITES
62649 12/23/2013 St.Jude Hospital Yorba Linda 180.00 DOT EXAMS OPS
62650 12/23/2013 Sunrise Medical Group 850.00 FLU VACCINES
62651 12/23/2013 Terminix Processing Center 185.00 MONTHLY PEST CONTROL
62652 12/23/2013 Underground Service Alert 205.50 DIG ALERT
62624-31 12/23/2013 Void 0.00 VOID CHECKS/CHECK MISFEED
62634 12/23/2013 Void 0.00 VOID CHECKS/CHECK MISFEED
62612 12/23/2013 White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP 2,200.00 BILLING/AUDIT YE 63013
62653 12/23/2013 Yorba Linda Hardware 51.18 WAREHOUSE SUPPLIES
Total $427,330.88
.
December 23, 2013
CHECK NUMBERS:
Computer Checks 62598—62663 $ 427,330.88
TOTAL OF CHECKS $ 427,330.88
PAYROLL NO. 25:
Direct Deposits/Employee Check 5732 $ 161,085.25
Third Party Checks 5733—5743 $ 48,287.10
Payroll Taxes $ 41,809.96
TOTAL OF PAYROLL $ 251,182.31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DISBURSEMENT TOTAL: $ 678,513.19
==================================================================
APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MINUTE ORDER AT BOARD
MEETING OF DECEMBER 23, 2013
==================================================================.
Date Vendor Name Amount Description
11/27/13 USA Blue Book 310.19 Concrete saw blades
11/27/13 Home Depot 17.19 Sod
11/27/13 Westside Building 223.49 Parts/Repair cutting tool
11/28/13 FTP Today 49.95 Secure Cloud storage/November
12/03/13 Target 71.28 District Holiday Decorations
12/03/13 Hobby Lobby 12.38 District Holiday Decorations
12/04/13 Jobs Available 350.00 Ad/Senior Accountant
12/04/13 PARMA 100.00 PARMA membership
12/05/13 ONLINE Collections 14.80 Collections October
12/05/13 JW Marriott 573.99 Lodging/ACWA Fall Conf Kiley
12/05/13 Farmer Boys 37.07 Lunch/Accounting section meeting
12/05/13 Grainger 530.62 PPE face mask/respirators
12/05/13 Fullerton Paint 258.69 Marking blue caution
12/05/13 Costco 198.54 Retirement-recognition
12/07/13 FTP Today 49.95 Secure Cloud storage/December
12/09/13 Urban Water Institute 425.00 UWI Conference Kiley
12/09/13 CASA 475.00 CASA Conference Kiley
12/09/13 Water Education Found 545.00 WEF Sea to Sierra Water Tour Kiley
12/09/13 Brown & Caldwell 200.00 Ad/Water Jobs Senior Accountant
12/09/13 Grainger 121.36 Epoxy adhesive
12/10/13 Hilton Palm Springs 166.71 Lodging/UWI Conference-deposit
Cal Card Credit Card
U S Bank
11/27/2013-12/16/13
12/10/13 Hilton Palm Springs 166.71 Lodging/UWI Conference-deposit
12/10/13 Yorba Country Car Wash 105.00 YL Blvd Pump Stn/Car Wash cpn-cust
12/10/13 Party!Party!55.05 Retirement Lunch/Plastic Table cover
12/10/13 CVS 8.09 Retirement Lunch/Tea Light
12/10/13 Office Solutions 71.24 Calendars/Ops
12/10/13 Village Nurseries 236.25 Sod
12/10/13 Home Depot 8.55 Sockets/Leak crew
12/10/13 John Deere 64.43 Landscape supplies
12/11/13 Yorba Country Car Wash 105.00 YL Blvd Pump Stn/Car Wash cpn-cust
12/11/13 Orange Tree Deli 1,596.34 Retirement Lunch Samaripa
12/11/13 Smog Tech 765.00 Vehicle Smog/17 units
12/11/13 Harrington Industrial 220.71 Asco Valve/Production
12/11/13 Office Solutions 565.24 Calendars/Ops
12/12/13 Jobs Available 350.00 Ad/Records Management Specialist
12/16/13 Trader Joe's 3.23 Retirement Lunch/Flowers-Center
12/16/13 Home Goods 12.40 Retirement Lunch/Invite frame
TOTAL 8,897.74
ITEM NO. 8.3
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013 Budgeted:Yes
Total Budget:$2.6M
To:Board of Directors Cost Estimate:$2.3M
Funding Source:All Water Funds
From:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Account No:101-2700
Job No:200817B
Presented By:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Dept:Engineering
Reviewed by Legal:No
Prepared By:Joe Polimino, Project Engineer CEQA Compliance:MND
Subject:Progress Payment No. 8 for the Yorba Linda Blvd Pump Station Project
SUMMARY:
Work is continuing on the construction of the Yorba Linda Blvd Pump Station Project. The project
consists of three electric motor driven vertical turbine pumps, flow control valves, a motor control
center, various yard piping and a new masonry block building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors approve Progress Payment No. 8 in the net amount of $179,001.47 to
ECI, Inc. for construction of the Yorba Linda Blvd Pump Station Project, Job No. 2008-17B.
DISCUSSION:
In accordance with the contract documents, ECI Inc. submitted a request for Progress Payment No.
8, in the amount of $188,422.60 for completed work through November 30, 2013. During this period,
the contractor received and installed the three electric vertical pumps and motors. They also
completed the structural steel for the mansard roof, installed the roof drains and installed the roof
access hatch and ladder. The status of the construction contract with ECI Inc. is as follows:
The current contract is $1,581,179.00 and 365 calendar days starting April 1, 2013.
If approved, Progress Payment No. 8 is $188,422.60 (11.9% of the total contract amount),
less 5% retention of $ 9,421.13 for a net payment of $179,001.47.
If approved, total payments to date including retention will be $1,179,255.90 (74.6% of the
total contract amount).
As of November 30, 2013, 244 calendar days were used (66.8% of the contract time).
Staff reviewed the contractor's progress payment and recommend approval. A copy of Progress
Payment No. 8 is attached for your reference.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S):
On December 20, 2012, the Board of Directors authorized the President and Secretary to execute a
construction agreement between Environmental Construction, Inc. (ECI), and the Yorba Linda
Water District for the Construction of the Yorba Linda Blvd Pump Station Project in the amount of
$1,581,179.00. The Board of Directors has approved seven progress payments to date, the last of
which was approved on November 27, 2013.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
ECI_YL_Blvd._PS_Progress_Pay_Request_8.pdf Progress Pay Request No. 8 for YL Blvd. Pump Station Backup Material
Approved by the Board of Directors of the
Yorba Linda Water District
12/23/2013
MB/RC 5-0
ITEM NO. 8.4
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013 Budgeted:N/A
To:Board of Directors
Funding Source:Developer Funded
From:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Account No:1/2-2600
Job No:201322
Dept:Engineering
Reviewed by Legal:N/A
Prepared By:Ariel Bacani, Engineering
Technician II
CEQA Compliance:N/A
Subject:Terms and Conditions for Water and Sewer Service with National Community
Renaissance
SUMMARY:
National Community Renaissance is proposing to develop a 69-unit apartment complex called
"Oakcrest Terrace" on 3.198 acres. The project is located at the southeast corner of Oakcrest Circle
and Eastpark Drive, within the east end of the Savi Ranch shopping center, as shown in the
attached exhibit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors approve the Terms and Conditions for Water and Sewer Service with
National Community Renaissance, Job No. 201322.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee discussed this matter at its meeting held
December 10, 2013 and supports staff's recommendation.
DISCUSSION:
The District has an existing Zone 2, 12-inch water pipeline in Eastpark Drive that is adequate in size
and of sufficient pressure to serve the project. The applicant requests to use an existing water
service for irrigation, and install a double-check detector assembly for their private fire suppression
system along with two new (separate) water services, as depicted on the attached exhibit.
The project site is located within the District's Sewer Service Area. The District has an existing 10-
inch sewer main in Eastpark Drive that is adequate in size to serve the proposed apartment
complex. The applicant is conditioned to construct the sewer lateral into an existing manhole in
Eastpark Drive.
The proposed Terms and Conditions for Water and Sewer Service with National Community
Renaissance are attached for your consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
201322_T_C.doc Terms & Conditions for Water & Sewer Service with
National Community Renaissance Agreement
201322_AR_Exhibit.pdf Exhibit of Proposed Water & Sewer Improvements for
National Community Renaissance Exhibit
Approved by the Board of Directors of the
Yorba Linda Water District
12/23/2013
MB/RC 5-0
Date: DECEMBER 23, 2013
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE
NAME OF APPLICANT: NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE
LOCATION OF PROJECT: 22744 EASTPARK DR., YORBA LINDA
TRACT NUMBER: N/A JOB NUMBER: 201322 UNIT(S): 69
The applicant will be required to complete to the satisfaction of the District the following
items that have an “X” following the number.
1) X The applicant shall provide the District with a copy of the Grant Deed or
Title Report of the property to be served.
2) X The applicant shall include information deemed necessary by the District in
the event the applicant is required to file a Department of Real Estate Tax
Disclosure statement.
3) The applicant shall provide to all purchasers of the homes a statement that
the home is located within Improvement District No. 1 and that the home is
subject to a property tax over and above the normal 1% Basic Tax Levy to
pay for Production, Storage, and Transmission water facilities serving
Improvement District No. l.
4) The applicant shall provide to all purchasers of the homes a statement that
the home is located within Improvement District No. 2 and that the home is
subject to a property tax over and above the normal 1% Basic Tax Levy to
pay for Production, Storage, and Transmission water facilities serving
Improvement District No. 2.
5) X The applicant shall submit two (2) sets of the improvement plans to the
District for plan check processing.
a) Improvement Plans
b) Grading Plans
c) Tract, Parcel or Vesting Map
d) Landscaping Plans
6) X Improvement Plans submitted for plan check shall comply with the submittal
requirements established by the YLWD Engineering Department.
7) X The applicant shall dedicate or obtain all easements deemed necessary by
the District in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the District. All
easement documents shall be prepared under the supervision of and
stamped by a Professional Land Surveyor or a Registered Civil Engineer
Page 2 of 5
NAME OF APPLICANT: NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE
LOCATION OF PROJECT: 22744 EASTPARK DRIVE, YORBA LINDA
(licensed prior to January 1, 1982) licensed to practice in the State of
California.
8) X The applicant shall provide the District with a copy of the Recorded
Tract/Parcel Map(s) or Easement Documents illustrating all District
easements required by Term and Condition No. 7, prior to requesting
occupancy releases.
9) X The applicant shall prepare and process all easements to be quitclaimed by
the District in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the District.
10) X The applicant shall furnish the District with a 24-hour emergency telephone
number prior to the District’s approval of the construction plans.
11) X The applicant shall notify the District 48 hours prior to initiating any work
related to required or proposed improvements.
12) X The applicant shall complete a Temporary Construction Meter Permit
application for all water to be used in construction work and all water used
under such permit shall be taken from the approved construction meter.
13) X The applicant shall provide per the District specifications one complete set
of "As Built" mylars and electronic copy of ACAD drawings (version 2008 or
later) for the Water facilities.
14) X The applicant shall complete an Application to and Agreement for Water
Service.
15) X The applicant shall pay all of the water fees as required by the Rules and
Regulations of the District.
16) X The applicant shall pay meter fees associated with the installation of radio
read meters for this project.
17) X The applicant shall comply with the Rules and Regulations of the Yorba
Linda Water District with regard to the Rendition of Water Service.
18) X The applicant shall provide the District with a set of plans stamped and
approved by the Orange County Fire Authority, or fire agency having
jurisdiction, that identifies approved fire hydrant locations. Such approved
plan must be submitted to the District before staff will initiate a District plan
check for water improvements.
19) X The applicant shall have all water facilities designed in accordance with the
District's Water Facilities Plan and the District’s Standard Specifications. All
design plans shall be prepared under the supervision of and stamped by a
Registered Civil Engineer licensed to practice in the State of California.
20) X The applicant’s water facilities (on-site) shall be Privately owned and
maintained.
Page 3 of 5
NAME OF APPLICANT: NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE
LOCATION OF PROJECT: 22744 EASTPARK DRIVE, YORBA LINDA
21) X The applicant shall be required to conduct flow tests at their cost in the
event the Orange County Fire Authority requires a flow test. A District
representative shall be present to witness the flow test.
22) X The applicant shall comply with all additional District requirements, relative
to the fire protection system, fire hydrant construction and fire hydrant
locations.
23) The applicant shall install one (1) water Sampling Station(s) in conformance
with the District’s Standard Plans.
24) X The applicant shall provide a completed Surety Bond for the water facilities
prior to the District signing the Water Improvement Plans. The applicant
shall also provide to the District an estimate of the construction costs of the
proposed water facilities.
25) X The applicant shall install the curb and gutter a minimum of one week prior
to the installation of the water main and services.
26) X All existing water services that are not useable in the new plan shall be cut
and plugged at the main line.
27) X The applicant shall coordinate through the District all connections of new
water facilities to the existing District facilities.
28) X The applicant shall provide a written copy of the Bacteriological Report prior
to occupancy releases certifying that the water meets the Health
Department's requirements.
29) X The applicant shall adjust and raise to grade all valve covers within the
limits of this project.
30) X The applicant shall install a pressure regulator in all dwellings that have
over 80 p.s.i. static water pressure in accordance with the appropriate
building codes.
31) X The applicant shall complete a Temporary Water Permit for all water that
will be used through the new water services to serve the new dwellings.
32) X The applicant shall install a District approved backflow device in connection
with any private fire suppression sprinkler facilities that may be required by
the Orange County Fire Authority or fire agency having jurisdiction.
33) X The applicant shall install a reduced pressure principle backflow prevention
device on all commercial buildings and landscape services.
34) X The applicant shall install and provide a written test report to the District for
each backflow device certifying that the backflow devices are operating
properly prior to the water meters being turned on for service.
Page 4 of 5
NAME OF APPLICANT: NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE
LOCATION OF PROJECT: 22744 EASTPARK DRIVE, YORBA LINDA
35) X The applicant shall install and provide a written test report to the District
certifying that the double check detector assembly is operating properly
prior to the double check detector assembly being turned on for service.
36) X The applicant shall provide an annual written test report to the District
certifying that the backflow devices and fire detector assemblies are
operating properly pursuant to the District’s Backflow Prevention Program
and the State of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Public Health
Rules and Regulations Relating to Cross-Connections.
37) The applicant shall complete a Sewer Connection Application and Permit
for Sewer Service.
38) X The applicant shall complete an Application to and Agreement for Sewer
Service.
39) X The applicant shall comply with the Rules and Regulations of the Yorba
Linda Water District with regard to the Rendition of Sanitary Sewer Service.
40) X The applicant shall pay all of the sewer fees as required by the Rules and
Regulations of the District.
41) X The applicant shall have all sewer facilities designed in accordance with the
District's Sewer Master Plan and Standard Specifications. All design plans
shall be prepared under the supervision of and stamped by a Registered
Civil Engineer licensed to practice in the State of California.
42) X The applicant shall provide a completed Surety Bond for the sewer facilities
prior to the District signing the Sewer Improvement Plans. The applicant
shall also provide to the District an estimate of the construction costs of the
proposed sewer facilities.
43) X The applicant’s sewer facilities (on-site) shall be Privately owned and
maintained.
44) X The applicant shall construct a sewer main and appurtenances in
conformance with the approved plans and the District’s Plans and
Specifications.
45) X The applicant shall adjust and raise to grade all sewer manhole covers
within the limits of this project.
46) X The applicant shall install a sewer backflow prevention valve on all sewer
service connections in which the pad elevations of the property being
served is lower than the rim elevation of the upstream manhole. Installation
of the backflow device shall comply with all requirements of the Building
and Plumbing Codes of the appropriate agency having jurisdiction.
47) X The applicant shall submit a video inspection report of their sewer project in
DVD format. The video of the sewer facilities shall be conducted in the
Page 5 of 5
NAME OF APPLICANT: NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE
LOCATION OF PROJECT: 22744 EASTPARK DRIVE, YORBA LINDA
presence of the District inspector, which will include stationing locations of
manholes, cleanouts, wyes, laterals, backflow devices and appurtenances.
(END OF STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS)
PROJECT SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS
48) X The applicant shall install two new water services and one new fire
protection line and use an existing water service, per approved plans and
District Specifications.
49) X The applicant shall install one new sewer lateral into an existing manhole in
Eastpark Drive, per approved plans and District Specifications.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Terms and Conditions were approved at the December
23, 2013 Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Yorba Linda Water District.
The approved Terms and Conditions shall become void six (6) months from the approval
date if a formal Application To and Agreement with the Yorba Linda Water District for
Water and Sewer Service is not executed for the project under consideration.
Steve Conklin, P.E., Acting General Manager
-- --- - -�_
SITE PLAN -
ER 1------ - - - - --
io °ss
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
PREPARED BY: EXHIBIT SCALE:
WATER & SEWER SERVICE N.T.S.
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT FOR DATE:
NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE 12 -10 -13
El 1717 E. MIRALOMA AVENUE OAKCREST TERRACE
PLACENTIA, CALIFORNIA 92870 22744 EASTPARK DRIVE FILENAME:
(714) 701 -3100 YORBA LINDA, CA J2013 -22
T
ITEM NO. 8.5
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013 Budgeted:Yes
Total Budget:$100,000
To:Board of Directors Cost Estimate:$80,200
Funding Source:All Water Funds
From:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Account No:101-2700
Job No:201312
Presented By:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Dept:Engineering
Reviewed by Legal:Pending
Prepared By:Anthony Manzano, Senior
Project Manager
CEQA Compliance:Exempt
Subject:Construction Contract for Elk Mountain Surge Tank Replacement
SUMMARY:
On November 25, 2013, bids were received from six contractors for construction of the Elk Mountain
Surge Tank Replacement. Following review of the bids, staff recommends award to the low-bidder,
Pascal & Ludwig Constructors, for the amount of $80,200. The Engineer's Estimate was $100,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors award the Construction Contract for the Elk Mountain Surge Tank
Replacement for $80,200 to Pascal & Ludwig Constructors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee discussed this matter at its December 10, 2013
meeting and supports staff's recommendation.
DISCUSSION:
The Elk Mountain Surge Tank is located in the below-grade Elk Mountain Booster Pump Station,
northeast of Camino De Bryant and Elk Mountain Way in the City of Yorba Linda. The existing surge
tank is 23-years old with an air compressor that can't be repaired and was never certified. Because
it's older and uncertified, our insurance carrier will not provide coverage if surge damage is created
because this facility did not properly work.
On November 25, 2013, sealed bids were received from six contractors for the Elk Mountain Surge
Tank Replacement. The bids range from a low of $80,200.00 to a high of $145,500.00, as shown
below. The bid tabulation and bid documents from the low bidder, Pascal & Ludwig Constructors,
were reviewed and confirmed by District staff and found to be responsive and fully in order.
Accordingly, staff recommends award to Pascal & Ludwig Constructors.
No.Company Bid
1.Pascal & Ludwig Constructors $80,200.00
2.GCI Construction, Inc.$89,900.00
3.Metro Builders & Engineers Group, Ltd.$93,290.00
4.Vido Samarzich, Inc. $100,780.00
5.Paulus Engineering, Inc.$121,700.00
6.JA Salazar Construction & Supply Corp.$145,500.00
STRATEGIC PLAN:
SR 3-A: Complete Implementation of Five Year Capital Improvement Plan from FY 2011-2015 with
adopted amendments
Approved by the Board of Directors of the
Yorba Linda Water District
12/23/2013
MB/RC 5-0
ITEM NO. 9.1
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013 Budgeted:Yes
Total Budget:$90,000
To:Board of Directors Cost Estimate:$90,000
Funding Source:Water Operating
Fund
From:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Account No:1-1010-0440-00
Presented By:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Dept:Board of Directors
Prepared By:Annie Alexander, Executive
Secretary
Subject:Board of Directors Committee Assignments
SUMMARY:
Following the annual reorganization of the Board of Directors, the newly elected President assigns
the members of the Board to various standing committees and intergovernmental meetings. These
assignments are usually decided prior to the first meeting in January each year.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the President consider and make recommendations to the Board of Directors for committee
and intergovernmental meeting assignments for the upcoming calendar year, subject to consent by
the Board.
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to the Board of Directors' Rules for Organization and Procedure (Resolution No. 11-15),
the Board has five standing committees, three joint agency standing committees, and various
intergovernmental meetings to which the Board has authorized regular Director attendance.
Historically, two Directors have been assigned to each standing committee and each Director has
been assigned to a minimum of two different standing committees. Participation in
intergovernmental meetings has been on a voluntary basis with a primary and secondary Director
generally alternating their attendance.
The attached spreadsheet identifies the Directors who have served on each standing committee
and attended the intergovernmental meetings for the previous two years. It also includes the
proposed assignments for the upcoming calendar year. The Board is not required to choose
committee assignments using any particular method. In years past, the non-Chair committee
member in the current year has served as the Chair for the same committee in the following year.
This allows each committee to continue with one member who is familiar with the responsibilities of
the committee, while allowing another member who has not previously served on the committee, the
opportunity for a new experience, if desired.
The Total Budgeted and Estimated Cost amounts listed above include Board, Committee and
intergovernmental meeting attendance at a maximum of ten meetings per month as allowed by
statute.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
CP 1-C: Have Board of Directors and YLWD Staff Attend More Events and Inter - governmental
Meetings within the Local Community
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
2014_BOD_Committee_Assignments.xls Backup Material Backup Material
Approved by the Board of Directors of the
Yorba Linda Water District
12/23/2013
PH/RC 3-0-2
MB and GM voted No.
Standing Committees201220132014
EAO HawkinsMelton Kiley (Chair)
MeltonKiley Collett
FA KileyHawkins Melton (Chair)
HawkinsMelton Beverage
PRM BeverageCollett Hawkins (Chair)
CollettBeverage Kiley
PEO CollettKiley Beverage (Chair)
KileyHawkins Melton
PACT MeltonBeverage Collett (Chair)
BeverageCollett Hawkins
YLWD/MWDOC/OCWD Joint Agency HawkinsMelton Kiley
BeverageBeverage Collett
YLWD/City of Placentia Joint Agency N/AMelton Beverage
N/AHawkins Melton
YLWD/City of Yorba Linda Joint Agency N/AKiley Collett
N/ABeverage Kiley
CAC BeverageBeverage Beverage
Interagency Meeting Assignments201220132014
YL City Council Mtg 1 HawkinsKiley Collett
First Tuesday of the Month
YL City Council Mtg 2 MeltonCollett Kiley
Third Tuesday of the Month
YL Planning Comm Mtg 1 KileyMelton Beverage
Second Wednesday of the Month
YL Planning Comm Mtg 2 CollettHawkins Melton
Fourth Wednesday of the MonthFourth Wednesday of the Month
YL LMAD Citizens Advisory Committee N/AKiley Beverage
Second Thursday of the Month
YL LMAD Citizens Advisory Committee N/ABeverage Collett
Fourth Thursday of the Month
OCWD Board of Directors KileyKiley Collett
First Wednesday of the Month
OCWD Board of Directors KileyKiley Collett
Third Wednesday of the Month
MWDOC Board of Directors MeltonMelton Melton
First Wednesday of the Month
MWDOC Board of Directors MeltonMelton Melton
Third Wednesday of the Month
WACO Meeting HawkinsHawkins Hawkins
First Friday of the Month Kiley Beverage
LAFCO Meeting BeverageBeverage Beverage
Second Wednesday of the Month
OCSD N/AN/A Kiley
Fourth Wednesday of the Month
ISDOC Meeting CollettCollett Hawkins
Quarterly on the Fourth Tuesday
ACWA/JPIA Meeting HawkinsHawkins Hawkins
Semi-Annually in May & November
ITEM NO. 9.2
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
To:Board of Directors
From:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Presented By:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Reviewed by Legal:Yes
Prepared By:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Subject:Board of Director Non-Member Attendance at Committee Meetings
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors consider this matter and provide direction to staff.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
This item was discussed at the November 22, 2013 meeting of the Executive-Administrative-
Organizational Committee and recommended to the Board for action.
DISCUSSION:
At recent Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee meetings there was discussion
relating to two questions: 1) may a member of the Board of Directors attend a meeting of a Board
committee of which he is not a member, and 2) may he draw a daily stipend for attending the
meeting? Copies of existing District policies that relate to these questions were provided for review
and discussion. As part of that discussion, the Committee requested that Legal Counsel research
the questions and provide its findings and recommendations to the Committee. A copy of the memo
with that information is attached for review and discussion.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
KL_Memo_RE_BOD_Non-
member_Attendance_at_Comm_Mtgs.docx Backup Material Backup Material
Kidman Law LLP
Water | Environment | Government
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Conklin
Acting General Manager
FROM: Art Kidman
General Counsel
DATE: December 19, 2013
RE: Board of Director Compensation
Non-member Attendance at Committee Meetings
__________________________________________________________________
Issue Presented: May a member of the Board of Directors attend a meeting of a Board
committee of which he is not a member and draw a daily stipend for
attending the meeting?
Answers: Meetings of committees comprised of Board members must be open to the
public and, therefore, any Director is permitted, subject to specific
limitations, to attend committee meetings even if he is not a member of the
committee. Under current policies set by the Board, however, a Director
may draw a daily stipend for attending a committee meeting where he is
not an appointed committee member only if his attendance at the
committee meeting is requested by the Board. Alternatives are available to
authorize compensation for such meeting attendance.
DISCUSSION
The issues presented deal with two legal principles which will be addressed separately.
The first legal principle is whether and under what conditions a director is permitted by law to
attend a Board committee meeting when he is not a member of the committee. The second issue
is whether and under what conditions a Director may be compensated for attendance at a Board
committee meeting when he is not a member of the committee.
A. A Board member may attend any Board committee meeting; but must refrain from
any participation in the committee’s deliberations.
The Ralph M. Brown Act is our State’s open public meetings law. The Brown Act
broadly prohibits public agency decisions and deliberations leading to public agency decisions
from being made by or occurring among a quorum of governing body members outside of a
noticed public meeting of the governing body. Government Code §54953(a). The requirement
for open public meetings also applies to meetings of standing committees consisting of less than
a quorum of governing body members. Government Code §54952(b). Since standing committee
meetings are open to the public, governing body members who are not committee members may
attend such meetings, but special rules apply.
A Board member who is not a committee member may attend a meeting of that
committee as an observer, but may not ask questions, make statements or otherwise participate
in any way in the deliberations or decisions of the committee. Government Code §54952.2(c)(6)
provides that a meeting of a standing committee is not a meeting of the governing body as
follows:
“The attendance of a majority of the members of the legislative body at an open and
noticed meeting of a standing committee of that body, provided that the members of the
legislative body who are not members of the standing committee attend only as
observers.” [emphasis added]
The reason for this special rule for non-committee Board member attendance at committee
meetings is readily apparent. If an additional Board member in attendance at a committee
meeting means that a quorum of the Board participates in the deliberations and/or decisions of
the committee , then the committee meeting constitutes a Board meeting and must be noticed to
the public as such, including the posting of a Board meeting agenda 72 hours in advance of the
committee meeting. The moment the additional Board member begins to participate in the
deliberations or decisions of the committee, the committee meeting becomes a violation of the
Brown Act potentially subjecting all the board members in attendance to penalty.
The California Attorney General has opined that the “observer” status of such non-
committee Board members attending a standing committee meeting prohibits the non-committee
member from participating in the committee in any way, including making statements or asking
questions.
“Indeed, such observers have fewer rights than members of the general public
attending the meetings, since as observers they may make no statements and ask
(no) questions.” 81 Ops. Atty. Gen 156.
RECOMMENDATIONS RE ISSUE A:
A.1 The Board should consider whether and under what conditions
committee meetings should be conducted as noticed and agendized
Board meetings in order to allow participation in the committee
meeting by any or all Board members.
A.2 If “participation” in committee meetings remains limited to less
than a quorum of the Board, the Board should consider adoption of
policy requiring (a) any Board member to notify the General
Manager when he plans to attend a meeting of a committee where he
is not a committee member; (b) requiring the General Manager to
notify the committee chairman of the plans for a third Board
member to be present at the committee meeting; and (c) requiring
the General Manager to request District legal counsel to attend
the committee meeting to assure compliance with the special “only
as observer” rule under the Brown Act.
B. A Board member may be compensated only for attendance at Board meetings and
other meetings attended at the request of the Board.
Under State Law and under Yorba Linda Water District Ordinance No. 03-01 (Setting
Compensation for Members of the Board of Directors), Directors may be compensated at a daily
rate “for each day’s attendance at meetings of the Board of Directors and other meetings
attended at the request of the Board of Directors.” By custom and practice, the Board of
Directors annually approves assignment of members of the Board to serve on Board committees
and annually designates members of the Board to attend recurring meetings of outside agencies.
In addition, each Board meeting agenda includes an item for ad hoc approval of one or more
Board members to attend specific meetings and events. These rules, customs and practices
appear to be compliant with AB 1234 (Government Code §53232.1). If a Board member attends
a meeting which has not been pre-approved by the Board, the member may be entitled to the per
diem compensation only if the member’s attendance is ratified after the fact by a vote of the
Board.
Under these rules, customs and practices a Board member may be compensated a day’s
attendance at a meeting of a committee of which he is not a member only if the member obtains
pre-authorization or post-ratification from the full Board for attendance at the committee
meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS RE ISSUE B:
B.1 If the Board determines under recommendation A.1 above to designate
committee meetings as Board meetings, then State law and Ordinance 03-01
both allow compensation for any board member to attend a committee
meeting.
B.2 If the Board determines under recommendation A.2 above to limit
“participation” in committee meetings to members of the committee, the
Board should consider whether (a) to continue ad hoc approval of
attendance for daily compensation to any Director who attends a meeting
of a committee of which he is not a member; or (b) to provide blanket
approval of such attendance for daily compensation.
ITEM NO. 9.3
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
To:Board of Directors
From:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Presented By:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Prepared By:Annie Alexander, Executive
Secretary
Subject:Adoption of FPPC Form 806 for the Purpose of Reporting Public Official
Appointments
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors: (1) adopt FPPC Form 806 as the District's official form for reporting
public official appointments; and (2) direct staff to post a completed form on the District's website in
accordance with the requirements set forth in FPPC Regulation 18705.5.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee discussed this matter at its meeting held
December 17, 2013 and support staff's recommendation.
DISCUSSION:
As discussed in a previous Committee meeting, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)
recently amended Regulation 18705.5 requiring the reporting of additional compensation received
by public officials when appointing themselves to positions on committees, boards, or commissions
of a public agency, special district, or joint powers authority that would provide a stipend or salary
totaling $250 or more in a 12-month period. This includes Director appointments to serve on the
District's standing and ad hoc committees.
In addition, this new regulation requires that the Board of Directors adopt a form provided by the
FPPC for this purpose (see attached Form 806) and post it on the District's website listing the
following information:
Each appointed position for which compensation is paid.
The salary or stipend for each appointed position.
The name of the public official (including any alternate) who has been appointed to the
position.
The term of each position.
The posted form would then need to be updated as changes occur due to an increase in total
compensation or a new appointment.
The newly elected President will be making Committee assignments, subject to consent of the
Board, at the regular meeting scheduled Monday, December 23, 2013. Staff is planning to present
this related matter for consideration by the Board at this same meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
806.pdf Backup Material Backup Material
Approved by the Board of Directors of the
Yorba Linda Water District
12/23/2013
GM/PH 5-0
Comment:
FPPC Form 806 (6/13)
FPPC Toll-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC (866/275-3772)
A Public Document
Appt Date and
Length of Term
Agency Report of:
Public Official Appointments
2. Appointments
3. Verification
I have read and understand FPPC Regulation 18705.5. I have verified that the appointment and information identified above is true to the best of my information and belief.
Signature of Agency Head or Designee Print Name Title (Month, Day, Year)
Agency Boards and
Commissions Name of Appointed Person Per Meeting/Annual Salary/Stipend
(Last, First)
(Last, First)
(Last, First)
(Last, First)
Alternate, if any
Alternate, if any
Alternate, if any
Alternate, if any
(Last, First)
(Last, First)
(Last, First)
(Last, First)
Name
Name
Name
Name
$0-$1,000
$0-$1,000
$0-$1,000
$0-$1,000
$1,001-$2,000
$1,001-$2,000
$1,001-$2,000
$1,001-$2,000
$2,001-$3,000
$2,001-$3,000
$2,001-$3,000
$2,001-$3,000
Other
Other
Other
Other
California
Form
1.Agency Name
Designated Agency Contact (Name,Title)
E-mail
Division, Department, or Region (If Applicable)
806
For Official Use Only
Area Code/Phone Number
(Month, Day, Year)
____/____/____
Appt Date
____/____/____
Appt Date
____/____/____
Appt Date
____/____/____
Appt Date
Length of Term
Length of Term
Length of Term
Length of Term
Estimated Annual:
Estimated Annual:
Estimated Annual:
Estimated Annual:
$ Per Meeting:
$ Per Meeting:
$ Per Meeting:
$ Per Meeting:
Page _____ of _____
Date Posted:
Background
This form is used to report additional compensation that officials
receive when appointing themselves to positions on committees,
boards, or commissions of another public agency or to a
committee or position of the agency of which the public official is
a member.
This form is required pursuant to FPPC Regulation 18705.5.
Each agency must post on its website a single Form 806 which
lists all the paid appointed positions to which an official will vote
to appoint themselves. When there is a change in compensation
or a new appointment, the Form 806 is updated to reflect the
change. The form must be updated promptly as changes occur.
Instructions
This form must be posted prior to a vote (or consent item) to
appoint a governing board member if the appointee will participate
in the decision and the appointment results in additional income
of $250 or more in a 12-month period. If an appointment does not
result in additional income of at least $250 in a 12-month period,
this form is not required.
FPPC Regulation 18705.5 provides that as long as the public
is informed prior to a vote, an official may vote to hold another
position even if the voting official will receive $250 or more in a
12-month period for the appointment.
Part 1. Agency Identification
Identify the agency name and information on who should be
contacted for information.
Part 2. Appointments
Identify the name of the other agency, board or commission. List
the name of the official, and an alternate, if any.
List the appointment date and the length of term the agency
official will serve. Disclose the stipend provided per meeting and
the estimated annual payment. The annual salary is an estimate
as it will likely vary depending upon the number of meetings. It
is not necessary to revise the estimate at the end of the calendar
year.
Part 3. Verification
The agency head or his/her designee must sign the verification.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. When does an agency need to complete the Form 806?
A Form 806 is required when an agency’s board members
vote to appoint a board member to serve on another
governmental agency or position of the agency of which the
official is a member and at least $250 in any 12-month period
will be provided to a voting member.
2. The city council votes to serve as the city’s housing authority,
a separate entity. Will the Form 806 be required?
If the council members receive additional compensation
($250 or more in a 12-month period) for serving on the
housing authority, the Form 806 is required.
3. Are appointments made by a governing board to appoint
one of its members to serve as an officer of that board for
additional pay (e.g., mayor) required to be disclosed on Form
806?
Yes. FPPC Regulation 18705.5 permits voting on a member’s
own appointment to the position of mayor, as well as other
boards and commissions, so long as proper disclosure on the
Form 806 is made. This applies to agencies with governing
boards that are elected or appointed.
4. In determining the income, must the agency include mileage
reimbursements, travel payments, health benefits, and other
compensation?
No. FPPC Regulation18705.5 requires only the amount of
the stipend or salary to be reported.
5. Which agency must post the Form 806?
The agency that is voting to appoint a public official must post
the Form 806 on its website. The agency that the official will
serve as a member is not required to post the Form 806. The
form is not sent to the FPPC.
6. When must the Form 806 be updated?
The Form 806 should be amended promptly upon any of
the following circumstances: (1) the number of scheduled
meetings is changed, (2) there is a change in the
compensation paid to the members, (3) there is a change in
membership on the board or commission, or (4) there is a
new appointment to a new agency.
7. If officials choose to recuse themselves from the decision
and leave the room when a vote is taken to make an
appointment, must the Form 806 be completed?
No. The Form 806 is only required to identify those officials
that will vote on an appointment in which the official will also
receive additional income of $250 or more in a 12-month
period.
Privacy Information Notice
Information requested by the FPPC is used to administer and
enforce the Political Reform Act. Failure to provide information
may be a violation subject to penalties. All reports are public
records available for inspection and reproduction. Direct
questions to FPPC’s General Counsel, Fair Political Practices
Commission, 428 J Street, Ste. 620, Sacramento, CA 95814.
FPPC Form 806 (6/13)
FPPC Toll-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC (866/275-3772)
California
Form 806
A Public Document
Agency Report of:
Public Official Appointments
ITEM NO. 9.4
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013 Budgeted:Yes
Total Budget:$90,000
To:Board of Directors
Funding Source:Water Operating
Fund
From:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Account No:1-1010-0440-00
Presented By:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Dept:Board of Directors
Prepared By:Annie Alexander, Executive
Secretary
Subject:Board of Directors Compensation
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors consider the Directors' compensation rate for the next calendar year.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee discussed this matter at its meeting held
October 15, 2013 and instructed staff to present it to the Board for consideration.
DISCUSSION:
In accordance with California Water Code Sections 20201-20202, the amount of compensation for
members of the Board of Directors is currently set at $150 per day for each day's attendance at
meetings of the Board and other meetings attended at the request of the Board, not to exceed 10
days per calendar month. Section 20202 also allows for an increase in the amount of compensation
up to 5% for each calendar year following the operative date of the last adjustment. As the last
adjustment was effective March 24, 2003 (per attached Ordinance No. 03-01), the Board of
Directors would be eligible for an increase in their current compensation rate up to $244.34 per day
(as of March 24, 2013). Also attached for reference are the results of a compensation survey that
was recently conducted by the Irvine Ranch Water District.
Should the Board elect to increase the Directors' compensation rate, an ordinance would need to be
considered and adopted pursuant to the procedures specified in Water Code Sections 20203-20204
and Government Code Section 6066:
· A public hearing would need to be held prior to adoption of the ordinance.
·
Notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation once a week for two successive weeks prior to the public
hearing.
· The ordinance would become effective 60 days from the date of its final
passage.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S):
The Board of Directors last increased their meeting compensation rate in 2003, and prior to that, in
1991.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
2003_01_23_-_Ordinance_No._03-01.pdf Backup Material Backup Material
BOD_Per_Diem_Survey.docx Backup Material Backup Material
ORDINANCE NO. 03-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
SETTING. COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
WHEREAS, The Yorba Linda Water District is organized and operates under authority of the
County Water District Act, Division 12, commencing with Section 30,000 of the
California Water Code; and
WHEREAS, Water Code Section 20202, permits water districts, as defined in Section 20200,
which includes the Yorba Linda Water District, to increase compensation of
members of the Board of Directors in an amount in excess of $100 per day for
each day's attendance at Board meetings or each day's service as a Director at
the Board's request, not to exceed ten day's per calendar month; and,
WHEREAS, the increase in compensation authorized pursuant to Section 20202 is limited to
five percent for each calendar year following the operative date of the last
adjustment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Yorba Linda Water District, by action taken in
February, 1991 set the daily compensation under Water Code Section 30507 at
125 for Board and Board Committee meetings and $50 for other service
rendered at the request of the Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Yorba Linda Water District has conducted a public
hearing upon notice pursuant to Government Code Section 6066 as required by
Water Code Section 20203.
NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Yorba Linda Water District does hereby
find, declare, order and ordain as follows:
Section 1. The matters set forth in the recitals of this Ordinance are true and correct.
Section 2. Upon and after the effective date of this Ordinance, compensation for members
of the Board of Directors of the Yorba Linda Water District shall be $150 per
day for each day's attendance at meetings of the Board of Directors and other
meetings attended at the request of the Board of Directors. Compensation for
any type of service shall not exceed ten (10) days in any calendar month.
Members of the Board of Directors shall receive reimbursement or payment of
expenses, according to District rules, incurred in the performance of each
Director's duties required or authorized by the Board of Directors.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall become effective sixty (60) days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of .January, 2003 by the following called vote:
AYES: Beverage, Mills, Summerfield
NOES: Armstrong
ABSENT: Korn
ABSTAIN:
Q r~
J W. ummer ice,
resident
1
i~
ATTEST:
Secretary
BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER DIEM SURVEY
AGENCY
PER DIEM
MEETING
EFFECTIVE DATE
MAXIMUM
MEETINGS PER
MONTH
El Toro
Water District
$198.00 December 2007 10
Irvine Ranch
Water District
$237.00 January 2009 10
Municipal Water of
Orange County
$232.70 January 2013 10
Orange County
Water District
$221.12 January 2008 10
Santa Margarita
Water District
$210.00 February 2009 10
South Coast
Water District
$190.00
January 2006
10
Moulton Niguel
Water District
$199.50 October 2007 10
Mesa Consolidated
Water District
$207.00 February 2013 10
Yorba Linda
Water District
$150.00 January 2003 10
ITEM NO. 9.5
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013 Budgeted:Yes
To:Board of Directors
From:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Presented By:Gina Knight, HR/Risk Manager Dept:Human
Resources/Risk
Management
Prepared By:Gina Knight, HR/Risk Manager
Subject:Revised Budgeted Positions for Fiscal Year 2013/2014
SUMMARY:
The District's Board of Directors approves the funding of proposed positions for a given fiscal year
during the Budget process. However, there are times when circumstances arise that require the
Board of Directors to approve a revision to the Budgeted Positions for a specific fiscal year.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors approve Resolution No. 13-18 Adopting the Revised Budgeted Positions
for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2013/2014 and Rescinding Resolution No. 13-15.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Personnel-Risk Management Committee discussed this matter at its meetings held December
3 and December 10, 2013 and supports staff's recommendation
DISCUSSION:
When Hank Samaripa gave notice in October of his upcoming retirement at the end of December
2013, the District's Acting General Manager requested that Human Resources research what job
titles other agencies were using to describe the knowledge and experience needed to perform the
essential functions performed by Hank Samaripa's position.
Soon after Human Resources staff acquired several job classifications from various water districts, it
became apparent that the District's present title was not commonly used in the water industry. The
information collected was shared with the District's Acting General Manager. Staff was directed to
change the job title from the present title of Project Coordinator to Associate Engineer and to revise
the job classification to include the actual essential functions performed by the present position and
to include the following requirements in the job classification:
1.Graduation from a four-year college or university with a degree in civil engineering or related
field.
2.Three years of responsible engineering and project management experience in an
organization similar to the District.
3.Administers the District's Emergency Preparedness Program with the help of other District
staff.
4.This position does not require a P.E. (Registered Professional Engineer).
Staff presented the proposal to change the job title and revise the job classification to the
Personnel-Risk Management Committee at both the December 3 and December 10, 2013
meetings. The salary for the revised position will remain the same as it was when the position was
called Project Coordinator (Range 27).
The Committee supported staff's proposal and instructed staff to present this item to the Board of
Directors for their consideration at the December 23 Board of Directors meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
Resolution_No._13-18.doc Resolution No. 13-18 Backup Material
Resolution_No._13-18_Exhibit_A.xls Exhibit A Backup Material
Associate_Engineer_12-16-2013.doc Associate Engineer Job Description Backup Material
Approved by the Board of Directors of the
Yorba Linda Water District
12/23/2013
RC/MB 5-0 Roll Call
Resolution No. 13-18 Revising Budgeted Positions for the Remainder of FY 2013/14 1
RESOLUTION NO. 13-18
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
ADOPTING THE REVISED BUDGETED POSITIONS
FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 2013/14
AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 13-15
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 13-01 on January 24, 2013,
the "Yorba Linda Water District Personnel Rules"; and
WHEREAS, the “Personnel Rules” direct that the number of Authorized Positions and
Salary Ranges are subject to approval by the Board of Directors; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 13-15 on November 12,
2013 approving the budgeted positions for the remainder of Fiscal Year
2013/14; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board of Directors to adopt the revised Budgeted
Positions for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2013/14 as set forth in Exhibit
“A” attached hereto, and rescind Resolution No. 13-15.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Yorba Linda
Water District as follows:
Section 1. The number of Budgeted Positions as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto is approved and adopted for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2013/14
effective December 23, 2013.
Section 2. The General Manager is hereby authorized to employ up to the number of
employees budgeted and funded in each fiscal year without further
approval of the Board of Directors.
Section 3. The General Manager is hereby authorized to fill a budgeted position that
is vacated while this Resolution is active with a new employee at a lower
or equal classification. The General Manager is further authorized to fill a
budgeted position with a part time employee or contract staff.
Section 4. That Resolution No. 13-15 is hereby rescinded effective December 23,
2013.
Resolution No. 13-18 Revising Budgeted Positions for the Remainder of FY 2013/14 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of December 2013 by the following called vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
, President
Yorba Linda Water District
ATTEST:
, Board Secretary
Yorba Linda Water District
Reviewed as to form by General Counsel:
Arthur G. Kidman, Esq.
Kidman Law LLP
BudgetedBudgeted
Salary as of Proposed as of
Range Position Classification 11/14/2013 Change 12/23/2013
15Customer Service Rep I11
16Meter Reader I22
17Customer Service Rep II11
Accounting Assistant I11
Maintenance Worker I99
Mechanic I00
Engineering Secretary11
Operations Secretary 00
18Meter Reader II22
19 Customer Service Rep III 22
Records Management Specialist11
Storekeeper00
Operations Assistant11
20Engineering Technician I00
Water Quality Technician l00
Maintenance Dist. Operator II88
21Facilities Maintenance11
Accounting Assistant II11
Mechanic II11
22Water Quality Technician lI11
Information Systems Tech I 1 1
Effective December 23, 2013
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 13-18
Budgeted Positions for
2013/2014
Information Systems Tech I 1 1
23Maintenance Dist. Operator III 44
Meter Services Lead11
Personnel Technician11
Plant Operator II33
Mechanic III11
24Construction Inspector 11
Engineering Technician II22
Information Systems Tech II00
25Human Resources Analyst11
Instrumentation Technician11
26GIS Administrator 11
Sr. Maintenance Dist. Operator44
Sr. Plant Operator 11
Sr. Construction Inspector11
Sr. Fleet Mechanic11
27Customer Service Supervisor 11
Project Coordinator1-10
Associate Engineer011
28Management Analyst11
Construction Project Supervisor1 1
Programmer Analyst1 1
30Water Maint. Superintendent11
Sr. Accountant11
SCADA Administrator11
Public Information Officer11
IS Administrator11
Safety and Training Coordinator11
31Water Production Superintendent11
Water Quality Engineer11
32Executive Secretary1 1
34Sr. Project Manager11
37Human Resources and Risk Manager11
Finance Manager 11
Operations Manager11
Engineering Manager11
IT Manager11
Salary General Manager11
Set by
Board Total 78 0 78
Salary
Range Position Classification
1-11Public/Governmental Affairs Intern0.50.5 W
Human Resources Clerk0.50.5 X
19Records Management Clerk0.5-0.50
24 GIS Technician0.50.5 Y
Total 2 -0.5 1.5
W
Intern - one (1) intern position budgeted for FY 2012-2013. The intern will be utilized
in the Public/Governmental Affairs division of the Administration Department.
X
Part-time Human Resources Clerk position. Budgeted in HR, this position is a
floater, providing clerical support to other departments as needed throughout the year.
Y
GIS Tech is a part-time position.
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
Revised: December 2013
ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
(Exempt)
DEFINITION
Under general supervision performs responsible technical and administrative
engineering support work related to planning, design and construction of engineering
projects and performs a variety of tasks relative to assigned area of responsibility.
CLASS CHARACTERISTICS
This is a professional class in the engineering series. This class is responsible for
initiating communications and providing reliable information to engineering and
construction management personnel for a range of duties including project
management for capital projects, development of budgets, regulatory compliance
reporting and reviewing to work of design consultants and contractors to ensure that
projects are completed within budget and on time.
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES
The duties listed below are illustrative only and are not meant to be a complete and
exhaustive listing of all of the duties and responsibilities of this classification.
• Prepares pre-design reports, design drawings and specifications for assigned
District construction projects; may assist in developing projects for operational
needs.
• Prepares Requests for Proposals for projects including scope of work, records,
reviews, comments and replies to project information requests from prospective
consultants and contractors; develops budget requests for current and new
projects.
• Reviews and checks design reports, proposals and specifications submitted by
consultant engineers.
• Prepares plans for small projects along with specifications for the bid process;
prepares project budgets and work orders.
• Interfaces with contractors and suppliers to clarify project specifications about
equipments and materials; attends, conducts and participates in
owner/contractor progress meetings.
Associate Engineer
Page 2
• Coordinates engineering design projects with those of other departments;
provides assistance to higher-level engineering personnel; prepares staff and
board recommendations as required.
• Attends and participates in professional group meetings to stay informed of new
trends and innovations in the fields of engineering design for modern water
distribution systems.
• Assists in the development of goals, objectives, policies, procedures and work
standards for engineering.
• Supervises the design of water and sewer system improvements; administers
privately funded water and sewer improvement projects designed by private
engineers from the plan checking stage through construction and acceptance of
the improvements by the District.
• Prepares legal descriptions; supervises field investigations and surveys;
prepares engineering calculations and construction cost estimates; Reviews and
coordinates engineering plans to construct, enlarge, and modify water system
facilities and determine impact of District operations; Visits work sites to monitor
progress on projects.
• Assists in the preparation of the Department budget and the Capital
Improvement Plan.
• Meets with property owners, developers, contractors, utility and governmental
representatives and engineers to review. District policy, procedures, schedules
and projects.
• Prepares a variety of records, periodic and special reports related to department
activities; reviews and coordinates the preparation of drawings and specifications
to be used for construction projects; may direct the bidding process, awarding of
contracts, construction management and inspection of projects and directs
consultants involved in performing phases of capital projects.
• Administers the District’s Emergency Preparedness Program with the help of
other District Staff.
• Represents the District at Water Emergency Response at Orange County
(WEROC) and with the Orange County EOC.
• Responsible for updating the District’s Emergency Plan.
Associate Engineer
Page 3
• Manages the District’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to ensure the
District’s readiness to respond to emergencies.
QUALIFICATIONS
The level and scope of the knowledge and skills listed below are related to
experience, proficiency and complexity of work activities as specified under Class
Characteristics.
Knowledge Of:
• Principles and practices of civil engineering and other related engineering
disciplines, with emphasis on the planning, design, construction and operation
of water supply and distribution systems and facilities.
• Principles and practices of project management, contract development, safety
regulations, negotiation and development.
• Federal, state and local laws relating to water quality, treatments, storage,
distribution, environmental permits (CEQA) and air emissions.
• Principles and practices of administration, long-range capital planning
Abilities:
• Planning, organizing, administering and coordinating a variety of complex
engineering programs and services.
• Directing, reviewing and evaluating the work of consultants and contractors.
• Planning, organizing, coordinating, reviewing and evaluating the work of
professional and technical staff.
• Analyzing complex problems, evaluating alternatives, and reaching sound
conclusions.
• Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with supervisors,
staff, other District personnel, and elected members of the Board of Directors.
• Representing the District effectively in contacts with other governmental
agencies, private firms, community and professional groups, customers and
the public.
• Respond to emergencies as necessary.
Typical Physical Activities
• Regularly required to stoop, stand, bend, sit and walk and go up and down
stairs.
• Travels frequently by motor vehicle in conducting District business.
• Frequently walks in uneven terrain, in an outdoor environment, making
inspections of District facilities and construction projects.
• Possesses the ability to carry 30 pounds of equipment short distances.
Associate Engineer
Page 4
• Must be able to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing with co-
workers and customers.
• Regularly uses a telephone for communication.
• Uses office equipment such as computer terminals, copiers, and fax machines.
• Sits for extended time periods.
Required Qualifications
Any combination of education and experience which would likely provide the
necessary knowledge and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge
and abilities would be:
Education: Graduation from a four year college or university with a degree in civil
engineering or a related field. This position does not require a P.E.
Experience: Three years of responsible engineering and project management
experience in an organization similar to this District. Experience in working with an
elected Board or Commission is desirable.
Other Requirements:
Driver’s License: A valid Class “C” California driver’s license and the ability to
maintain insurability under the District’s vehicle insurance program.
Approved by the following:
__________________________________________
Department Manager Date
__________________________________________
Human Resources Manager Date
ITEM NO. 9.6
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
To:Board of Directors
Funding Source:N/A
From:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Presented By:Gina Knight, HR/Risk Manager
Reviewed by Legal:No
Prepared By:Amelia Cloonan, Human
Resources Analyst
Subject:Potential Claim Filed by Law Offices of Robert A. Stutman, P.C.on behalf of
Mercury Insurance Group, insurer for Charles Busch.
SUMMARY:
Notice was received by the District on November 27, 2013 of a potential claim for damages.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors reject the potential claim submitted by the Law Offices of Robert A.
Stutman, P.C. on behalf of Mercury Insurance Group, the insurer for Charles Busch, and refer it to
ACWA/JPIA.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Personnel-Risk Management Committee discussed this matter at its meeting held December
10, 2013 and supports staff's recommendation.
DISCUSSION:
A letter was received at the District on November 27, 2013 from a law firm representing Mercury
Insurance Group. Mercury's insured is Charles Busch whose property is located at 3525 Fairmont
Blvd., Yorba Linda, CA.
The letter from the Law Offices of Robert A. Stutman, P.C. alleges a water loss occurred on July 1,
2013 at Mr. Busch's property causing damages estimated at $15,000. Claimant states that the water
loss may involve the corrosion of a copper pipe due to additives placed in the water by the Yorba
Linda Water District.
The District wishes to reject and refer this potential claim to ACWA Joint Powers Insurance
Authority for investigation, appraisal and handling.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
Mercury_Insurance_Group_Claim_112013.pdf Backup Material Backup Material
Approved by the Board of Directors of the
Yorba Linda Water District
12/23/2013
RC/MB 5-0
Including a request that Mr. Kidman's office
draft a memo notifying MWDSC and
MWDOC's legal counsel of this claim and
potential litigation.
ITEM NO. 9.7
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
To:Board of Directors
From:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Presented By:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Prepared By:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Subject:Completion of 2013 Water Leaders Class and WEF Board Member
Participation
SUMMARY:
The District's Water Quality Engineer, Derek Nguyen, has completed the program for the Water
Education Foundation's (WEF's), Water Leaders Class of 2013. A copy of his memo summarizing
his experience in the program is attached. Also provided is a copy of the report prepared by the
Water Leaders Class on their research into "Stormwater as a Resource." In addition, Derek's 20
peers in the Water Leaders Class of 2013 nominated him to serve on the WEF Board, and the WEF
Board has approved his nomination. Approval is requested by the YLWD Board for Derek's time and
expenses to attend and participate in the quarterly WEF Board meetings for a three-year term.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors approve the participation of Derek Nguyen as a member of the Board of
the Water Education Foundation for calendar years 2014 through 2016, and authorize his time and
related expenses in accordance with District Policy therefore.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee discussed this matter at its meeting held
December 17, 2013 and support staff's recommendation.
DISCUSSION:
On January 24, 2013, the Board approved the participation of Derek Nguyen in the WEF's Water
Leaders Class of 2013. Derek has successfully completed the year-long program. He has
summarized his experiences and the benefits of the program in the attached memo. As a part of the
program, WEF selects a topic for the class to investigate and to provide a summary report. A copy
of their report on "Stormwater as a Resource" is attached.
As noted in the Summary above, Derek's peers in the Water Leaders Class selected him as the
Water Leaders representative for the WEF Board, and the Board approved his nomination for a
three-year term. Derek's participation on the WEF Board and interaction with water professionals
from throughout California would be beneficial to both Derek and the District. This is an honor and
an opportunity for the participation of District staff on a state-wide water organization for which
Board approval is recommended.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
WE 1-F: Encourage Staff Participation in Professional Organizations and Local Civic Groups
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
Memo_-
_Completion_of_2013_Water_Leaders_Program.doc Memo - Completion of 2013 Water Leaders Class Backup Material
2013_Water_Leaders_Class_Final_Report.pdf Final Report - 2013 Water Leaders Class Backup Material
Final_Presentation_Scripts_20131202.pdf 2013 Water Leaders - Presentation Script Backup Material
WEF_Board_Member.pdf Backup Material Backup Material
Approved by the Board of Directors of the
Yorba Linda Water District
12/23/2013
PH/GM 5-0
MemoMemoMemoMemo
To: Steve Conklin, Acting General Manager
Date: December 3, 2013
From: Derek Nguyen, Water Quality Engineer
Subject:
Completion of 2013 Water Leaders Program
Urgent
For Review
Please Comment
Please Reply
Comments:
Dear Steve,
In December 2012, I was selected by the Water Education Foundation (WEF) to participate in the Water
Leaders Class of 2013 (Class). The Water Leaders program is designed to provide leadership training and
water education by introducing participants to expert mentors in various water-related industries. Through
the program, I attended several training and education meetings, including tours of major water facilities
throughout California and have met some highly influential individuals in the water industry, ranging
from large private consulting firms, to NGO’s and environmental groups to law makers, and
representatives from State and Federal agencies. Thanks to the Board of Directors support, my
participation in this program has been extremely valuable in expanding my knowledge and education of
the California water system, its history and politics.
This year, WEF selected “Stormwater as a Resource” as the topic for the 2013 Water Leaders. The Class
brought together 21 young professionals from a mix of private, public and non-profit sectors in the water
and natural resource management fields to research stormwater and interview industry experts on the
challenges and potential opportunities in stormwater management.
Yesterday, December 2, 2013 the Class presented its report to WEF’s Board of Directors at its 4th
quarterly meeting in downtown Los Angeles and graduated as 2013 Water Leaders. The Class conducted
the presentation in a format of a mock legislative session to approve a new legislative bill designed to
support the formation of local watershed authorities throughout the state in an effort to facilitate
integrated regional stormwater management. As identified in the report, the key challenges found by the
Class facing stormwater management in California are insufficient funding, lack of integration between
agencies, ineffective regulations and difficulty in implementation, and limitations in localized monitoring.
Based on these findings and the information received from expert mentors, the Class recommended a
legislative bill that would support a watershed-based approach to stormwater planning and management
through financial incentives administered by the State Water Resources Control Board to encourage a
more integrated approach to stormwater management in California. A copy of the Class final report and
presentation is included with this memo for your use.
As part of the Water Leaders Program, each year, one water leader from the Class is chosen to serve a
three-year term as a Board Member on the Foundation’s Board. In a letter dated November 19, 2013,
WEF indicated that its Nominating Committed has nominated me to serve on its Board. I’m very happy to
share with you that on December 2, 2013, at its quarterly meeting, the WEF Board of Directors voted to
approve my nomination to serve a three-year term as its newest Board Member beginning January 2014.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for your support and the Board of Directors approval of my
participation in this program. Through the process, I have gained a great wealth of information regarding
California water issues and the challenges the state continues to face. The program helped to expand my
professional network by providing opportunities to collaborate and work with other water professionals
and to learn from expert mentors. The knowledge and experiences gained will no doubt equip me well as
I continue to grow and develop my career with the District. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to
represent the District in this capacity and to complete the program which I feel privileged to have been
selected.
Page | 1
SubmittedAby:
2013AWaterALeadersAClass
PreparedAfor:
STORMW TER:A AChallengingAResource
RecommendationsAforAanAIntegratedARegionalAManagementA pproach
DecemberA2013
Page | 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Background ............................................................................................................................................. 6
What is Stormwater? ........................................................................................................................ 6
State of Stormwater ......................................................................................................................... 7
Current Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 7
Federal Regulations .................................................................................................................. 7
State Regulations ...................................................................................................................... 8
Legislation: .......................................................................................................................... 8
State General Obligation (GO) Bonds: ............................................................................... 9
Constitutional Reforms: ....................................................................................................... 9
Local Regulations ...................................................................................................................... 9
Challenges Facing Stormwater Management ...................................................................................... 11
Funding Challenges ....................................................................................................................... 11
Federal and State Funding Sources ........................................................................................ 11
Regional and Local Funding Sources ..................................................................................... 12
Implications of Propositions 13 and 218 .................................................................................. 13
Institutional Challenges .................................................................................................................. 14
Implementation and Regulatory Challenges .................................................................................. 15
Monitoring Challenges ................................................................................................................... 15
General Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 16
Source Control ............................................................................................................................... 16
Improving Regulation ..................................................................................................................... 17
Federal Level ........................................................................................................................... 17
State and Local Levels ............................................................................................................ 17
Proposed Draft Legislation ............................................................................................................. 18
What the Proposed Draft Legislation D oes and Does Not Address ........................................ 19
Long-Term Vision ................................................................................................................................. 21
List of Tables
Table 1. 2013 Water Leaders Class and Stormwater Mentors .............................................................. 5
List of Figures
Figure 1. Historical timeline summarizing major stormwater regulations and funding reforms ............ 10
List of Appendices
Appendix A: 2013 Water Leaders Class Consolidated Mentor Responses ......................................... 23
Appendix B: Proposed Legislative Bill .................................................................................................. 42
Page | 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contaminants in stormwater runoff can contribute substantially to the impairment of downstream
water bodies. Current federal, state, and local regulations treat stormwater as a pollutant with strict
management requirements and are not entirely effective in addressing the underlying environmental,
flood control, and water supply goals for stormwater. With stormwater’sAcomplex challenges and the
potential for exciting opportunities, the Water Education Foundation selectedA“StormwaterAasAaA
Resource”Aas the topic for the William R. Gianelli Water Leaders Class of 2013 (Class).
The Class brought together 21 young professionals from a mix of private, public and non-profit sectors in
the water and natural resource management fields to research stormwater and interview industry
experts on the challenges and potential opportunities in stormwater management. The following report
details the Class effort to summarize current regulations, highlight critical challenges, and provide
strategic recommendations leading to proposed draft legislation that aims to shift the paradigm of
stormwater management in the State of California.
The 2013 Water Leaders Class found that the key challenges
facing stormwater management generally fell into the
following categories:
Insufficient funding;
Lack of integration between agencies;
Difficulty in implementation of regulations;
Ineffective regulations; and
Limitations in localized monitoring.
Through interviews with Mentors and additional research,
the Class came to the conclusion that watershed level management of stormwater with general permits
supporting source control, interagency collaboration and educational campaigns, would provide the
most effective basis to achieve meaningful changes to improve the health of our watersheds. The Class
used these findings to draft legislation (a proposed Assembly Bill) that would help local communities and
governmental agencies fund stormwater programs and overcome institutional and regulatory
challenges.
The proposed bill supports a watershed-based approach to stormwater planning and management
through financial incentives, administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), for
voluntarily forming Watershed Management Authorities to plan integrated approaches to stormwater
management. This proposed bill also encourages communities to apply for regional water quality
permits and directs the SWRCB to support regional permits. Our hope is that the proposed bill will
incentivize innovative solutions centered on the watershed scale that foster relationships between
stakeholders and helps make the case for communities to invest in stormwater management. It is our
vision that this approach will ultimately lead to an increase in new examples of stormwater capture and
reuse, low impact development, source control, and public outreach and education that can be
duplicated in other areas of the country.
Page | 4
INTRODUCTION
Stormwater generally is regarded as waste, a consequence of growth and urban development. It is a
byproduct to be dealt with, corralled, and controlled. However, stormwater holds a secret promise.
What if stormwater was regarded as a resource? While it may carry trash and pollutants, it also holds
the potential to recharge depleted groundwater basins, nourish watersheds and replenish drinking
water supplies.
The following report gathers the cumulative knowledge, ideas and inspiration of the William R. Gianelli
Water Leaders Class of 2013. The 2013 Water Leaders Class, an eclectic group representing public,
private and nonprofit sectors, were individually paired with established stormwater professionals who
acted as Mentors, sharing their knowledge and experience by educating the Water Leaders Class.
Mentors included representatives from federal and state regulatory agencies, local governments, legal
firms, and non-profits. Table 1 introduces each member of the 2013 Water Leaders Class and their
assigned Mentor.
EachAofAtheAMentorsAcontributedAaAuniqueAperspectiveAtoAtheAgroup’sAunderstandingAofAtheAchallengesA
and opportunities facing stormwater management. The Mentors helped the Water Leaders Class
understand the intricacies of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits,
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), and Low Impact Development (LID). In an effort to
gauge and summarize perspectives across such a diverse group, each Water Leader interviewed their
Mentor using a list of questions developed by the class. Question language and a summary of
consolidated Mentor responses can be found in Appendix A. From this process a few key observations
emerged, agreed on by both the Water Leaders and Mentors, regarding how stormwater is currently
managed:
Despite the comprehensive regulatory atmosphere, current stormwater controls are missing
the point, and compliance enforcement is extensive, expensive and lengthy.
The current regulatory framework falls short of generating effective water quality
protection. This is evidenced by the number of Clean Water Act 303(d) listings that are
attributed to urban runoff.
True effectiveness of regulations and compliance should be measured in downstream
habitats and receiving waters. That is, focusing on local numerical benchmarks of pollutant
loads is less significant than examining the overall health of each watershed.
When stormwater is viewed and managed from a watershed level, it can be reconsidered as
a potential resource for groundwater recharge, sustainable ecosystems, human recreation
and water supply.
These observations set the course for how the 2013 Water Leaders Class evaluated the current state of
stormwater, the challenges it faces, and the recommendations for moving forward. As you read this
report, the 2013 Water Leaders Class invite you to rethink stormwater as a valuable resource forAtoday’sA
responsible water management.
Page | 5
Table 1. 2013 Water Leaders Class and Stormwater Mentors
Water Leader Mentor
Jarvis Caldwell, Aquatic Science Manager,
Hydroelectric Services
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Eric Berntsen, Environmental Scientist,
Industrial/Construction
State Water Resources Control Board
Shaun Horne, Watershed & Flood Control Resource
Specialist
Napa County Flood Control District
Tom Mumley, Assistant Executive Officer
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
Holly Jorgensen, Acting Executive Director
Sacramento River Watershed Program
Pamela Creedon, Executive Officer
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
Amy Kwong, Senior Engineer
West Yost Associates
Noah Garrison, Project Attorney – Water Program
Natural Resources Defense Council
Dustin La Vallee, Associate Civil Engineer
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Elizabeth Lee, Senior Engineer and Municipal
Stormwater Unit Supervisor
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
Sandra Lynch, Water Quality and Environmental
Compliance Specialist
California American Water
Carmel Brown, Executive Advisor
Department of Water Resources
Shane McCoin, Associate Attorney
Ellison, Schneider & Harris
Kelye McKinney, Engineering Manager
City of Roseville
Linda Esteli-Mendez, Research Analyst
Environmental Defense Fund
Eugene Bromley, Stormwater Coordinator
U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency Region IX
Brandon Minto, Deputy District Director
Congressman John Garamendi (CA-03)
Felicia Marcus, Board Chair
California State Water Resources Control Board
David Mooney, Program Engineer
Bureau of Reclamation
Katherine Wagner, Senior Partner
Downey Brand, LLP
Derek Nguyen, Water Quality Engineer
Yorba Linda Water District
Richard Boon, Chief – OC Stormwater Program
County of Orange
Ashley Orsaba-Finders, Senior Civil Engineer
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Rich Atwater, Executive Director
Southern California Water Committee
Audrey Patterson, Associate Attorney
O'Laughlin & Paris LLP
Jonathan Bishop, Chief Deputy Director
State Water Resources Control Board
Caitrin Phillips Chappelle, Policy Associate
Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC)
Alexis Strauss, Water Division Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
Howard Quan, Legislative Consultant
Office of Assemblymember Paul Fong
Dave Tamayo, Environmental Specialist 4
County of Sacramento
Laura Rocha, Managing Associate
Environmental Science Associates
Garry Brown, Chief Executive Officer
Orange County Coastkeeper
Brinda Sarathy, Professor
Pitzer College
Mark Grey, Director of Environmental Affairs
Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc
Andrew Schwarz, Senior Engineer, Strategic Water
Planning Branch
California Department of Water Resources
Victoria Whitney, Deputy Director for Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
Jessi Snyder, Senior Community Development
Specialist
Self-Help Enterprises
Tess Dunham, Attorney
Somach Simmons & Dunn
Eric Tsai, Water Resources Engineer, CV Flood
Planning Office
California Department of Water Resources
Terri Fashing , Stormwater Program Manager
County of Marin
Kristin White, Modeler
Bureau of Reclamation
Greg Gearheart, Senior WRCE, Industrial/Construction
Unit
State Water Resources Control Board
Page | 6
BACKGROUND
What is Stormwater?
Historically, stormwater in the United States has been
treated as something to be collected, conveyed, and
discharged away as nuisance water. Stormwater picks
up municipal, industrial, and commercial pollutants
such as bacteria, pesticides, heavy metals, oils, and
sediment. All of these pollutants have contributed
serious harm to environmental health and public
health and safety. As such, stormwater pollution is a
major cause of the degradation of wetlands, rivers,
estuaries, and the ocean.
Before widespread environmental awareness and
regulation, stormwater and its associated conveyance
facilities were commonly thought of as dumping
grounds for waste and other by-products. The advent
of the environmental movement caused the general
public and governments to notice the impacts of
polluted stormwater on the environment, which brought about groundbreaking regulation under the
federal Clean Water Act.
In the 1990s, the USEPA began focusing on the second generation of problems targeted under the Clean
Water Act – polluted runoff that impairs water quality for human and ecological uses. (The first
generation of Clean Water Act efforts concentrated on wastewater treatment and reducing other
“point”AsourcesAofApollutionAsuch as industrial discharges.) Initially only the largest urban areas
(populations above 100,000) were required to obtain pollution management permits for urban
stormwater. However, since the 2000s, smaller municipalities and counties (populations above 50,000)
have also come under the law, which now requires separate permitting requirements for some high-
impact sectors and activities (e.g., general construction and Caltrans for highways). Up until now, the
main focus of stormwater was on improving water quality and mitigating hydromodification impacts.
However, with the increasing demand for water supply in California, attitudes have changed, and
stormwater is now beginning to be looked upon as a potential resource, especially in water-scarce
Southern California.
In recent years, many innovative land use practices and Low Impact Development strategies such as rain
gardens, green roofs, water catchment systems and a variety of treatment approaches have been
developed to improve the quality of stormwater and increase infiltration. There have also been
advances in source control through the regulation of pollutants of concern and advances in green
chemistry. There is also recognition that current regulations and institutions have limitations and may
need to be expanded to comprehensively manage stormwater pollution.
Definition of Stormwater
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) defines
stormwaterAasA“runoffAthatAoccursAwhenA
precipitation from rain or snowmelt flows
over the ground. Impervious surfaces like
driveways, sidewalks, and streets prevent
stormwater runoff from naturally soaking
intoAtheAground.”AForAtheApurposesAofAthisA
report, we use the same definition, but
expand it to include runoff from urban
water use as a source of stormwater
beyond rain and precipitation (for
example from landscape overwatering or
other outdoor water use).
Page | 7
State of Stormwater
The National Research Council (NRC) developed a report in 2009, Urban Stormwater Management in the
United States, that reviewed the current state of urban stormwater management in the United States.
The goal of that report was to determine how pollutants affect stormwater, evaluate the effectiveness
of monitoring and current permit requirements and make recommendations to improve the current
permitting process. The report examined the challenges that result from conflicts among stormwater
management and flood control, the self-reporting regulatory approach, an ineffective
monitoring/enforcement program, minimal regulation of heavily contributing products and inadequate
federal funding. Together these challenges result in a nationwide stormwater management approach
that is not effective in achieving water quality goals in the impaired water bodies in the United States.
The NRC developed many improvements to address these challenges, but the key general
recommendation was to move away from individual site permitting to a watershed-based permitting
process. This would require stormwater discharge regulation on a watershed-wide level with goals to
improve or stop degradation of the water bodies within the regional watershed.
Within California, due to the vast geographical, population, and climate variation statewide, there have
historically been different views towards stormwater. The less-populous northern half of the state
typically receives much more rainfall than the southern half and tends to be more focused on viewing
stormwater as a flood threat rather than a resource. The densely populated Southern California has
historically been water scarce and supplements limited local supplies with water imported from the
Sacramento River, Colorado River, and other remote sources. With such limited local supply, the idea
that stormwater can be used as a source of supplemental supply has gained ground and is being
implemented in many areas. Generally, areas with supply or pollution concerns have been more
progressive in implementing innovative or new approaches for stormwater reuse, regulation, and
collaboration.
Current Regulations
Federal Regulations
The federal Clean Water Act and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) were
originally implemented by the USEPA to focus on point sources of industrial pollution. Stormwater and
the pollutants it carries gained attention in the 1970s. However, at that time only point source
discharges such as wastewater treatment plants were regulated. In 1987, Congress included industrial
and municipal stormwater as point source discharges in the
Clean Water Act and required these entities to obtain NPDES
discharge permits. USEPA also allowed for individual states to
implement its own stormwater program, which the State of
California does within the authority of the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board’s branches of the State of California
Environmental Protection Agency (CALEPA).
Under the regulation of the NPDES, USEPA split the regulation
into two phases - Phase I and Phase II. The Phase I regulation
required construction sites (five acres or more), industrial
Page | 8
dischargers, and municipalities (MS4s) of more than 100,000 people to obtain permits by 1991 for
stormwater discharge. In 2003, Phase II rules were implemented that required all municipalities,
industrial dischargers, construction sites (one acre or more), and other large organizations to obtain
NPDES permits for stormwater discharge.
State Regulations
Under its authority to implement and regulate NPDES rules, CALEPA implemented the following four
separate permitting programs:
Caltrans Permit: The SWRCB issued a discharge permit to Caltrans in 1999 which regulated
allAdischargesAfromAtheAagency’sAMS4s,AmaintenanceAfacilities,AandAconstructionAactivities.
The permit was reissued by the SWRCB in 2012.
Construction General Permit: The SWRCB requires all construction sites in excess of one acre
to obtain coverage and comply with the Statewide General Permit for Discharges of Storm
Water Associated with Construction Activity.
Industrial Permit: The SWRCB requires all industrial stormwater dischargers to obtain
permits for stormwater discharge under the Industrial Storm Water General Permit.
Municipal Permit: The SWRCB regulates stormwater discharges from municipalities and co-
permittee municipalities through MS4 permits. All Phase II permittees were required to
comply with the most recent Phase II Small MS4 General Permit by July 1, 2013.
Since 1949, there have been several laws, general obligation bonds, and constitutional reforms passed
at the state level, which have impacted the way stormwater is managed and funded in California. These
are discussed briefly below.
Legislation:
Dickey Water Pollution Act of 1949: Created the State Water Pollution Control Board and
nineARegionalABoardsAtoAoverseeAandAenforceAtheAState’sApollutionApreventionAand
abatement program.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969: Considered the cornerstone of modern
clean water legislation. The Act gave the SWRCB and the Regional Boards a stronger
framework for regulation of water pollution.
Assembly Bill (AB) 739: Created a Storm Water Advisory Task Force to provide advice to the
SWRCB on its Storm Water Management Program including program priorities, funding
criteria, project selection for Proposition (Prop) 84 monies, and interagency coordination of
State agencies and programs that handle stormwater management.
Senate Bill (SB) 790: The Stormwater Resources Planning Act created a new framework for
municipalities to put stormwater to beneficial use and mitigate impacts. The bill encouraged
municipalities to manage stormwater as a source for water supply, with attention to flood
prevention, stormwater pollution mitigation, and wildlife restoration.
Page | 9
State General Obligation (GO) Bonds:
Prop 84: Under the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and
Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, the Stormwater Grant Program provides
approximately $50 million in grant funding for the SWRCB to assist local public agencies with
grants for stormwater projects that reduce pollution.
Prop 50: Under the 2002 Water Security Bond, approximately $3.44 billion was provided for
water programs. Remaining funds were allocated to stormwater projects under SB 790.
Prop 40: The Urban Storm Water Grant Program provided grant funds to be used to assist
agencies with planning and implementation of stormwater projects.
Constitutional Reforms:
Prop 13: Passed in 1978, among other items, the proposition requires a two-thirds majority
vote in local elections for local entities that wish to increase special taxes. This proposition
and its sister bills have contributed to the issue of under-funding for stormwater programs
statewide.
Prop 218: Passed in 1996, the proposition requires local governments to put new or
increased assessments to a majority vote of property owners before it can be levied. Similar
to Prop 13, this proposition also contributes to the issue of under-funding for stormwater
programs statewide due to the reluctance of voters to increase taxes or assessment upon
themselves.
A historical timeline of significant federal and state stormwater regulations and funding reforms is
shown on Figure 1.
Local Regulations
Most local municipalities or other governments have implemented stormwater control regulations as
part of their MS4 permits. The MS4 permit requirements have led to the implementation of Low Impact
Development (LID) site development requirements, public outreach and education campaigns,
stormwater organizations, and a variety of other individualized rules and guidance that municipalities
have developed for their unique circumstances. An example of one such local program is the City of
Roseville’sAEco-Friendly Charity Car Wash Program, which provides storm drain protection car wash kits
to charities free of charge.
Page | 10
Figure 1. Historical timeline summarizing major stormwater regulations and funding reforms
Page | 11
CHALLENGES FACING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The management and regulation of stormwater in the United States is faced with many challenges that
make improvement or reform a difficult task. The challenges that face stormwater management today
are typically related to funding, public awareness, institutional organization, regulation implementation,
and monitoring.
Funding Challenges
Currently, there are not enough funding sources for stormwater management despite the increasing
regulation and requirements that municipalities must comply with. Municipalities are faced with
competing for sources from the general funds than ever before, a situation that has been made worse
by the slow economic reality of the past several years. This funding gap stretches municipalities’
budgets, leading to prioritization away from stormwater management to other critical services.
Statewide bond measures have successfully passed and provided funding for stormwater projects.
However, the need for stormwater funding sources is much greater in scope and cost than these bond
packages are able to provide. Attempts to increase funding for stormwater improvements are often
unsuccessful as local jurisdictions must approve new taxes or fees via a majority vote, and many voters
are unwilling to increase the taxes or fees that they pay, especially in depressed economic conditions. By
asking residents and communities to pay for a non-tangible benefit for a perceived naturally occurring
process is a tough task. While the general public recognizes that systems must be in place to provide tap
water or to have sewage water removed, the systems required for effective stormwater management
are less obvious.
Although many states have statewide general permits, direct stormwater management is often handled
at the local level by limiting individual dischargers and treating for particular contaminants. These local
communities are responsible for meeting the federal or State issued mandates, but receive no federal or
State funding to carry out their implementation. This often results in a smaller community paying a
proportionally higher cost to treat issues that originate elsewhere in the watershed. This problem is
compounded by lack of federal and State financial support for stormwater management in these local
communities.
Available funding for stormwater comes in many different forms, which all have their own advantages
and disadvantages, but together still do not meet the budget necessary to implement effective
stormwater management. Currently, the funding for stormwater management comes from pulling funds
from a variety of federal, State, regional, and local sources, with the mix of funding varying by
municipality.
Federal and State Funding Sources
Federal and State Grants: Federal and state grants are available for stormwater
management, but often require fund matching from local communities. This matching
requires contribution from the local population. In addition to the fund matching, not all
costs of a project are eligible for reimbursement, which can result in a higher local cost. The
application process for grants includes an inherent risk, because it is often time-consuming
Page | 12
with no guarantee of success. Current opportunities within California are Prop 84 funds
(State) and CWA Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants (federal).
State GO Bonds: Bonds can raise funds for infrastructure development, but their use is
either very competitive or requires significant work on behalf of the local community.
State Revolving Fund: State revolving funds (i.e., loans) could be used to fund large capital
projects, but are not for the daily management of stormwater. Historically, there have been
little State revolving funds for stormwater, but it is a funding mechanism that is now being
investigated. Since State revolving funds don't require large annual infusions of money, they
are promising for future projects.
Regional and Local Funding Sources
General Funds: When a dedicated stormwater funding mechanism is not in place,
stormwater management is relegated to using general funds. General funds can vary
drastically from year to year in step with the local economy. These same general funds also
provide funding for public safety and emergency services, creating enormous competition
for the limited funds. Although stormwater management has a very real impact in the
community, prioritizing this impact over that of public safety is a major challenge that often
results in little to no funding. Many municipalities use general funds as their sole funding
mechanism for stormwater.
Development Fees: Municipalities can pay for stormwater controls through the Specific Plan
process which allows community facility districts to be formed and funded for new
development; however, this is often not enough to cover on-going management of
stormwater programs. Few stormwater districts exist in California; more common are
wastewater and flood control districts. A stormwater fee for new development only covers
the cost of stormwater management attributed to the new development and would not
fund work to improve the quality of runoff from existing development. In communities that
are no longer growing, this method cannot be used to pay for increased regulations.
Property Taxes: Property taxes have been strongly used in the past to fund stormwater
management as much of the pollution comes from runoff from property. Some funding
could be generated from higher property taxes; however, changes to property taxes are
paired with many challenges due to Propositions 13 and 218 as explained in the following
section.
Stormwater Utility and/or Drainage Fees: Presently, one of the most common funding
mechanisms is a stormwater fee levied onto homeowners by cities. A stormwater utility fee
is the typical funding mechanism that is being used by municipalities in the Central Valley
region to pay for stormwater management, infrastructure, and operations and maintenance
costs. If structured correctly, utility fees can provide a stable, reliable revenue source that is
sufficient to cover costs. Like property taxes, however, there are limitations due to
Propositions 13 and 218 as explained in the following section.
Special District Fund: Special Districts can charge permit fees to discharge stormwater into a
municipal sewer system. This requires individual property owners to have a permit to cover
Page | 13
stormwater discharge. An available tool that is not widely used is SB 310 which authorizes a
permittee or co-permittee under an NPDES permit for a municipal separate storm sewer
system (MS4) to charge a fee to develop a watershed improvement plan (WIP) to address
stormwater issues.
Extended producer responsibility (i.e., making the waste producers pay for final disposal and clean-up of
their waste product) is another mechanism to generate funds that do not require new fees or taxes for
residents. These would only apply to the manufacturer of a specific product whose use is directly
impairing the water quality of a water body such as fertilizer or cigarettes. Added fees would fund
programs to help remove these contaminants from the local water ways. Extended producer
responsibility ensures that the manufacturer of the product is responsible for its final disposal in an
appropriate manner. An example of this would be used tire collection facilities that are funded by the
tire manufacturers. However, this funding mechanism is a challenge because it requires a large
commitmentAorAcostAfromAtargetedAmanufacturersAtoAprovideAaAserviceAthatAhasn’tAbeenApaidAforAinAtheA
past. ThisAeffortAwouldAneedAtoAbeAledAbyAsomeoneAwhoAwasAconfidentAthatAtheAmanufacturer’sAproductA
was largely responsible for particular contaminants and by someone who is not fearful of losing financial
support in future elections.
Implications of Propositions 13 and 218
The above local funding mechanisms are all challenging to implement due to the passage of Propositions
13 and 218 by California voters. Prop 13 constrains local governments' ability to raise property taxes and
specifies that any local tax imposed to pay for specific governmental programs must be approved by
two-thirds of the voters. Since the passage of Prop 13, many local governments have relied increasingly
upon other revenue tools to finance local services, most notably: assessments, property-related fees,
and a variety of small general purpose taxes (such as hotel, business license, and utility user taxes).
Prop 218 was passed by California voters in November 1996 to ensure that all property taxes and fees
are subject to voter approval in order to prevent property-related funds being used for services that are
not property related. Prop 218 established requirements for a two-thirds majority approval vote for use
of these other funds. The only way to change Prop 218 would be to modify or repeal it by an
amendment to the California Constitution.
Prop 218 requires ballots to be mailed to each property owner, a public hearing be held and votes to be
‘weighted’AproportionalAtoAtheArelativeAfee-payment (e.g., if the fee amount is based on the size of the
property, then the vote of an owner of a property twice as large gets twice the vote). This process alone
prevents legislators and community leaders from trying to increase funding for stormwater
management and reform the current regulatory process. A significant advertising campaign is also
necessary to educate and attempt to persuade a super-majority to voluntarily increase their taxes.
Obtaining a majority of votes is a challenge due to low voter participation, and when voters do
participate, the fees must be proportionate to the cost of providing service. Few Prop 218 taxes have
passed while the cost to attempt them has been huge. Other utility fees including water, sewer, and
solid waste fees are exempted from the voter requirement which makes stormwater an isolated utility
that faces this challenge.
Page | 14
Further complicating this challenge is that urban runoff is a property-related issue; however, the State
MS4 NPDES Permit covers any pollutant with a connection to urbanization including trash, mercury
exposure reduction program (MERP), etc. This makes property owners in a specific community less
inclined to pay an additional tax or fee for a service that benefits all residences within the watershed.
Post Prop-218, some municipalities have been successful in getting voter approval of stormwater fees,
but only where there are compelling reasons for the community to support the stormwater controls. For
example, beach communities have better reasons to promote stormwater regulations and have voter
support to pay for it because they can suffer beach closures from water quality pollution, which in turn
affects their tourism-based economy. While this is promising for water-tourism based communities,
most of the communities within California do not have this benefit and therefore, lack the motivation to
impose additional taxes upon themselves.
Institutional Challenges
Institutional challenges in stormwater management originate from ineffective organization of the
agencies that manage or regulate stormwater quality and quantity. Many of these problems originate
because stormwater is a combination of both flood control and water supply which are almost always
controlled by different agencies with different missions.
Agencies which manage water supply and flood control have different goals, some of which may conflict
with each other. This conflict between agency goals can result in a lack of trust between agencies that
resonates into the communities they oversee. An example of this is the struggle between flood control
and improving stormwater quality. The objective of flood control is to move stormwater out of an area
as quickly as possible to avoid deep or standing water which can devastate property and threaten lives.
Unfortunately the fast moving water also picks up a plethora of pollutants from chemicals on the ground
to debris in neighborhoods. In order to limit the collection of these pollutants and debris, water must be
slowed down and given time to infiltrate into the ground, a direct contradiction to the goals of flood
control. The conflict is seen throughout communities when building codes require a large stormwater
outfall pipe to prevent flooding, but other organizations are pushing for rain gardens and green roofs to
minimize runoff. When this conflict is added on top of a society that already has a general distrust of
government and government spending, reform
of the organizational structure becomes a very
challenging task.
Even across the same issue of stormwater
quality, the organizations whose mission is to
improve a particular water body have trouble
with the lack of enforcement of self-mandated
regulations and the accuracy of self-reporting.
This often creates distrust between non-
government organizations that support efficient
stormwater management and the governmental
agencies that are responsible for stormwater
management.
Page | 15
The pollutants in stormwater vary across many different industries which results in conflict in managing
pollutants and the original product manufacturers. Pesticides, copper, gasoline, cigarettes and plastic
bags all contribute heavily to impaired water quality in many water bodies, but their regulation occurs in
various agencies whose programs are not integrated under the context of stormwater and pollution
management. Even within each agency there can be a lack of integration for unified goals of effective
stormwater management.
This lack of integration also applies to the communities themselves. Although primary responsibility for
carrying out stormwater regulations lies with the community, industries and highways that are regulated
separately lie within the community and operate under different permits with different requirements.
One key item that prevents integration among all agencies and departments is a failure to view
stormwater as a resource, but rather as a nuisance that must be removed quickly. Efforts to keep
stormwater as clean as possible and capture it for water supply would require integration and
cooperation among all water and contaminant related management and regulatory agencies. This would
require a substantial reform of the current stormwater management system.
Policies which aim to regulate stormwater must be clear and easy to implement and regulate or they
can become both regulatory and financial burden to smaller downstream permittees. In addition, most
policies are regulated by political boundaries rather than watershed boundaries. This leads to different
regulations within the same watershed and sometimes even for the same property.
Implementation and Regulatory Challenges
Stormwater management has developed as a regulatory process in the last few decades even though
heavy urban development has been occurring for over a century. This late-coming has resulted in newer
developments being responsible for the damage done by older developments which did not consider
stormwater management in its original design.
The current regulatory methods for ensuring appropriate stormwater management need to be
implemented and monitored in order to be effective. Often, the local agencies are responsible for
enforcing the requirements in the regulations but are not financially supported by the agencies that
issued the regulations (i.e., unfunded mandates). This often results in insufficient staff and equipment to
carry out the rigid regulations and is even worse for smaller communities. If regulations are not
enforced and are left to self-reporting, local communities have a difficult time determining the
effectiveness of particular management methods, sometimes leaving them unable to comply without
the proper tools.
Due to this implementation challenge, source control becomes a major challenge since the regulating
communities do not have adequate funding and staff to determine where the problems exist. In some
cases, a key cause of the impaired water body is a material that cannot be regulated at the local level.
For example, chemicals from classes of pesticides may be listed on CWA 303(d) lists and then regulated
by total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), with municipalities as the responsible party to meet and/or
monitor for the TMDL requirements for those chemicals; however, municipalities have no way to
regulate the upstream use of pesticides. In other words, they become responsible for dealing with
contamination that originates far afield.
Page | 16
Monitoring Challenges
When the regulations vary within a watershed and even between river miles, monitoring to view the
watershed as a whole becomes very challenging. An effective monitoring plan for a watershed would
require a big-picture plan that is not affected by the particular permit applications or jurisdictions. Due
to the self-regulating methodology of the NPDES program, the monitoring locations and methodologies
are not coordinated within the watershed to measure the effectiveness of the program as a whole, but
rather at individual sites to measure only the individual property. This individual focus leads to processes
which produce immediate measureable outcomes rather than large-scale, but less direct improvements
(such as best management practices), which may take time and more wide-spread implementation
before the benefits are realized.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Mentors for the 2013 Water Leaders Class identified a number of inadequacies in the current
regime of stormwater management (see section on Challenges Facing Stormwater Management), and
offered constructive recommendations for further improving water quality. Overall, experts in the
stormwater field agreed that:
Stormwater management should be managed at the
watershed scale rather than determined through
geopolitical boundaries;
There needs to be more effective communication and
collaboration among stakeholders, regulators, and
stormwater managers;
Continued public outreach and education is a necessary
and effective way to increase awareness about the
importance of stormwater management;
There needs to be a shift in focus to reducing sources of
pollution.
A more detailed overview of Mentor recommendations can be
found in Appendix A. Highlighted below are recommendations
related to source control of pollution and to improving stormwater
regulation at the different levels of governance.
Source Control
Mentors consistently stressed the need for the SWRCB to prioritize
source control of specific pollutants in order to attain water quality
endpoints, rather than relying primarily on broad guidelines and end of pipe treatment approaches.
Source reduction is when the pollutant never gets into the environment through methods such as
banning a product or reformulating products (green chemistry). Examples include disallowing plastic
bags in stores and banning certain pesticides for residential use. Experts suggested that legislative
efforts to reduce sources of pollution, such as removing copper from automobile brake pads, are critical
to improving water quality. Since much of the copper in stormwater runoff is in a dissolved form, the
Page | 17
type of treatment technologies that are most commonly retrofitted into storm drain systems – drain
inserts that remove trash and other solids – are not affective in removing copper. SB 346, for example,
requires that, in order to improve and protect the State's aquatic environment, the amount of copper in
brake pads sold in California needs to be reduced to 0.5 percent copper by weight by 2025. The bill also
creates limits and monitoring requirements for other brake pad materials.
Another source control approach mentioned by Mentors was the use of community based social
marketing (CBSM), which applies sociology towards public education and may be exemplified by “OurA
WaterAOurAWorld,A”AaApointAofAsaleAoutreachAcampaignAinAstoresAthatAsellApesticides.ATheAprogram
provides information on less toxic alternatives to pesticides and targets consumers, but also partners
with and trains the stores on less toxic alternatives. As a result of this campaign and staff training, some
stores have stopped selling some pesticides. Some Mentors indicated that organizing around stricter
local ordinances (i.e., banning plastic bags) could be more effective than a statewide or nationwide
regulation.
Improving Regulation
Federal Level
At the federal scale, many Mentors noted that the NPDES program is unable to address the vast amount
of non-point stormwater runoff, and USEPA efforts to update regulations have proven inefficient.
Mentors suggested that the USEPA focus on source reduction of contaminants by exercising more
regulatory oversight of national licensing of products that contribute significantly to stormwater
pollution. At the same time, some expert Mentors noted that these methods are narrow and targeted at
specific problems and generally take a long time to develop (e.g., the copper brake pad ban took around
ten years to transpire). In addition, state and federal government need to be convinced to use existing
regulatory authorities to benefit surface water quality. Finally, some Mentors suggested that the federal
government should provide more financial support to state and local efforts to regulate stormwater.
While this measure would probably be welcome by state and local institutions, the likelihood of any
increase in USEPA funding is slim given the federal budget deficit and on-going political gridlock in
Washington DC.
State and Local Levels
State and local agencies must also improve their communication and work with legislators to develop
cohesive management approaches to achieve the goals of stormwater regulations. Performing cost-
benefit analyses for new regulations, adding numeric limits to stormwater permits, and applying
regulations to existing development could all improve effectiveness. Facility-specific numeric effluent
limits based on characteristics of sit or industry was also recommended as a potentially more realistic
approach to developing numeric effluent limits on storm sewer systems due to data limitations.
At the municipal level, stormwater management is determined by geopolitical boundaries, which results
inAaA“permit-compliance”Amindset,AratherAthanAaAmoreAcomprehensiveAwatershedAscale attitude of
stewardship. Moreover, many municipalities have limited resources to address stormwater pollution
and regulation primarily revolves around implementing low cost, no regret actions. The net result of this
type of regulation does not add up to many measurable benefits and no regret actions are difficult to
appraise becauseAtheirAveryAnatureAprovidesAtheAobvious,Acan’t-lose choices.
Page | 18
From the MS4 perspective, water quality standards represent a much-needed area of regulatory reform.
Some Mentors noted that current water quality standards do not reflect the dynamic conditions found
in stormwater discharges or the intermittent nature of the discharges. The problem is particularly acute
for sanitary quality standards, where body contact recreation is not a practical beneficial use for safety
reasons in highly modified creek systems during runoff events in most parts of the country.
In general, flood control, wastewater, solid waste, and drinking water are programs within a MS4 that
could affect the stormwater program, yet they operate separately. MS4s should thus look at these
programs and seek opportunities for coordination and collaboration in order to more holistically reduce
run-off. Mentors repeatedly emphasized the need for future regulations to focus more on concrete
solutions (reducing specific source pollutants) and less on general programmatic solutions. For instance,
they suggested that municipalities identify what priority discharges are and address the most egregious
discharges first. In other words, address problems on a more specific basis, rather than at a high-level
general basis.
A number of Mentors also voiced concerns that while permit compliance has become more expensive
and lengthy, it has not led to more effective water quality protection. They suggested that the
effectiveness of stormwater management be assessed through the health of habitats downhill and that
of receiving waters, instead of relying so heavily on benchmarks for numeric effluent limitations.
Finally, Mentors recommended various instruments and policies to improve water quality/regulate
stormwater such as:
Taxes: For example a water quality tax on trash, such as taxes on cigarettes and plastic
manufacturers that would go towards trash collection.
More stringent trash policies: Expanding on current policies to reduce the source of trash
such as full trash collection at drain inlets, ordinances that encourage people to bring their
own containers to stores and restaurants, plastic bag bans, and styrofoam bans. Another
approach is intercepting the trash before it reaches waterways, which can be accomplished
through different methods such as the Low Impact Development (LID) approach and trash
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in Los Angeles.
Increased producer responsibility: There is a need for greater source control of pesticides as
those chemicals end up on CWA 303(d) listings (a list of impaired and threatened waters
listed by USEPA), and then municipalities would have to meet those water quality
requirements yet they have no way to stop the chemicals from entering the environment.
The next front in source control is producer responsibility and changing product formulas to
prevent pollutant generation.
Treatment: Keeping stormwater on-site, treating and then reusing it. This would help create
an additional source of water supply.
Education: Education of the public can promote greater source control as well. One public
campaign example is educating citizens that car wash runoff is highly polluted with
contaminants, which are harmful to the ocean.
Technology advances: Street sweepers, vacuum sweepers, centrifuges that spin sediment
out, and electric vehicles (using fewer fluids than normal cars).
Page | 19
Proposed Draft Legislation
Stormwater management today is largely a municipal function. Existing State law authorizes cities,
counties and special districts to develop and implement stormwater resource plans. The nature of
stormwater, however, leads us to conclude that it is perhaps best managed at the watershed level.
Runoff, urban or otherwise, spreads across broad geographical areas, collecting and redistributing
pollutants as it flows. Moving downstream, it carries contamination from distant areas to affect local
flora, fauna and human recreation. Pollutants can, and do, easily traverse city and county boundaries via
natural or manmade channels. A watershed-based approach to stormwater planning and management
would encourage local agencies to look upstream and downstream when considering runoff, and would
enhance each agency’sAability to protect their waterways, creating a whole greater than the sum of its
parts.
Echoing the integrated regional water management model already in place in California, the 2013 Water
Leaders Class proposes that a program be created which encourages and incentivizes collaboration
between local agencies. The agencies would voluntarily task themselves with reducing pollutant load
within their common watershed by implementing programs, projects and controls which best fit their
geographical region. The 2013 Water Leaders Class drafted a mock Assembly Bill that would provide for
the creation of such integrated plans, consistent with other existing plans, and allowing for functional
equivalents such as watershed management plans, urban water management plans, or other plans. The
proposed bill is included as Appendix B of this report.
As proposed, the bill would amend certain sections of the California Water Code, and would add,
“Stormwater Watershed Management Authority Act”AtoADivisionA6AofAthe California Water Code. The aim
of the Act is principally to encourage watershed scale management while reframing stormwater as a
resource, not as a waste product to be conveyed away from people and property. Properly managed,
stormwater can contribute to local water supplies through on-site storage and reuse or through
groundwater recharge, thereby increasing local available supplies of drinking water. As precipitation
patternsAchange,AandAanAincreasingAamountAofACalifornia’sAwaterAfallsAnotAasAsnowAinAtheAmountains, but
as rain in other areas of the state, the value of stormwater is clear.
If stormwater is embraced as a resource, then proactive protection of its quality should naturally follow.
Since water quality ignores jurisdictional boundaries, it also follows that greater results will be achieved
through watershed-level planning. The proposed legislation provides flexibility to create new watershed
level stormwater authorities that bring together different agencies and municipalities in an effort to
better integrate, coordinate, and when possible consolidate. In addition, the proposed bill allows the
SWRCB to support and encourage effective, watershed-based efforts to improve stormwater quality and
retain it for beneficial, multi-purpose uses through several funding opportunities. The proposed bill
requires the SWRCB to develop guidelines for awarding grants for watershed projects that enhance
water quality, to prioritize the prevention of pollution (rather than addressing its symptoms), and to
improve the stormwater discharge coordination and integration of monitoring efforts. The SWRCB is
further empowered to reward watershed-based efforts by waiving or reducing discharge fees and to
promote LID by funding pilot projects in disadvantaged communities and other locales. To address
funding challenges a third grant program would provide funds for watershed authorities to develop their
own local and sustainable funding source.
Page | 20
What the Proposed Draft Legislation Does and Does Not Address
The proposed legislation would address many of the challenges identified in stormwater management.
Primarily, the bill seeks to alleviate some of the funding challenges associated with stormwater
management; a problem that has only been exacerbated under the current fiscal climate. By making
grant funding available for the purpose of developing and implementing integrated watershed based
stormwater management plans, as well as grant funding for the Authority to develop a local funding
source to support stormwater programs, the bill attempts to reduce the current financial burden facing
stormwater agencies. While the grants can provide help with the process of developing a funding
source, which can include extensive expenses from research, polling, and public education the agencies
will have to rely on taxes and fees, which are all still limited in scope by Propositions 13 and 218.
Moreover, the proposed bill’s push to integrate stormwater management on a watershed scale serves
to limit common institutional challenges, and ease local regulatory and monitoring challenges, all while
improving regulation at the local and state level. The bill encourages cities, counties, special districts, or
others to form Watershed Management Authorities and foster collaboration on a regional watershed
approach to reduce the institutional challenges associated with siloed agencies focused on various
independent missions. Regional management of stormwater presents multi-purpose opportunities for
flood control, water supply, and recreation, as well as the protection, restoration and strong
stewardship of aquatic resources in a regional area.
Many of the regulatory and monitoring challenges of stormwater management stem from the
inefficiencies of local municipalities that lack the resources to adequately enforce or determine the
effectiveness of particular management methods, in addition to the self-regulating methodology of the
NPDES program, which deters coordinated monitoring locations and methodologies within a watershed.
A watershed-based approach to stormwater management, as called for in the proposed bill, allows for
the pooling of resources and provides for regional integration and prioritization of stormwater
initiatives. This collaboration allows for coordinated planning, implementation and monitoring aimed at
meeting regional water quality objectives, while broadly sharing the associated burden amongst the
municipalities in the watershed.
Current stormwater regulation at the state and local level drive geopolitical boundaries that result in
“permit-compliance”AmindsetsAandAlimitAtheAresourceAmanagementApotentialAinsideAofAaAwatershed.A
Coupled with the existing regulatory environment, MS4 flood control, wastewater, solid waste, and
drinking water programs all operate separately and yet could affect stormwater programs and
management. By encouraging regional watershed integration in conjunction with the SWRCB, the
proposed bill transforms regulation away from these geopolitical boundaries and provides incentive for
a more efficient and effective regional collaborative approach.
While the proposed bill works to address many of the challenges associated with stormwater
management, it is not without some limitations. Rather than relying on broad guidelines and end of pipe
approaches, source control of specific pollutants is critical for attaining water quality endpoints and the
proposed bill does not address source control. The most effective way to ensure a pollutant does not
enter into the environment is to ban that product so it never has the opportunity. Although there have
been legislative efforts to reduce things like plastic bags and copper in brakes, the proposed bill does not
address specific pollutants.
Page | 21
Furthermore, while providing a foundation for more efficient and effective stormwater planning and
management, the proposed bill does not address the many challenges that existing infrastructure,
particularly in urbanized areas, pose to stormwater management. As awareness of stormwater has
increased, including its value as a resource, so too have urban design methodologies to capitalize upon
and manage this resource. New methodologies include greener approaches with less impervious
surfaces that allow stormwater to percolate into the ground, recharge aquifers and reduce urban runoff.
A significant challenge for many municipalities is the ability to address existing infrastructure that was
not optimally designed for resource management.
The proposed bill would provide grant funding for watershed authorities to develop a local funding
source to support stormwater programs and the implementation of projects. However, watershed
authorities will still have to develop local funding sources, a sizable challenge for many parts of the state
with stretched resources.
It is important to note that the proposed bill is a proposed state law for California and would only affect
entities that are within the state; as well as the fact that the proposed bill is a voluntary program that
encourages participation, but does not mandate it.
LONG-TERM VISION
While the proposed legislative bill willAnotAsolveAallAofACalifornia’sAcomplexAstormwaterAissues,AourAhopeA
is that it can be a catalyst for innovation and can help start to move California past its current state of
ineffective stormwater management. This proposed legislation develops a voluntary program to address
many of the challenges facing stormwater managers and will incentivize innovative solutions centered
on the watershed scale that foster relationships between stakeholders.
This proposed legislation has been modeled on the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM)
program model. The IRWM program started in 2002 and now 97 percent of California residents live
within an IRWM planning area. The IRWM program has
been credited with bringing diverse interests together and
building strong working relationships that have helped
improve water management at the regional scale. It is
anticipated that our proposed bill could have a similar
impact on stormwater management—expanding the scale
and scope of management approaches, building
relationships, and incentivizing projects and programs that
provide broad benefits across a watershed.
If implemented, the proposed bill will be California state
law. The success of this legislation has the potential to
instruct other states in developing successful, integrated
regional stormwater watershed management programs,
and provides a funding framework to promote program
longevity and continued stakeholder participation. The
benefits of this law are not just meant for the large
municipalities; it will also benefit smaller entities that want
help with improving stormwater efforts, but do not currently have the resources. The focus of the
Page | 22
proposed bill is on integrating water resource planning and stormwater management to develop a
comprehensive and sustainable water management framework that could be expanded upon to meet
California’sAgrowingAwaterAdemandsAforAbothAhumansAandAtheAenvironment.A
As stated above, the proposed bill encourages regional watershed integration in conjunction with the
SWRCB, transforming regulation away from established geopolitical boundaries and providing incentive
for a more efficient and effective collaborative approach. As a voluntary program, the proposed bill will
encourage participation through funding incentives and will foster participation promoted by primary
stakeholders such as MS4 permit holders who may, through watershed stakeholder collaboration,
pursue conversion of conventional permits to regional watershed level stormwater based permits.
The proposed bill represents a new paradigm for California regulatory authorities. One of the goals of
the bill is to move beyond TMDLs and point source regulation to a system focused on pollution
prevention and broader monitoring programs where progress and effectiveness can be tracked and
documented throughout a watershed. This shift will require regulating authorities to exercise additional
flexibility in the permitting process.
Because the proposed bill allows watershed management authorities to self-define and provides wide
flexibility as to how management authorities can achieve stormwater management goals, it provides a
framework for creative and regionally focused approaches. As watershed management authorities
expand their thinking to find solutions to their stormwater management and funding challenges, those
solutions will provide new examples and case studies for other stormwater management authorities. It
is our vision that this approach will ultimately lead to an increase in new and innovative examples of
stormwater capture and reuse, low impact development (LID), source control, and public education and
outreach programs to improve stormwater management. The long term objective of this effort is to
developAaAcomprehensiveAstormwaterAmanagementAframeworkAthatAexpandsACalifornia’sAcurrentAwaterA
resource governance structure in a manner that fosters interagency collaboration at the watershed
scale.
Page | 23
APPENDIX A: 2013 WATER LEADERS CLASS CONSOLIDATED MENTOR RESPONSES
Question 1: Regulations; How effective are stormwater regulations today and how could we improve their
effectiveness?
Effectiveness of Current Regulations
There was a consistent consensus among the mentors that measuring the effectiveness of stormwater
regulations is a difficult task; however, there are many ways they can be improved at various
governance levels. At the federal level, the current NPDES program was not developed to address the
vast amounts of non-point stormwater runoff pollution. Attempts by the EPA to address this issue by
updating the regulations have proven inefficient. It would be much more effective if stormwater
regulation would have its own program outside of the point source-based National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System program. The provisions of the NPDES program are sometimes too restrictive and
counter-productive to implementing a meaningful and workable solution for what is essentially a
diffuse, non-point pollution problem.
tAtheAmunicipalAlevel,AitAisAdifficultAtoAcontrolAtheAnatureAofAstormwaterApollutionAandAtoAcontrolApeople’sA
actions that contribute to it. The regulations are also implemented at a geo-political level that often
renders them much less effective than they would be if implemented at a watershed/regional level.
Many municipalities have limited resources to address stormwater pollution which often times receives
a lack in prioritization. Stormwater regulations today are primarily about implementing low cost no
regret actions. The net result of this type of regulation does not add up to a lot of measurable benefits
and these no regret actions are inherently difficult to measure. The requirements in the MS4 permits
also require actions that can prove to be unproductive in improving water quality. Prescriptive
requirements do not have flexibility and may lack prioritization for municipalities with limited resources.
The current stormwater regulations reflect the fundamental tension in the Clean Water Act: the concept
of regulating stormwater at a municipal permit level. It is currently set-up as an iterative process, with
the goal being to see an improvement as time goes on toAtheA“maximumAextentApractical.”ATheA
regulationsAhaveAneverAbeenAupdatedAtoArequireAaA“fundamentalAimprovementAoverAtime”AandAsoAweAareA
stuck in repetition that is insufficient for meeting water quality needs. In addition, there have been little
consequences for non-compliance so change/improvement has been incredibly slow. The current
political climate is supportive of more social solutions (e.g. public outreach to discourage plastic bags)
over more technical solutions (e.g. requiring a device to trap and collect plastic bags in stormwater) but
many of our current regulations are based on decisions made 20-30 years ago that are based on more
technical measures.
From the MS4 perspective, water quality standards represent a much needed area of regulatory reform.
Water quality standards were initially developed to protect water bodies from the continuous and
relatively homogenous discharges of wastewater (EPA, 1986). The standards to do not reflect the
dynamic conditions found in stormwater discharges, or the intermittent nature of the discharges. The
problem is particularly acute for sanitary quality standards, where body contact recreation is not a
practical beneficial use for safety reasons in highly modified creek systems during runoff events in most
parts of the Country.
Page | 24
There is a general feeling that we are making compliance more expensive and lengthy, but not more
effective in water quality protection. Permit implementation is where you see effectiveness, not permit
language. The true test of how effective is it, is from monitoring of the health of the habitats downhill
and receiving waters. A biological assessment of how well are the habitats doing is something that
should become more of a heavy focus as opposed to benchmarks for numeric effluent limitations.
Improvements to Current Regulations
There were many ideas provided by the mentors in regards to improving the effectiveness of the current
stormwater regulations on federal, state, and local levels. On a nationwide level, it was suggested that
the EPA should engage in much more vigilant regulatory oversight in the national licensing of products
that contribute significantly to stormwater pollution. Also, there is a need to improve the way states and
local agencies communicate and work with legislators to develop a more cohesive management
approach to address the goals of stormwater regulations. Effectiveness could be improved by
performing cost-benefit analyses for new regulations as well as adding numeric limits nationwide to
stormwater permits and having regulations apply to existing development. Facility specific numeric
effluent limits based on characteristics of site/industry may be a more realistic approach to developing
numeric effluent limits on storm sewer systems due to data limitations. There is a need for a global
monitoring system and to change the whole way we think about pollution. There is a need for land use
based discharge limits. Lastly, the federal government should provide more financial support to state
and local efforts to regulate stormwater. EPA is in the process of developing new stormwater
regulations for post-construction.
At the state and local levels, it was recommended that new development, public outreach, monitoring,
andAaspectsAassociatedAwithAtheAState’sAgeneralApermits (construction and commercial/industrial) are
best implemented regionally and illicit discharge/connection, municipal operations, and some functions
of commercial/industrial are best handled at the local level. In general, flood control, wastewater, solid
waste,AandAdrinkingAwaterAareAprogramsAwithinAaAMS4AthatAcouldAaffectAtheAstormAwaterAprogram.AMS4’sA
should look at these programs even if the MS4 is not responsible for those programs. All these programs
tend to work exclusively of each other instead of complimenting each other. There needs to be more
certainty and standardization in the permits which outline the mandatory minimum measures and
better defines the maximum extent practicable. Future regulations need to emphasize water quality
based actions and focus on controlling specific pollutants that strive for water quality endpoints.
Improving regulations should be focused more on concrete solutions and less on general programmatic
solutions. For instance, identify what priority discharges are and address the most egregious discharges
first. In other words, address on a more specific basis, rather than such a high-level general basis. The
SWRCB is currently looking at rewriting the Phase 2 general permit and its Receiving Waters policy.
Question 2: Regulations; What are some upcoming regulatory trends in stormwater?
The mentors highlighted a number of regulatory trends in stormwater. These trends included low-
impact development (LID) for development/redevelopment projects, moving back towards generalized
permits, watershed-based planning, and TMDLs for more pollutants of concern. However, generalized
permits don't always lend themselves to innovative reuse projects, but could potentially save more time
for implementation.
Page | 25
The previous permits asked for consideration of LID and the next permit drafts are mandating the
implementation of LID or requiring the permittee to explain the infeasibility of implementation through
quantification; however, the definition of infeasibility may prove to be complicated. The goal is to assign
priority to certain LID methods that favor onsite infiltration or using existing landscaping. We should also
see more permits that will include quantifiable results and the requirement for green infrastructure to
deal with stormwater at the source (source control instead of treatment). Projects will likely be required
to provide multiple benefits (water quality, habitat, energy, air quality, etc.) and incorporate
hydromodification control provisions which require the rates and volumes of runoff from developing
landscapes be controlled in addition to pollutant loadings.
The USEPA initiated a National Stormwater Rulemaking to reduce storm water discharges from, at a
minimum, new development and redevelopment projects and strengthen the storm water program. The
USEPA is looking at options under consideration for post-construction requirements for new and
redevelopment projects. These options are: (1) for new development to manage runoff onsite from a
design storm through green infrastructure practices that infiltrate, evapotranspire, or harvest/reuse the
excess discharge volume; and (2) a lower standard for redevelopment. For sites where onsite retention
is not feasible, alternative compliance options such as off-site mitigation and payment into in-lieu
programs may be available.
There also is an upcoming trend for stormwater capture and reuse and increasing inclusion of
stormwater as a component in water supply portfolios. : Recent municipal stormwater permits have
included provisions for enhanced water planning. For example, Enhanced Watershed Management Plan
(Los Angeles municipal stormwater permit) and Water Quality Improvement Plan (San Diego Regional
Stormwater Permit). Projects that can simultaneously green cities, improve quality and supply of water
on the same dollar and meet regulations will be the trend. It is important to think of stormwater as part
of the water supply and retrofit areas in watersheds to capture stormwater on a grander scale.
Stormwater could possibly be captured to recharge to groundwater and used for water supply (e.g.,
irrigation). Spending money on this type of infrastructure in coastal areas may prove more cost-effective
thanAotherAareasAcurrentlyAbeingAexplored.ATheAbottomAlineAisAthatA“weAcanAnoAlongerAseparate
stormwaterAfromAwaterAsupply.”A
Another upcoming trend is to merge Phase 1 and Phase 2 permits so that there is no longer a distinction
between the two and to issue one-size-fits-all permits. It used to be that agencies could write their own
stormwater management plans but it took 3-4 years to get approval after public review and comment of
each plan. Now, Regional Water Boards issue general permits that can receive public review and
comment just once, but at the expense of flexibility and tailoring to the individual agencies. In addition,
there is more regulation, not less, and expansion to cover more communities under stormwater permits.
Trends are finally starting to shift towards a regional approach that specifically targets an area's specific
issues and needs while recognizing the systems as a whole, specifically a watershed approach to
stormwater management. Recent municipal stormwater permit plans that have provisions for enhanced
regional water quality planning are the Los Angeles municipal stormwater permit (Enhanced Watershed
Management Plan) and the San Diego Regional Stormwater Permit (Water Quality Improvement Plan).
Lastly, there is a trend of incorporating an increasing number of TMDLs which require specific pollutants
to be managed to achieve specific water quality objectives within a prescribed schedule. There will be
more water quality based requirements and mandatory minimum requirements. Specifically, relating to
Page | 26
theAimplementationAofATMDL’sAwhereAtheyAexistAandAforAotherApollutantsAofAconcern. There will need to
be a great emphasis on understanding a regions water quality baseline/starting point for pollutants.
Permits will require permittees to take actions to reach certain percentage reductions. For example
there will be permits requiring a certain percent reduction of a pollutant in a certain watershed to have
net reduction in the receiving water. The focus will likely be on measurable and more identifiable
endpoint goals such as the prescription of more numeric end point limitations defined in permits and
the use of biological indicators in measuring the biological health of receiving waters and achieving
water quality standards.
Question 3: Regulations, New Approaches; What new approaches to stormwater management and
regulations are working and what are not working? Are there any models of stormwater management or
regulation in another state or country that California can learn from? Can you provide some specific case
studies that have been successful?
One of the stormwater regulation approaches that the mentors identified to be working included the
incorporation of LID requirements into project design to meet MS4 permit water quality control
requirements. During the very earliest stages of implementation based on MS4 permits adopted
between 2008 and 2010, incorporation into projects is going relatively smoothly in most southern
California jurisdictions.
There also is more of an emphasis on watershed boundaries, drainage area and/or jurisdictions. There is
a focus on developing water quality baselines and developing measurable outcomes to regulate
pollutants of concern at the sources of production. Regional solutions have to date have proven to be
the most effective approach for achieving significant improvements in water quality. Dry weather flow
diversion at coastal outfalls has also delivered very significant improvements in coastal water quality
during dry weather in Orange County.
Education has also been successful at both the legislative and public levels including drug take-back
events and household hazardous waste collection efforts. Prevention is cheaper than treatment.
Some of the approaches that appear to be ineffective include the fact that LID is only imposed on
redevelopment land or greenfields and has little to no effect on existing land use practices. The low
levels of building activity as a result of depressed economic conditions between 2008 and 2012 have
resulted in a reduction of LID related projects. Also, while these somewhat complex requirements
mitigate for further losses of stream system function that might have otherwise arisen at the urbanizing
fringes of cities, they are not addressing the water quality impacts that are the consequence of historic
development. The effectiveness of using LID in improving water quality has not been fully demonstrated
because of the relative infancy of the program and the difficulty in separating out the effect of small
changes in stormwater management relative to the already built environment. The historical approach
of putting in pipesAtoAmoveAstormwaterAawayAisAnotAworking.AConceptAofA‘safeAharbor.’AConceptAisAthatAasA
long as we appear to be working towards compliance with regulations, then we are effectively 'in
compliance with the regulation' and no penalties shall be placed against us.
In general, the mentors agreed that California was ahead of other states in terms of advanced
stormwater regulations. California appears to be on the forefront in terms of LID, green infrastructure,
and numeric effluents limits. Regional monitoring is also starting to become more encouraged in
California. SWAMP (Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program), a program that assesses water quality
Page | 27
inACalifornia’sAsurfaceAwaters,AhasAhistoricallyAnotAbeenAalignedAwithAstormwater,AbutAoverAtheApastA7-8
years, it is being changed to support local stormwater implementation.
Trash requirements in Phase 1 areas of San Francisco Bay Area are also being implemented. The
requirements are trying to eliminate discharges of trash in municipal storm drain networks, address
homeless encampments, and reduce littering. Orange County has taken and integrated water resources
management approach in its stormwater program, and has some of the cleanest beaches and ocean
waters in California. Riverside County was out in front and ahead of most permittees in developing
standard LID BMP designs suitable for arid Riverside County, and in developing a testing facility to
hopefully continually improve upon design guidance. In addition, the Irvine Ranch Natural Treatment
System (NTS), a series of constructed wetlands in the Newport Bay watershed, is the most likely the
singleAmostAsignificantAinitiativeAcontributingAtoAtheAattainmentAofAtheAwatershed’sANitrogenATMDL.
There are also new models for permits that cover areas along the urban fringe, incorporating them into
larger permit activities. At a national level there is currently nothing about retrofitting planning, but
some California permits do (SD and LA). This is important because most of our urban area is already built
so retrofitting will play a key role.
An example of a proactive stormwater quality management approaches in southern California was
Proposition O. In 2004, Los Angeles voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition O, which authorized the
City of Los Angeles to issue a series of general obligation bonds for up to $500 million for projects to
protectApublicAhealthAbyAcleaningAupApollutantsAinAL ’sAregionalAwaterwaysAandAoceanAtoAmeetAfederalA
CleanAWaterA ctAregulations.APropositionAO’sAmainAobjectiveAwasAtoAfundAprojectsArelated to rivers, lakes,
beaches, bays and ocean water quality protection, water conservation, drinking water and source
protection, flood water reduction, river and neighborhood parks that prevent polluted runoff and
improve water quality, stormwater capture, and clean-up and re-use. An Administrative Oversight
Committee (AOC) and Citizens Oversight Advisory Committee administer the projects funded by
Proposition O.
Another example of a successful stormwater quality management approach took place in the Sun Valley
Watershed. The underserved Sun Valley community located in L.A.'s San Fernando Valley has long
suffered serious flooding problems. This is due, in part, to the hard pavement that covers much of the
community. Instead of soaking into the ground or being captured for reuse, rainwater becomes polluted
with runoff and has nowhere to go. TreePeople is working in partnership with the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works, the City of Los Angeles, and other local stakeholders to create a large-scale
sustainable watershed management demonstration project in the 2,700-acre San Fernando Valley
watershed. The group developed a Sun Valley Watershed Management Plan and Program
Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted the plan and
certified the report in 2004.
The mentors also mentioned other states and countries that have had successful stormwater quality
improvement projects. In Wisconsin, they tied water quality monitoring to evaluating program
effectiveness such that the state agency is involved in the monitoring so it is less of a burden on locals to
implement while making monitoring more of a partnership. Portland and Seattle also have a lot of LID;
however, that is mostly due to the fact that they have combined sewers and most of their work is being
funded by wastewater funds. Philadelphia also has a combined sewer overflow system and has plans to
Page | 28
green 10,000 acres.AInAaddition,AtheAEuropeanAUnion’sAWaterAFrameworkADirectiveAisAaAgoodAexampleAofA
a well thought out and thorough aquatic resource inventory and condition assessment framework that
forms the basis of water quality planning and regulatory approaches.
Some other techniques mentioned included using community based social marketing (CBSM) to stop
littering. CBSM applies sociology towards public education. It applies rigorous data (e.g., surveys)
towards outreach instead of basing approaches on our own perceived assumptions and has the
potential to be a successful case study. One example is Our Water Our World. Our Water Our World is a
point of sale outreach campaign in stores that sell pesticides. The program provides info on less toxic
alternatives to pesticides. The outreach campaign targets consumers, but partners with and trains the
stores on less toxic alternatives to pesticides. Some stores have even stopped selling some pesticides
after their staff has received the training. Local organization creating strict regulations (i.e. banning
plastic bags) is often more effective than a statewide or nationwide regulation.
There is also promising regulation aiming to improve stormwater quality. SB 346 requires that, in order
to improve and protect the state's aquatic environment, the amount of copper in brake pads sold in
California needs to be reduced to 0.5% copper by weight by 2025. The bill also creates limits and
monitoring requirements for other brake pad materials. Since much of the copper in stormwater runoff
is in a dissolved form, the type of treatment technologies that are most commonly retrofitted into storm
drain systems—drain inserts that remove trash and other solids—are not effective in removing it.
Question 4: Challenges; What can be done to promote greater source control? Do you know of case
studies in which this has been implemented effectively and efficiently?
According to the interviews there are several avenues by which to promote greater source control. The
ideas depend on the source of pollution as well as the preferred public policy tool.
Taxes: For example a water quality tax on trash, such as taxes on cigarettes and plastic manufacturers
that would go towards trash pickup.
More stringent trash policies: Expanding on current policies to reduce the source of trash such as full
trash collection at drain inlets, ordinances that encourage people to bring their own containers to stores
and restaurants, plastic bag bans, and styrofoam bans. Intersecting the trash before it reaches water
ways, which can be accomplished through different methods such as the LID approach and trash TMDLs
in Los Angeles.
Increased producer responsibility: There is a need for greater source control of pesticides because those
chemicals end up on 303(d) listings and then municipalities have to meet the water quality requirements
without any way to stop the chemicals from entering the environment. The next front in source control
is producer responsibility and changing product formulas to prevent pollutant generation.
Increased regulation or increased use of regulatory authority (enforcement): This is where the pollutant
never gets to the environment through methods such as banning a product or reformulating products.
Examples include organic pesticides banned for residential use and copper brake pads. These methods
are narrow and targeted at specific problems and generally take a long time to develop (i.e., the copper
brake pad ban took around 10 years to transpire). In addition the State and Federal government need to
be convinced to use existing regulatory authorities to benefit surface water quality. When toxins are up
Page | 29
for re-registration by the EPA and the data shows a toxic presence, than the EPA can require phasing out
the use or not re-register the product. Having the data is key. Currently lots of money is spent on water
quality monitoring but not in an effective way, it needs to be re-organized.
While identifying contaminants of concern, and the source thereof, may be best facilitated by local
agencies, better broad-based communication and/or coordination facilitated by the state would provide
the local agencies with a larger database for more efficient source determination. Once the source has
been determined, local agencies lack the political power and/or statutory authority to cause efficient
change; however, source control leadership is a hat the state has not wanted to wear. It would be good
to regulate products that are manufactured with pollutants of concern and find alternatives (green
chemistry movement) to those chemicals to keep them out of the waste stream. The State water board
needs to be more invested in source control; for example the board has the NPDES hammer. The state
water board needs to buy into that model. Assign high-level management to coordinate effectively with
DPR to make changes.
Treatment: Keeping stormwater on site, treating and then reusing it. Everyone in California is in need of
another water supply.
Education: Education of the public can promote greater source control as well. One public campaign
example is that car wash runoff is really bad for the storm drains.
Technology advances: Street sweepers, vacuum sweepers, centrifuges that spin sediment out, Electric
vehicles (using fewer fluids than normal cars)
Case Studies
Pesticide regulation:
Diazinon and chlorophos have been de-listed for household use. This happened 5-10 years
ago and we have seen a decrease in these contaminants in urban stormwater. The diazinon
ban in the central valley incorporated a water shed approach that has been effective, link to
report: http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/watershed/measurew/feather-
sac/2010SacFeatherRiverSP12final-Rpt.pdf
The removal from the marketplace of organo-phosphorus pesticides
CaliforniaADepartmentAofAPesticideARegulationA“SurfaceAWaterAProtectionARegulations”AwhichA
are expected to significantly reduce pyrethroid pesticide concentrations in runoff from
urban areas.
Other sources:
Phase out lead compounds in gasoline
California Senate Bill 346 which will phase copper out of brake pads
The California Redemption or Refund Value (CRVs) for recyclables, recycling or producer
take-back of certain items like used paint and carpet, or ordinances that ban plastic bags
The plastic bag ban has been very effective in keeping bags out of the ocean
Page | 30
Case Study: Santa Monica, CA
Santa Monica attracts enough tourists and workers each day that it doubles its population. Urban runoff
is the largest contributor or pollutants entering the beach and nearby waters, and threatens the
economic viability and community amenities of this beach-side community.
Santa Monica adopted a Watershed Management Plan in 2006 to protect and improve the water quality
of Santa Monica Bay. The play lays out the following priorities to balance urban use with ecosystem
function: Reduce urban runoff pollution; Reduce urban flooding; Increase water conservation; Increase
recreational opportunities and open space; and Increase wildlife and marine habitat.
These watershed management goals are met with a storm water management ordinance, storm water
fee, a rebate program and capital improvements projects.
Other Case Studies: The Prado Dam and Sun Valley Park are examples of successful storm water
projects.
Question 5: Challenges; What are some of the top priorities that you think must be addressed the
soonest regarding stormwater regulations, monitoring, and program implementation?
Funding
— Revising Proposition 218 to allow stormwater to be included as a utility. The time and
expense of a ballot initiative detracts from working the reasonable improvements to
stormwater quality.
— Getting the California legislature to help local government obtain a sustainable funding
stream.
— Stormwater regulations, monitoring and programming implementation needs to be
adopted with local agencies in mind because the cost to regulate is not a level playing
field across agencies
Institutional reform
— Generating more trustful and beneficial partnerships between regulators, local
governments,AandANGO’s.A
— Lack of integration across regulatory agencies leads to overregulation because there are
so many different agencies. Lack of integration prevents us from doing big actions like
buying habitat near the creek and creating a buffer by restricting development.
— Need to bring storm water and water supply together.
— The risk and practice of Third Party lawsuits harms cooperative and creative approaches
to stormwater management. Measures to limit litigation, such as limitations on the
recuperation of costs, may improve the ability to develop flexible and efficient
approaches to stormwater by industry.
— Allow for direct potable reuse
— Stormwater may warrant special consideration under the clean water act because of the
short temporal nature and potential for larger amounts of dilution.
Page | 31
— Measures to limit litigation, such as limitations on the recuperation of costs, may
improve the ability to develop flexible and efficient approaches to stormwater by
industry.
LID improvements
— Include retrofitting of existing infrastructure in LID requirements
Priority pollutants
— Sediment
— Pathogens and bacteria.
— Pharmaceuticals
— Pesticides and fertilizers
— Trash
— Restore the contaminated aquifers
— Generally increase source control
Monitoring
— Measures to limit litigation, such as limitations on the recuperation of costs, may
improve the ability to develop flexible and efficient approaches to stormwater by
industry.
— Convene expert panels to determine the best places to monitor
— Move monitoring higher in the watershed so that attribution of pollution is easier
— Address the built environment and provide sufficient monitoring to demonstrate
compliance
— Ensure funding for beach monitoring continues
— Monitor directly from drains
— Improve monitoring of outfalls
— Couple monitoring with better laboratory measurement because the science has
evolved greatly
The SWRCB needs to address the receiving water language in the phase 2 permit. The
community may be out of compliance regardless of the amount of effort it puts in to meet
the permit if it has no way to control the pollutant.
Regulation/permit implementation and enforcement
— Work out regulation inconsistencies such as treated wastewater standards are in some
ways more restrictive than drinking water standards. And in wastewater discharge,
secondary Minimum Contaminant Levels are treated equally to primary MCLs.
— Require meaningful and measurable benefits for actions in permits
— Broaden the scale of permits to cover more than one city therefore forcing them to
work together, and hopefully reducing some of the transactional costs.
— Cease differentiating between Phase I and Phase II communities. Phase I/II distinctions
create an economic incentive for new development and commercial/industrial
Page | 32
relocation into Phase II communities exacerbating the environmental problems the
Phase I rules are intended to mitigate.
— Compliance with TMDLs
— Measure the effectiveness of BMPs
— A better delineation of maximum extent practical for various pollutants and permits
should be written based on what is realistically doable for a community. The fear of
enforcement needs to be overcome and municipalities need to begin leading the
implementation efforts beyond what is required.
— Put in place incentive structures
— Permits should have watershed and site-specific approaches tailored to the specific
industry and specific pollutants causing impairment of a water body. (e.g. a watershed
with high naturally occurring selenium should not have a selenium standard at levels
lower than the source waters). Standards should identify specific levels of harm so that
improvements in detection do not necessarily result in a stricter standard.
— Permits should provide flexibility and allow for alternative approaches to achieve
compliance.
Education
— Educate fee payers and value water
— Change water consumption attitudes
Be more rigorous about the science behind regulations
Resolve hydromodification
Question 6: Challenges; What are some potential funding mechanisms that have been used (or are
being explored now) to pay for stormwater management, infrastructure and operations and maintenance
costs?
State and federal grants
State and federal grants are available, but often fund matching is required. Also, not all costs are eligible
for reimbursement. The application process is usually time-consuming with no guarantee of success.
Current opportunities are Proposition 84 funds (state) and with CWA Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Grants (federal).
Bonds
Bonds can raise funds for infrastructure development.
Property Taxes
Property taxes have been strongly used in the past as so much of the pollution comes from runoff. Some
funding could be generated from higher property taxes and efficiencies.
General Fund
Meeting stormwater permit requirements is the law so money from General Funds can be used. Many
municipalities use this as their sole funding mechanism for stormwater. However, funding from general
Page | 33
funds can vary from year to year. In a good economy, the general can support stormwater management.
In a poor economy, the programs are reduced or downsized. Furthermore, multiple departments within
a municipality compete for General Fund funding. As a result, the General Fund does not meet the
objective of providing sufficient and stable revenue. A general fund approach is doomed to fail because
there is never enough money to do it and it has to compete with public services such as police and fire.
User fees can be used for voluntary services. The biggest funding mechanism is ratepayers paying for
water. To bring stormwater and water supply management under one roof and open up the funding
mechanisms for one water and not separate silos of water. The biggest challenge is to change the
mindset of the public and begin thinking outside of the box. For instance, stormwater districts might
serve as water suppliers. The Riverside area is showing some signs of this.
Sewer and Storm Drainage Fee
Sewer Connection Fees
Stormwater Utility Fee
One of the most common funding mechanisms presently is a stormwater fee levied onto homeowners
from cities. A storm water utility fee is the typical funding mechanism that is being used by
municipalities in the Central Valley region to pay for storm water management, infrastructure, and
operations and maintenance costs. If structured correctly, utility fees can provide a stable, reliable
revenue source that is sufficient to cover costs. However, there are limitations to this also as explained
in Question #7. As a public utility that charges the user a monthly cost for usage associated with their
parcel, local agencies should secure steady funding. Since the local agencies must provide drainage, we
must then be a utility. The most common funding mechanism I know about is a surcharge on utility
billing.
Pre Proposition 218 Stormwater Fees
Some municipalities established stormwater utilities that predated Prop-218, so they can continue to
charge fees that will pay for stormwater control.
Voter approval of Stormwater Fees
Post Prop-218, other municipalities have been successful at getting voter approval of stormwater fees,
but only where there are compelling reasons to have the community support the stormwater controls.
For example, beach communities have better reasons to promote stormwater regulations and have
people support paying for it because they can suffer beach closures from water quality pollution, which
in turn affects their tourism-based economy. Proposition 218 makes it very difficult for municipalities to
raise the necessary revenue to run an effective stormwater program. Prop 218 requires the explicit
approval of voters to implement stormwater charges, so that doesn't often go well.
The other mechanism will take legislative action to amend proposition 218 to allow funding for
stormwater projects explicitly, in addition to water, sewer and trash. A legislative adjustment to
proposition 218, similar to the water supply approach, would allow stormwater agencies to raise their
rates without prior majority approval, but still allow for challenges after the fact. Some communities are
beginning to argue that some of the requirements in their permits are unfunded mandates (e.g. placing
Page | 34
trash receptacles at every bus stop in Los Angeles). There is a case in court now. There is talk about
giving stormwater some kind of Prop 218 exemption, similar to the way 218 treats water and
wastewater.
State Revolving Fund
State revolving funds could be used to fund big projects but not day-to-day management of stormwater.
Historically, there have been little State revolving funds for stormwater, but it is a funding mechanism
that is being investigated now. Some think State revolving funds might be a good idea because they
don't require large annual infusions of money. Funding mechanism that are being investigated include
State Revolving Fund (ARRA) could be used to improve infrastructures.
Development Fee
Municipalities can pay for stormwater controls through the Specific Plan process which allows
community facilities districts to be formed and funded for new development; however, this is not
enough to cover ongoing management of stormwater programs. There are few stormwater districts;
more common are wastewater and flood control districts. A stormwater fee for new development only
covers the cost of stormwater management attributed to the new development and typically is about
$18/residential unit. In communities that are no longer growing, there is no way to pay for increased
regulations. Developer impact fees are an option, but impact fees can only be used for capacity -related
projects and cannot be used for operations and maintenance. However, in-lieu fees for mitigation or
offset may be established.
Special District Fund
Funding mechanisms that are being investigated included Special Districts charging permit fees to
discharge into the sewer system. Homeowners could be required to get a permit to cover stormwater
discharge. An available tool that is not widely used is SB 310 which authorizes a permittee or
copermittee under an NPDES permit for a municipal separate storm sewer system to charge a fee to
develop a watershed improvement plan (WIP) to address stormwater issues (218 still applies).
Producer Pays
Other avenues are extended producer responsibility (i.e., making the producers pay for it). These can
include gas/pump taxes or used oil recycling grants. Fees are often levied on commercial entities.
Business license fees can be charged to businesses that have a high impact on storm water program
services such as fast food restaurants that produce litter. Funding for trash should be derived from near-
draconian CRV-fees and a reasonable rate-of-return for those willing to pick-up/turn-in trash. Advanced
disposal fees for things like oil that are big pollutants are another available mechanism. In my opinion,
streets and the vehicles that use them create a significant percentage of the impervious surfaces and
wet-weather pollutant load from urbanized areas, poor conservation practices (overspray and/or over-
watering of lawns) creates a significant percentage of dry-weather flows and our throw-away society
creates a, who-cares-about-trash mentality. Funding for mitigation of the former could be achieved via
taxes on fuel – the nexus is obvious and the proportional payment scheme (the more you drive the more
you pollute and/or use the roads, the more you pay) is inherently defendable.
Page | 35
Funding for conservation may not be necessary if the fee structure of the water purveyor has been
properly established such that water-wasting is too expensive to conceive. Alternatively, the funding
couldAbeAderivedAfromAtheApurveyor’sAtopArateAtier.A(i.e.,A sAyouAuseAmore,AyouApay disproportionately
higher rates per unit used.) However, the absence of drainage from the Prop 218 water/waste water
exclusion could make this combined billing concept unachievable/a legal miasma. In my opinion: In the
absence of a legislative fix to Prop 218, drainage in general and stormwater specifically are doomed to
achieving the least amount possible instead of the maximum extent practicable.
A novel funding mechanism is the Calrecycle Used Oil Recycling program. State provides funding to local
agencies for development and maintenance of used oil and oil filter collection and recycling. It
effectively distributes costs to consumers and then uses that funding to incentivize good behavior. We
should be doing more of this.
Enforcement of Fines
Beef up the enforcement staff at the RWQCB and regularly inspect facilities and set up a mechanism to
fine.ATheAgoalAnotAbeingAtoAcollectAfinesAbutAenforcingApollutersAtoA“clean-up”AtheirAactAandApayAforAthoseA
improvements necessary to protect water quality; equivalent to obtaining money for clean-up projects;
why should the public subsidize gross polluters profits through the back end of clean up?
Other Thoughts:
There should be a greater use of public-private partnerships, and when we can rebrand
stormwater as an asset this will be easier. Also, there is an employment link here (green
jobs) but there is nothing in the permit that incentivizes jobs at this time.
Allow for private interests to fund individual studies on stormwater and the effects in order
to develop the data required for site-specific standards.
Implement an across the board tax or fees where all people pay.
The state needs to find a way to pay for it.
The Legislature should ensure local agencies receive the necessary funding.
Los Angeles County developed (and passed) a proposal for funding based on parcel size and
permeability.
Case Study: Los Angeles County Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure. Some cities like Palo Alto base
their stormwater fees on the amount of impervious surface created. Philadelphia is looking at a
stormwater fee to finance projects (based on straight fee or amount of impervious cover on property).
Question 7: Challenges; What are some of the biggest barriers or challenges to funding stormwater
management?
Recent Recession.
The current economy, including slow development (at least for communities still growing) that leads to
slow funding sources for stormwater management and also restricted revenue all around, leading to
prioritization away from stormwater management to other critical services. The economics of it - cities
Page | 36
and voters are tapped out in the present economy. Plus cities are in financial crisis; it is difficult to
explain funding stormwater when laying off teachers and police officers.
Smaller government/government distrust
Growing distrust of government and sentiment that government needs to get smaller. Anti-tax
organizations are against funding.
Lack of Public Understanding/Awareness and Political Support/Willpower
Lack of public awareness of the magnitude of water quality issues. Public lack of understanding about
whoAshouldAbeApaying.AThereAisAaApublicAperceptionAthatAstormwaterAfundingAisA“payingAforAtheArain”AandA
without a compelling reason to address stormwater controls (like beach closures), it is difficult to obtain
publicAsupportAforAstormwaterAcontrols.ATheApublicAdoesn’tAunderstandAstormwaterAandAhowAvaluableAitA
could be, both for water supply augmentation and to provide an integrating point for making green
infrastructure improvements to our public works. The public knows water quality is important when
theyAgoAtoAtheAbeachAorAtakeAaAwalkAinAanAarroyo,AbutAit’sAnotAonAtheAtipAofAtheirAconscienceAorAfundingA
priority scale. The vast majority of the people of California/U.S. do not comprehend stormwater and/or
urban runoff as a source of environmental degradation. Depending on the economy, public opinion may
changeAquickly.ATheAtypicalApublicAmindsetAonAstormwaterAisAthatAit’sA“justArain”.ATheAscopeAandA
magnitude of the issue is difficult to explain.
Municipalities often lack the support of their leaders and a planning framework to make a coherent
argument for funding. Stormwater is often pushed back due to political or other pressures. In general
there is often a lack of will and leadership. When there are good leaders at the community level they
make things happen through developing good plans and securing grant funds to demonstrate the value
of continuing to fund stormwater programs. The issue is typically poorly framed and not explained well.
Advocacy will be importantAbecauseAfundingAwillAdependAonAhowAit’sAbeingAsold.ATheAbenefitAofAproperA
stormwater management is tremendous (water quality, water supply, etc.). The biggest challenge is
politics and the lack of willingness at the municipal level to secure new funding for stormwater due
competing interests. No rate base: No one is buying the stormwater so it has to come as a service which
competes with police, fire, etc. through use of the general fund.
Proposition 218, Proposition 13, and Prop 26
Prop 218, Prop 13, took away the polluters pays- latest proposition. It is harder to establish permits that
requireApollutersAtoApay.ATheyAdon’tAbenefitAfromAtheApermits.ATheAsingleAbiggestAchallengeAtoAfundingA
stormwater management is Prop-218. Prop-218 imposes procedural and substantive requirements on
the adoption of new fees, making it very difficult to pass measures that would increase funding for
stormwater management. The only way to change Prop-218 would be to modify or repeal it by an
amendment to the California Constitution. Proposition 13 constrains local governments' ability to raise
property taxes and specifies that any local tax imposed to pay for specific governmental programs--a
"special tax"--must be approved by two-thirds of the voters. Proposition 218: Since the passage of Prop.
13, many local governments have relied increasingly upon other revenue tools to finance local services,
most notably: assessments, property-related fees, and a variety of small general purpose taxes (such as
hotel, business license, and utility user taxes). It is the use of these local revenue tools that was the
focus of Proposition 218 which established requirements for a two-thirds majority approval vote for
Page | 37
their use. Further complicating this is that urban runoff (aka stormwater) is property-related at its
foundation; and therefore, a Prop 218 issue. However, the state choses to use the MS4 NPDES Permit as
its catch-all for any pollutant with a nexus to urbanization (e.g. trash, MERP) making property owners
less inclined to foot the bill for all of society. FYI: For drainage/stormwater, Prop 218 requires ballots to
beAmailedAtoAeachApropertyAowner,AaApublicAhearingAandAvotesAtoAbeA‘weighted’AproportionalAtoAtheA
relative fee-payment (e.g. if the fee amount is based on the size of the property, then the vote of an
owner of a property twice as large gets twice the vote). While the aforementioned alone is expensive, a
significant ad campaign is necessary to educate and attempt to persuade >50% to voluntarily increase
their taxes – few (if any) Prop 218 votes have passed while the cost to attempt has been huge.
Campaigns have little success and high costs ($200-300k) just to get on the ballot, e.g. Stockton.
Obtaining a majority of votes is a challenge due to low voter participation. The fees must be
proportionate to the cost of providing service. However, water, sewer, and solid waste fees are
exempted from the vote requirement.
TMDL Program
Another barrier is the TMDL program; identify 303d; we have accomplished two things – 25 or 30 years
out there and extremely expensive – process is high jacked; huge sums of money to develop and huge
sums of money to clean up and least effective. Another potential to increase funding by looking at
existing programs that are costly and redirecting funds to more direct impact projects. TMDL is a public
announcement that all the stakeholders failed to keep water quality standards.
Grant Funding Challenges
Grants need to be dispersed quickly if not the unspent funds get swept.
Regulatory Flexibility
From the regulators perspective there is a struggle between specific and flexible permits. When permits
are specific there are complaints about the lack of funding to implement and when they are flexible
there is a lack of implementation because the permit does not clearly specify what is required.
Non-Point Source and Lack of Accountability
It is also challenging because it is multiple point sources - typically the entity causing the problem is
responsible for paying for it, but with so many sources it is difficult to pin point responsibility. Well-
crafted environmental initiates can pass, but typically the more local they are and the more tied to
specific result projects, the easier they become to pass. Industry resists change, however, like bag
manufactures fighting bag bans and oil companies fighting disposal fees. Biggest barriers are
dischargers, who are prone to maximize profits.
Question 8: Challenges; What do you feel are the most challenging overlaps or conflicts in the
(institutional) jurisdiction of storm water management in CA and how does this influence accountability for
stormwater discharges?
Overlaps/conflicts within Municipalities
Primary responsible entities are municipalities but within municipalities you have industries and
highways that also have responsibility. Another good example of overlaps and conflicts is the way waste
Page | 38
load permits are organized; There are two phases: Phase 1 is for large cities while Phase 2 is for state
wide smaller cities. There is no integration and planning in both phases which allows for discrepancies
and a lack of general and integrated city and regional planning of stormwater management. Low impact
development often can conflict with water supply needs when watershed boundaries are crossed. These
barriers need to be broken down so that we are managing by watershed rather than by political
jurisdiction.
High-Level Official Involvement
Stormwater regulations have not been strict enough for high-level officials to take responsibility for
compliance. Without that official, high-level support, local agencies just delegate down to some line
staff person who has the weight of stormwater compliance on their shoulders, but little power to
achieve compliance. You really need someone of power to speak to the problem. Regulators need to
engage and hold accountable higher levels of government.
Monitoring and Accountability
Monitoring isn't setup to allow attribution and fee allocation based on pro rata share of pollution. Hard
to make people accountable. More/better monitoring is needed (expensive) that is holistic and designed
to monitor for management objective. Person who benefits isn't paying for the monitoring. Constituent
monitoring wasn't designed for stormwater. Access issues. At the stormwater level there are instances
where multiple jurisdictions have discharges that go to the same watershed, without in-stream
monitoringAthatAbracketsAtheAjurisdictionsAandAtheirAcontributionsAit’sAdifficultAtoAassignAresponsibility.A
NRDC vs. County of Los Angeles is a recent case where NRDC is trying to enforce the permit terms, but
those responsible are able to pass the buck.
Source Control (e.g. Pesticide and water quality regulation)
There is disconnect between pesticide regulation and water quality regulation because one approves
chemicals for use and the other requires those chemicals to be controlled and monitored. Pesticides get
approved without looking at the consequences of cleaning them up or addressing them as a water
quality issue. Agencies with overlapping responsibilities for pesticide regulation and water quality
regulation should be better coordinating. For example, chemicals from classes of pesticides are later
listed on Clean Water Act 303(d) lists and then regulated by total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), with
municipalities as the responsible party to meet and/or monitor for the TMDL requirements for those
chemicals. But municipalities have no way to regulate the upstream or even within their jurisdiction use
of the pesticides.
Federal, State, and Local responsibilities
Overlapping stormwater management responsibilities between the federal, state and local levels. Each
agency has limited resources but there is no effort to prioritize, leading to an attempt to do everything
not very well rather than a few things well.
State Board and Regional Boards
The abdication by the State Board of its fundamental stormwater policy making responsibilities to the
Regional Boards The SWRCB has priorities (e.g. Trash and Hydromod) and groups within the Regional
Page | 39
Board have other/additional priorities (MERP, TMDLs, toxicity studies, pesticide impairment studies,
BMP studies, LID studies, RMP, Drinking Water Policy, etc.) and ALL priorities are THE priority. Thus, (as
an example) municipalities are required to spend significant assets studying/mitigating mercury even
though urban runoff is responsible for <1% of the problem.
Flood control and Stormwater management
Flood control and stormwater management must be handled differently as management actions conflict
(move water quickly or let it set?).
Everything is performed in silos (separate departments). Stormwater management requires an
integrated approach (Integrated Water Plans). Stormwater can be integrated with flood control. There
should be a shared mission or regulatory authority. This will require changes in the law.
Flood control agencies and cities/counties
In Southern CA, Flood Control agencies are the foundation to storm water management. They are
overlapped and thus fragmented by other agencies such as City or other agencies. The IRWMP efforts
help as do JPAs and other partnerships. However, it is hard to get everyone together.
Hierarchy of Water Resources
Entrenched thinking is one of the biggest challenges in the water resource industry. There is a hierarchy
of water resources that values drinking water, waste water, and flood control above stormwater.
Land Use and Stormwater
Municipalities have land use regulations that create issues such as runoff, which other agencies are then
required to manage. There is a need for more integrated planning. There should be a focus on reducing
peak flows instead of on implementing capital enhancement projects to increase channel capacity.
Currently, there are many challenges associated with capture and re-use such as public health concerns,
storage and timing. Stormwater pollution and management has a clear nexus to land use. Urban areas
are the primary stormwater pollution concern. However, The State and Regional Boards have no land
use authority; landuse planning is essentially left to the locals. Given Proposition 13 and other drivers for
municipalities to generate revenues, there is no incentive for locals to plan better to minimize
stormwater pollution. The state of Maryland has addressed this issue by having the state planning
agencyA(suchAanAagencyAdoesn’tAexistAinACalifornia)AforceAlocalAgovernmentsAtoAadoptAlandAuseAandAwaterA
quality planning elements in their general plans. Failure to do so results in locals losing the ability to
zone land use.
General Permit Process for Industrial discharges
A real problem is the general permit process for industrial discharges even though it is a state permit.
TheAstateAisAnotArealAactiveAinAenforcingAtheApermit,AtheyAdon’tAdoAtheAinspectionsAorAoversights,AandAtheyA
requireAtheAlocalAagenciesAtoAimplementAtheAstate’sAprograms.ATheAstateAisAcollectingAtheAfeesAandAthenA
the locals are collecting fees that the dischargers have already paid to the state.
Regulatory Challenges
Page | 40
Regulation amongst myriad agencies. Multi-benefit projects especially suffer here. If it is flood related,
water supply, or stormwater pollution related then many agencies would be involved. Furthermore with
different regions, water-infrastructure considerations and so on, it becomes very siloed amongst
agencies. Without synergy and collaboration it becomes confusing and convoluted. Also, there is no
comprehensive ground or surface water regulation in the state which exacerbates the silo effect.
Regional, Watershed Planning (SAWPA as model)
SAWPA is a good model – how to take larger areas with multi jurisdiction and do watershed planning
that benefits the watershed and not individual areas. The model shows that instead of having lots of
districts and special districts with no one looking at the watershed in general, have a collective agency
looking at the whole. Even if it means more money goes to one area over another; the question to ask is
how does that compare for the benefit of the watershed? Need to look beyond jurisdictional boundaries
and only spending money in that same jurisdiction. SAWPA provides watershed decisions and funds
what is best for the watershed based on monies provided. Instead of separate proposals all over and not
necessarily implementing what would result in greatest good for the whole watershed. Start looking at
water as one water and bring everyone together and do more planning on regional basis with more
money and not just decisions in Sacramento that fund projects here and there.
No issues
TheAboundariesAofAresponsibilityAareAveryAclear.ATheAL ACountyAFloodAControl/PublicAWorks’AissuesAwithA
responsibility for municipal discharges into their system seem to be the most visible manifestation of
inter-local conflicts in California. Elsewhere in California, the burden of responsibility for water quality is
on the local city-county level and it seems to be working overall. There are actually not that many
overlaps so this is not really a big problem. Water supply regulation generally occurs further upstream,
while stormwater regulation is generally regulated downstream where it is more of an issue.
Question 9: Recommendations – Management; What can be done to promote a shift in mindset and
approach towards integrated water management for stormwater? (By IWM, we mean using stormwater as
a resource for water supply and environmental stewardship, tighter integration with land use, watershed
scale approaches, low impact development and green infrastructure, and greater sensitivity to natural
hydrologic and geomorphic processes)?
1. WorkAwithAaAWatershedAmindsetAnotAaAlocalA“permitAcompliance”Amindset,AdecisionsAneedAtoA
be made using a holistic water management approach and this should be done at the State
level not the individual local level. All water within the watershed should be managed
comprehensively rather than compartmentally.
2. Education, educating the public to be environmental stewards, as well as educating the
agency decision makers and leaders about the challenges and importance of stormwater
management. Proper stormwater management has economic and ecosystem benefits.
Sufficient data also needs to be collected to improve stormwater management.
3. Incentives, there needs to be incentives for communities to take storm water issues
seriously and into consideration, encourage an integrated water management approach and
out of the box thinking. Funds are limited so this is difficult to do but you will have greater
support in accomplishing this if communities realize there are multiple benefits.
Page | 41
Question 10: Recommendations – Communication; How can we better communicate with the public that
investment in stormwater (and green infrastructure and LID in particular) is worth their money?
1. Increase Public Awareness/Outreach, currently we are doing a poor job of this; make it a
Statewide campaign as well as local. Every Agency needs to send the same message of how
important our water quality is. Clean water is important to everyone not only for drinking
but for recreation and the environment too. But the public does not see the connection
between urban runoff, and how that impacts everything else down the line. Common
messages need to be sent from stormwater, drinking water, and wastewater agencies. Let
people know what small changes they can make and how they can help as well as what will
happen if they do nothing. Different media should be used to attract all audiences and local
focus groups should be considered.
2. Prove the benefits; show case the areas and communities that have benefitted from this
investment (i.e. Cleaner beaches, increased property value, reduced carbon footprint). More
cities need to embrace this, and lead by example. Each new development is an opportunity
to show they are doing their part in providing LID infrastructure and then showcase the
benefits to the community. City officials, engineers and developers need to work together.
Question 11: Recommendations – General; What recommendations or advice do you have for other
stormwater program managers or state and federal regulators?
Communication and collaboration is key between stakeholders, regulators, and storm water managers
and needs to improve to help prioritize stormwater management/projects. Reach out to one another
and get involved, be a part of the change. There needs to be an increased understanding of the
challenges that each face in order to develop solutions as stormwater should be looked at from the
upstreamAandAdownstream.ADon’tAbeAstuckAinAyourAsilos, trying to bring back the receiving waters to pre-
gold rush days is not a reality. We cannot change the past we can only learn and move forward. Treat
storm water as a resource and recognize the physical limitations of urban development. Stormwater
management should be a priority. Strong leadership is needed to get anything done. The current
permitting process is stuck in an ineffective loop of compromise and inaction. Look for opportunity to
break through the stale mate. Each local urban runoff/stormwater manager needs to fight the
institutional ignorance that hampers creative environmentally friendly thinking, audit the compliance of
their sister departments and enforce when necessary to obtain compliance. Stop looking at the quick
and easy fix and start looking at what will be most efficient and effective.
We need to find better ways to relate to the public. We need to tell stories about the problems and the
success of the solutions and create a narrative that can appeal to public and make them willing to invest
in stormwater infrastructure and buy into regulation. Talk to one another and look to other countries for
goodAexamplesAandAmodels.AWeAareAatAtheApointAinAhistoryAwhereAmoreAthanA50%AofAtheAworld’sA
population lives in cities. California is not the only place dealing with stormwater issues.
Page | 42
APPENDIX B: PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE BILL
Stormwater Watershed Management Authority Act
Introduced by 2013 Water Leaders Class
October 7, 2013
An act to amend Section 10560 of the Water Code, relating to stormwater.
LEGISL TIVEACOUNCEL’SADIGEST
Proposed Assembly Bill, as introduced, 2013 Water Leaders Class.
Stormwater Watershed Management Authority Act
Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Regional Water Quality
Control Boards prescribe waste discharge requirements for the discharge of stormwater in accordance
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program and the Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Existing law, the Stormwater Resource Planning Act, authorizes a
city, county, or special district to develop, jointly or individually, a stormwater resource plan that meets
certain standards. Existing law also authorizes a regional water management group, as defined, to adopt
an integrated regional water management plan that addresses specified matters. Existing law lacks
funding mechanisms and incentives to integrate stormwater management at the most effective scale,
the watershed scale.
This bill would create a voluntary program, administered by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), to make funding available for cities, counties, special districts, or others to form Watershed
Management Authorities (Authorities) for the purpose of developing and implementing integrated
watershed based stormwater management plans (Plans). This bill first provides grant funding to
Authorities to develop Plans according to guidelines developed by the SWRCB. For plans that meet the
criteria developed by the SWRCB, this bill also provides grant funding for the Authority to develop a local
funding source to support stormwater programs and the implementation of projects consistent with the
Plans. Finally, this bill encourages communities to apply for regional water quality permits and directs
the SWRCB to support regional permits.
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO Urgency: NO Tax Levy:
NO
Page | 43
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SEC 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The management of stormwater presents challenges in reducing the pollutants contributing to
the impairment of water bodies and complying with the permit terms imposed by regulations.
(b) The management of stormwater also presents multi-purpose opportunities for flood, control,
water supply, recreation, and the protection, restoration, and improvement of stewardship of
aquatic, riparian, and watershed resources within the region.
(c) Existing state and federal laws and regulations, including the Clean Water Act, Porter Cologne
Water Quality Control Act, and Stormwater Resource Planning Act provide regulatory tools and
mechanisms to improve stormwater management, but rely on individual permit holders acting
on individual based requirements and lacks sufficient funding for capital improvements and
long-term sustainable funding sources for stormwater programs and infrastructure
maintenance.
(d) Constraints on the establishment of dedicated and sustainable funding sources outside a
general fund, including Proposition 218 requirements and lack of consistent community support,
impedes the successful implementation of projects for the long-term management of
stormwater.
(e) A watershed-based approach addresses some of the inefficiencies in stormwater management
by pooling resources and provides for regional integration and prioritization of stormwater
initiatives to take advantage of collaborative stormwater management opportunities.
Collaboration at the watershed level allows for coordinated planning, implementation, and
monitoring aimed at meeting water quality objectives as defined in regional permits and Plans.
(f) Although allowed by existing law, watershed-based planning, implementation, and regional
permitting can be costly and expensive to undertake with unclear prospects for successful and
complete implementation without funding and incentives. Funding for planning allows for
Authorities to develop sustainable long-term funding sources to support the implementation of
projects designed to meet strategic watershed objectives as outlined in Plans.
SEC. 2. Watershed-Based Planning Guidelines
Section 10570 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10570.
(a) Cities, counties, special districts, and/or other municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
and/or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit holders sharing
common drainage areas may voluntarily form Water Management Authorities (Authorities) for
the development of watershed based stormwater management plans (Plans). The SWRCB will
establish guidelines for the Plans. Such Plans should include, but are not limited to:
a. Description of the area covered by the Authority including:
i. Geographic scope of the Authority
ii. Total drainage area including and upstream of the Authority
Page | 44
iii. Historical and current conditions within the drainage area
iv. Identification of any significant threats to water quality from stormwater runoff.
v. Applicable Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and constituents of concern
vi. Existing permit requirements
b. Governance structure for the Authority including:
i. Decision making processes; and
ii. Responsibilities for permits.
c. Measures to identify, prioritize, and address watershed based needs for meeting permit
requirements. Such measures should describe the:
i. Integration of individual plans under the Stormwater Resource Planning Act.
ii. Prioritization across different permit requirements.
iii. Multi-project benefits from watershed based planning.
d. Measures to identify, track and report on progress including:
i. Multi-parameter reporting that includes overall ecosystem health as well as
individual constituents.
ii. Public outreach such as a watershed report card.
e. Measures for funding implementation of the plan that may include, but are not limited
to:
i. Grants
ii. Bonds
iii. Regulatory fees
iv. Development fees
v. Assessments
vi. Property-related fees
vii. Establishment of a stormwater utility or integration of stormwater functions
into an existing utility, at the local or regional scale to establish, maintain, and
manage the identified funding sources.
viii. Tiered rate structures that encourage reductions of contaminant loading, source
control, low impact development (LID), and advanced treatment.
(b) Existing planning documents may be utilized as a functionally equivalent plan, including, but not
limited to, watershed management plans, integrated resource plans, urban water management
plans, stormwater resource plan or similar plans. If a planning document does not meet the
standards of this section, a collection of local and regional plans may constitute a functional
equivalent.
Page | 45
(c) A $250 million grant program, to be administered by the Board, shall be made available to
provide financial assistance state-wide for development of Plans. In the awarding of grants, the
Board shall consider the potential effectiveness of the Authority, including but not limited to:
a. Extent of jurisdiction over key contaminants at the watershed-level
b. Extent of jurisdiction over the quantity of runoff
(d) Planning shall require a 25% cost-share by the Authority.
(e) The Board shall evaluate Plans for consistency with the guidelines and make recommendations
on the measures to be undertaken by the Authorities to make their plans consistent with the
guidelines.
(f) Nothing in this part interferes with or prevents the exercise of authority by a public agency to
carry out its programs, projects, or responsibilities.
(g) Nothing in this part affects requirements imposed under any other provision of law.
SEC. 3. Project Funding
Section 10560 of the Water Code is amended to read:
(a) Upon meeting the requirements established by the Board in Section 2 of this title, the Authority
shall be eligible for implementation funding. Up to $250 million shall be available in a grant
program administered by the SWRCB to implement in the Plans described in Section 2 of this
Bill.
(b) The projects funded pursuant to this chapter shall:
a. Be consistent with the Plans developed under Section 2 of this title.
b. Include monitoring and metrics for measuring and reporting on the manner in which the
project will be effective in preventing and reducing pollution and in demonstrating the
desired environmental results.
c. Contribute to meeting the requirements of MS4 or other waste discharge permits.
(c) In awarding grants, the SWRCB shall consider:
a. Baseline water quality or environmental quality to be addressed and the nonpoint
source or sources of pollution to be prevented or reduced by the project.
b. The intended outcomes of the project. This bill intends to provide flexibility for
Authorities to meet permit requirements in the manner most effective for local
conditions and is not intended to prescribe specific actions.
c. The sustainability of the project in terms of long-term operations and maintenance and
the source of funding for such activities.
d. Multi-program benefits such as, but not limited to:
i. Water supply
ii. Recreation
Page | 46
iii. Recovery plans for coho salmon, steelhead trout, or other threatened or
endangered aquatic species.
iv. Wetlands or other environmental benefits.
e. Necessary public agency approvals, entitlements, and permits that may be required to
implement the project.
f. Other criteria as determined by the SWRCB.
(d) Upon completion of the project, a recipient of funds under this chapter shall submit a report to
the SWRCB that summarizes the completed activities and indicates whether the purposes of the
project have been met. The report shall include information collected by the recipient in
accordance with the project monitoring and reporting plan, including a determination of the
effectiveness of the project in preventing or reducing pollution, and the results of the
monitoring program. The SWRCB shall make the report available to the public, watershed
groups, and federal, state, and local agencies.
(e) Implementation shall require a 50% cost share by the Authority.
SEC. 4. Permitting
Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 10580) is added to Division 6 of the Water Code, to read:
(a) Upon approval of the Plan, the Authority may voluntarily pursue a conversion of individual MS4
permits to a regional or watershed level stormwater permit consistent with the Clean Water Act
and federal regulations contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 122,
section (40 CFR § 122.26).
(b) The Board shall recognize and support the benefits of regional permitting. Recognition and
support may consist of:
a. Waiver of fees
b. Technical assistance
c. Streamlined permitting processes
(c) Creation of Plans shall not obligate an Authority to apply for a regional permit, but a regional
permit is anticipated to provide substantial benefits to the individual entities in the Authority
and should be recognized as a goal of this bill.
SEC. 5. Reporting
The SWRCB shall prepare and submit annual reports to this committee on the progress of this legislation
including the number of Authorities formed, plans completed, projects funded, and improvements in
stormwater management. Such reports shall begin one year after passage of this bill and continue until
5 years after the conclusion of the implementation grant program.
Page | 47
2013AWaterALeadersAClass
2013 Water Leaders: First row, from left to right (Audrey Patterson, Amy Kwong, Caitrin Chappelle, Laura Rocha,
Derek Nguyen, Jessi Snyder, Eric Tsai, Brinda Sarathy, Andrew Schwarz, Linda Esteli-Mendez, Ashley Orsaba-
Finders). Second row, from left to right (Brandon Minto, Sandra Lynch, Howard Quan, David Mooney, Kristin
White, Jarvis Caldwell, Dustin La Vallee, Shane McCoin, Shaun Horne, Holly Jorgensen)
Stormwater – Recommendations for an Integrated Regional Management Approach Page 1
2013 Water Leaders Class
PresentedAby:
2013AWaterALeadersAClass
PreparedAfor:
ASTORMW TER:A AChallengingAResource
AARecommendationsAforAanAIntegratedARegionalAManagementA pproach
DecemberA2,A2013
Stormwater – Recommendations for an Integrated Regional Management Approach Page i
2013 Water Leaders Class
PRESENTATION PROGRAM
Introduction to Presentation _______________________________________________________ #1
Played by Shaun Horne _________________________________________________________ #1
Open Hearing ___________________________________________________________________ #1
Played by David Mooney _________________________________________________________ #1
Bill Presentation _________________________________________________________________ #1
Played by Brandon Minto, Andrew Schwartz, and Linda Mendez ________________________ #1
Open Questions __________________________________________________________________ #5
Played by David Mooney _________________________________________________________ #5
Questions 1 and 2 and Responses ____________________________________________________ #5
Played by Sandra Lynch (Question 1) ______________________________________________ #5
Played by Andrew Schwartz (Response 1) ___________________________________________ #5
Played by Kristin White (Question 2) _______________________________________________ #6
Played by Linda Mendez (Response 2) ______________________________________________ #6
Open Public Comments ____________________________________________________________ #6
Played by David Mooney _________________________________________________________ #6
Public Comments _________________________________________________________________ #6
1. United Nature Defense (Environmental) Played by Holly Jorgensen __________________ #6
2. City of Stormville (Municipal) Played by Howard Quan ____________________________ #7
3. Environmental NGO Representative Played by Laura Rocha ________________________ #7
4. State Water Resources Control Board (State Regulatory) Played by Jessi Snyder ________ #8
5. Watershed Stormwater Manager (Municipal) Played by Ashley Orsaba-Finders _________ #8
6. Industrial Process Owner Played by Audrey Patterson _____________________________ #9
7. Builders Industry Association Representative Played by Amy Kwong __________________ #9
8. Opposed Rate Payer Played by Brinda Sarathy ___________________________________ #9
9. Successfully Regionally Integrated Watershed Director Played by Caitrin Chappelle ____ #10
Close Public Comments and Open to Board of Directors Questions ________________________ #10
Played by David Mooney ________________________________________________________ #10
Board of Director Questions to 2013 Water Leaders ____________________________________ #11
Played by Actual Water Education Foundation Board of Directors ______________________ #11
Call to Vote ____________________________________________________________________ #11
Played by David Mooney ________________________________________________________ #11
Played by Sandra Lynch ________________________________________________________ #11
Played by Kristin White _________________________________________________________ #11
Played by Shaun Horne ________________________________________________________ #11
Stormwater – Recommendations for an Integrated Regional Management Approach Page 1
2013 Water Leaders Class
Introduction to Presentation (One Minute)
Shaun Horne: Portraying a reporter presenting issues just prior to hearing.
Shaun: I’m reporter Shaun Horne standing here at the capitol where assembly members
will present a bill for changing stormwater management. Stormwater lacks glamour. It is
regarded as waste, a consequence of growth and urban development. It is a byproduct to
be dealt with, corralled, and controlled. However, stormwater holds a secret promise.
What if stormwater was regarded as a resource? While it may carry pollutants, it also
holds the potential to recharge depleted groundwater basins, nourish watersheds and
replenish drinking water supplies.
We now go live to the committee where Chairperson David Mooney is inviting the
proponents to speak.
Open Hearing (30 Seconds)
David Mooney: Portraying Hearing Director.
David: I would like to welcome Brandon Minto, Andrew Schwarz, and Linda-Esteli
Mendez to present the proposed Stormwater Watershed Management Authority Act.
Bill Presentation (6 Minutes)
Brandon Minto, Linda Mendez and Andrew Schwarz: Portraying Assembly Members
supporting the Proposed Legislative Bill.
Brandon (2 Minutes): Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and present our
bill.
Current stormwater regulation at the state and local level drive geopolitical boundaries
that result in “permit-compliance” mindsets and limit the resource management potential
inside of a watershed. Coupled with the existing regulatory environment, MS4 flood
control, wastewater, solid waste, and drinking water programs all operate separately and
yet all affect stormwater programs and management. Current federal, state, and local
regulations treat stormwater as a pollutant with strict management requirements that are
not entirely effective in addressing the underlying environmental, flood control, and
water supply goals for stormwater. The key challenges facing stormwater management
generally fall into the following categories:
• Insufficient funding;
• Lack of integration between agencies;
• Difficulty in implementation of regulations;
Stormwater – Recommendations for an Integrated Regional Management Approach Page 2
2013 Water Leaders Class
• Ineffective regulations; and
• Limitations in localized monitoring.
Echoing the Integrated Regional Water Management program (IRWM) model already in
place in California, the 2013 Water Leaders Class proposes that a program be created
which encourages and incentivizes collaboration between local agencies. IRWM program
started in 2002 and now 97 percent of California residents live within an IRWM planning
area. The IRWM program has been credited with bringing diverse interests together and
building strong working relationships that have helped improve water management at the
regional scale. It is anticipated this proposed legislation could have a similar impact on
stormwater management—expanding the scale and scope of management approaches,
building relationships, and incentivizing projects and programs that provide broad
benefits across a watershed. Regional management of stormwater presents multi-purpose
opportunities for flood control, water supply, and recreation, as well as the protection,
restoration and strong stewardship of aquatic resources in a regional area.
The 2013 Water Leaders Class drafted an Assembly Bill that would provide for the
creation of integrated stormwater management plans at a watershed level, consistent with
other existing water supply and flood control plans, and allowing for functional
equivalents such as watershed management plans, urban water management plans, or
other plans. As proposed, the bill would amend certain sections of the California Water
Code, and would add, “The Stormwater Resource Planning Act” to Division 6 of the
California Water Code. The aim of the Act is principally to encourage watershed scale
management while reframing stormwater as a resource, not as a waste product. Properly
managed, stormwater can contribute to local water supplies through onsite storage and
reuse, or through groundwater recharge, thereby increasing local available supplies of
drinking water. As precipitation patterns change, and an increasing amount of
California’s water falls not as snow in the mountains, but as rain in other areas of the
state, the value of stormwater is clear.
The proposed bill supports a watershed-based approach to stormwater planning and
management through financial incentives, administered by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB), for voluntarily forming Watershed Management Authorities to
plan integrated approaches to stormwater management. The proposed bill also
encourages communities to apply for regional water quality permits and directs the
SWRCB to support regional permits. By encouraging regional watershed integration in
conjunction with the SWRCB, the proposed bill transforms regulation away from these
geopolitical boundaries and provides incentives for a more efficient and effective
regional collaborative approach.
Linda (2 ½ Minutes): The proposed legislation provides flexibility to create new
watershed level stormwater authorities that bring together different agencies and
Stormwater – Recommendations for an Integrated Regional Management Approach Page 3
2013 Water Leaders Class
municipalities in an effort to better integrate, coordinate, and when possible consolidate.
This would create a voluntary program, administered by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB), to make funding available for cities, counties, special districts,
or others to form Watershed Management Authorities (Authorities) for the purpose of
developing and implementing integrated watershed based stormwater management plans
(Plans). This bill first provides grant funding to Authorities to develop Plans according to
guidelines developed by the SWRCB. For plans that meet the criteria developed by the
SWRCB, this bill also provides grant funding for the Authority to develop a local funding
source to support stormwater programs and the implementation of projects consistent
with the Plans. Finally, this bill encourages communities to apply for regional water
quality permits and directs the SWRCB to support regional permits.
The bill encourages cities, counties, special districts, or others to form Watershed
Management Authorities and foster collaboration on a regional watershed approach to
reduce the institutional challenges associated with siloed agencies focused on various
independent missions. In addition, the proposed bill allows the SWRCB to support and
encourage effective, watershed-based efforts to improve stormwater quality and retain it
for beneficial, multi-purpose uses through several funding opportunities. The proposed
bill requires the SWRCB to develop guidelines for awarding grants for watershed
projects that enhance water quality, to prioritize the prevention of pollution (rather than
addressing its symptoms), and to improve the stormwater discharge coordination and
integration of monitoring efforts. The SWRCB is further empowered to reward
watershed-based efforts by waiving or reducing discharge fees and to promote Low
Impact Development (LID) by funding pilot projects in disadvantaged communities and
other locales. To address funding challenges a third grant program would provide funds
for watershed authorities to develop their own local and sustainable funding source.
The proposed legislation would address many of the challenges identified in stormwater
management. Primarily, the bill seeks to alleviate some of the funding challenges
associated with stormwater management; a problem that has only been exacerbated under
the current fiscal climate. By making grant funding available for the purpose of
developing and implementing integrated watershed based stormwater management plans,
as well as grant funding for the Authority to develop a local funding source to support
stormwater programs, the bill attempts to reduce the current financial burden facing
stormwater agencies. Many of the regulatory and monitoring challenges of stormwater
management stem from the inefficiencies of local municipalities that lack the resources to
adequately enforce or determine the effectiveness of particular management methods, in
addition to the self-regulating methodology of the NPDES program, which deters
coordinated monitoring locations and methodologies within a watershed. A watershed-
based approach to stormwater management, as called for in the proposed bill, allows for
the pooling of resources and provides for regional integration and prioritization of
Stormwater – Recommendations for an Integrated Regional Management Approach Page 4
2013 Water Leaders Class
stormwater initiatives. This collaboration allows for coordinated planning,
implementation and monitoring aimed at meeting regional water quality objectives, while
broadly sharing the associated burden amongst the municipalities in the watershed.
To summarize the key of the points of the bill:
Based on the IRWMP model;
Voluntary program that provides grant funding for developing and implementing
stormwater management plans at a watershed level (integrated stormwater
management plans);
Creation of Watershed Management Authorities to encourage collaboration between
agencies (pool resources, coordinated planning and monitoring);
Plans should seek to use stormwater as a resource and projects should seek to have
multi-program benefits;
Plans that meet the criteria developed by the SWRCB will also receive funding to
develop a local funding source and;
Encourages Authorities to apply for and directs SWRCB to support regional permits.
Andrew (1 ½ Minutes): While the proposed bill works to address many of the
challenges associated with stormwater management, it is not without some limitations.
Grants can provide help with the process of developing a funding source, which can
include extensive expenses from research, polling, and public education, however, the
agencies will have to rely on taxes and fees, which are all still limited in scope by
Propositions 13 and 218.
Rather than relying on broad guidelines and end of pipe approaches, source control of
specific pollutants is critical for attaining water quality endpoints and the proposed bill
does not address source control. The most effective way to ensure a pollutant does not
enter into the environment is to ban that product so it never has the opportunity. Although
there have been legislative efforts to reduce things like plastic bags and copper in brakes,
the proposed bill does not address specific pollutants.
While the proposed legislative bill will not solve all of California’s complex stormwater
issues, our hope is that it can be a catalyst for innovation and can help start to move
California past its current state of ineffective stormwater management. This proposed
legislation develops a voluntary program to address many of the challenges facing
stormwater managers and will incentivize innovative solutions centered on the watershed
scale that foster relationships between stakeholders.
Because the proposed bill allows watershed management authorities to self-define and
provides wide flexibility as to how management authorities can achieve stormwater
management goals, it provides a framework for creative and regionally focused
approaches. As watershed management authorities expand their thinking to find solutions
Stormwater – Recommendations for an Integrated Regional Management Approach Page 5
2013 Water Leaders Class
to their stormwater management and funding challenges, those solutions will provide new
examples and case studies for other stormwater management authorities. It is our vision
that this approach will ultimately lead to an increase in new and innovative examples of
stormwater capture and reuse, low impact development, source control, and public
education and outreach programs to improve stormwater management. The long term
objective of this effort is to develop a comprehensive stormwater management
framework that expands California’s current water resource governance structure in a
manner that fosters interagency collaboration at the watershed scale to meet California’s
growing water demands for both humans and the environment.
Open Questions (30 Seconds)
David Mooney: Portraying Hearing Director.
David: Thank you Assembly Members. I would like to open up questions from the
committee for the assembly members.
Mock Committee Questions to Bill Presenters (5 Minutes)
Sandra Lynch and Kristin White: Portraying committee members; take seats with the Board of
Directors at the beginning of the hearing.
Andrew Schwarz and Linda Mendez: supporting members that respond to questions.
Sandra: Question 1: This question is regarding funding. Could you clarify how the Bill
will provide and help allocate funds to stormwater management if Prop 218 and Prop 13
are in place?
Andrew: Response: The bill does not necessarily provide and allocate funds to
stormwater management, so much as provide limited grants for developing a funding
source that would work for a particular community, which can include extensive
expenses from research, polling, and public education. However, the agencies will have
to rely on taxes and fees, which are all still limited in scope by Propositions 13 and 218.
The hope is a watershed-based approach in stormwater management can result in a
pooling of resources to provide for regional integration and prioritization of stormwater
initiatives and management opportunities. Collaboration at the watershed level allows for
coordinated planning, implementation, and monitoring aimed at meeting water quality
objectives as defined in regional permits and Plans. Although allowed by existing law,
watershed-based planning, implementation, and regional permitting can be costly and
expensive to undertake with unclear prospects for successful and complete
implementation without funding and incentives. This bill proposes to fund for integrated
planning which allows authorities to develop sustainable long-term funding sources to
support the implementation of projects designed to meet strategic watershed objectives as
outlined in Plans.
Stormwater – Recommendations for an Integrated Regional Management Approach Page 6
2013 Water Leaders Class
Kristin: Question 2: Will a new regional permit replace the permits we currently have in
place?
Linda: Response: Upon approval of these Plans, an Authority may voluntarily pursue a
conversion of individual MS4 permits to a regional permit; a new regional permit will not
be required. The objective of the bill is not to add another permitting process and increase
bureaucracy in the system. On the contrary, the bill is trying to address this issue,
streamline processes ensuring they are done in coordinated and integrated way. Cities,
counties, special districts, and/or other municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
and/or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit holders sharing
common drainage areas may voluntarily form Water Management Authorities
(Authorities) for the development of watershed based stormwater management plans
(Plans). The SWRCB will support the benefits of regional permitting, which may consist
of waiver of fees, technical assistance and streamlined permitting processes.
Open Questions (30 Seconds)
David Mooney: Portraying Hearing Director.
David: I would like to now open up to public comments.
Public Commenters (10 Minutes)
Holly Jorgensen, Howard Quan, Laura Rocha, Jessi Snyder, Ashley Orsaba-Finders, Audrey
Patterson, Amy Kwong, Brinda Sarathy, and Caitrin Chappelle: Portraying public commenters.
1. Holly: Comments by United Nature Defense (Environmental) (1 ½ Minutes): My
name is Holly Jorgensen and I am pleased to represent our members and supporters from
the non-profit organization, United Nature Defense. The proposed legislation you are
considering is very important to us. We continue to witness stormwater’s significant
impacts to the environment. Thanks to the groundbreaking federal Clean Water Act,
Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and Stormwater Resource Planning Act
regulatory tools and means to improve stormwater management are now available.
However, they rely on individual permit holders acting on individually based
requirements and lack sufficient funding for capital improvements and long-term
sustainable funding sources for stormwater programs and infrastructure maintenance. As
a result, we still have a long way to go to achieve sustainable stormwater management
and ensure prevention and treatment in urban and rural areas in California.
We support this bill because we recognize that there is a strong need for additional funds
and grants that tackle stormwater planning, but we would like to see more. Required
participation and mandated low impact development known as LID along with source
control would go farther to improving the environment. In addition, we think it’s time to
move from a permit-compliance mindset to one of stewardship. If passed, we think the
Stormwater – Recommendations for an Integrated Regional Management Approach Page 7
2013 Water Leaders Class
bill promises more collaboration and with a watershed-wide approach we can transition
from individual site permitting to watershed permitting processes. This is important
because we believe it will incentivize a focus on overall watershed health and regional
planning, instead of segregated local activities that as we’ve experienced, lead to regional
contradictions instead of a planned integration of funds and activities to truly manage
stormwater throughout the state. Thank you.
2. Howard: Comments by City of Stormville (Municipal) (1 ½ Minutes): My name is
Howard Quan and I am here today from the City of Stormville. The proposed legislation
you are considering is very important to our City. It costs our City hundreds of thousands
of dollars to maintain our stormwater program. Our City is currently regulated by a Phase
II permit and we pay for our stormwater program mainly out of the general fund and also
with new development fees, if any. It is becoming increasingly difficult for stormwater to
compete with the other demands on our general fund, and new residential development
has slowed substantially, so we have very limited options to pay for stormwater
regulation. We are downstream from agricultural uses and other municipalities, and
upstream from a sensitive estuary ecosystem. As a result, we must find ways to comply
with TMDLs for water quality issues we are not causing as well as regulate the industrial
and residential stormwater discharges within our borders.
To the extent this bill provides us with opportunities for increased funding sources and a
watershed approach to address water quality problems that cross political boundaries, we
support it. However, we do not currently have a separate stormwater utility or a regional
authority to implement the planning provisions that this bill requires in order to receive
grant funding. We are concerned that it merely creates a new regulatory scheme which
will only cost more money and staff time to implement. In addition, we have just spent
years working with the State Water Resources Control Board on the new Phase II permit
and the thought of repeating another permitting process if we were to pursue a regional
permit is daunting. We appreciate your consideration of our comments.
3. Laura: Environmental NGO Representative (1 Minute): My name is Laura Rocha
and I represent a non-profit organization and generally agree with the two previous
commenters and certainly understand the constraints in regards to stormwater
management. However, the real problem regarding stormwater management is lack of
enforcement of existing rules and regulations. No regulatory bodies are going after
existing polluting culprits that are creating water quality issues and would rather put the
responsibility on the non-polluting citizens and municipalities to pay the price to clean up
the pollution created by others. For example, I have been working with the regional board
for months identifying a local recycling company within their jurisdiction that is subject
to the industrial general permit, but is not operating under a permit and does not have
BMPs implemented on-site to treat the stormwater prior to discharge. Every rain event,
Stormwater – Recommendations for an Integrated Regional Management Approach Page 8
2013 Water Leaders Class
you can literally see the pollution draining off-site. And it’s not just that location, this
owner has several recycling operations all over Southern California and at least half of
them are not permitted with no BMPs installed. If we could put more effort into
enforcement of existing rules and regulation, I believe that would result in greater water
quality results and would put the financial responsibility on the polluters. I understand
that may result in BMP improvements that individual owners may not afford, putting
some polluters out of business. However, we need to consider the service they provide
and how much it really costs the public to clean-up after it.
4. Jessi: Comments by State Water Resources Control Board (State Regulatory) (1 ½
Minutes): My name is Jessi Snyder and I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the
State Water Resources Control Board. The State and Regional Boards perform several
stormwater functions, including issuing permits and administering grant funding for
stormwater programs. Earlier this year, the State Board adopted a new general Phase II
permit for small municipalities. The Regional Boards issue individual Phase II permits to
those not covered by the general permit and individual Phase I permits to medium and
large municipalities. The State Board is currently in the second phase of awarding funds
from the Proposition 84 Storm Water Grant Program. More than half the total funding
and all of the planning and monitoring funding has already been awarded. Thus, there is
a need for additional stormwater planning grants, as provided in the proposed bill.
Some of the proposals in the bill are already being implemented. For example, many
Phase I permits have been issued to a group of co-permittees, including a group of several
small municipalities or a mix of small, medium and large municipalities within a
metropolitan area. The proposed bill would continue this approach, but may make it
easier for municipalities to create dedicated stormwater utilities and a sustainable funding
source. Although a great deal of time and effort was recently invested in developing the
general Phase II permit, this bill would not change that permit and leaves it to the
discretion of the permittee whether or not to join a Watershed Management Authority.
The lack of real change or mandated watershed cooperation may be a disadvantage of this
bill. It is uncertain whether the incentives provided will encourage more watershed
cooperation, which the Water Boards support as the most effective means to address
stormwater challenges. The State Board does not currently anticipate that this bill would
create an additional administrative burden to review and approve regional permits, but
the bill will create additional grant administration duties. The State Board’s programs are
currently underfunded and understaffed and the legislature must make a commitment to
provide adequate staff and resources to implement this bill if it is passed to have any
chance for success.
5. Ashley: Comments by Watershed Stormwater Manager (1 Minute): My name is
Ashely Orsaba-Finders and I am representing the City of Floodsville Publics Works. We
Stormwater – Recommendations for an Integrated Regional Management Approach Page 9
2013 Water Leaders Class
are a disadvantaged community with limited resources. As head of public works, I am
responsible for so many different issues as it is; IRWM Planning for water supply, flood
control planning, MS4 compliance. I am spread entirely too thin and am quite fed up with
going to so many various meetings for this committee and that committee; especially
because my agency is in three watersheds with three regulatory boards and permits to
follow. Now I’ll have to go to more stormwater meetings, oh and voluntarily? It’s not
even a question of why would I volunteer, but how is that even possible for my agency?!
When will this permit madnesss stop? I am not even going to touch upon the fact that this
legislation doesn’t go far enough to address funding since Prop 13 and 218 will stop any
funding potential dead in its tracks.
6. Audrey: Comments by Industrial Process Owner (½ Minute): Good afternoon, my
name is Audrey Patterson and I am an industrial business owner here in the City of
Stormville. My facilities, all of my facilities, have been in compliance with the regulatory
requirements from the beginning. I have invested thousands of dollars in retrofits and
new stormwater filtration devices and every few years I am told that is not good enough
to protect the fish or the bird that eats the fish, I can’t remember. The real problem seems
to be environmentalists who think that saving some hawk or rat or frog with a red leg is
more important than keeping people employed, goods produced, and moving the
economy forward. I understand the rules and do my part but this is another plan for more
plans; people and regulators have gone overboard.
7. Amy: Comments by Builders Industry Association Representative (½ Minute): Good
afternoon, my name is Amy Kwong and I represented the Builders Industry Association.
The B.I.A. has long advocated for regional solutions to storm water which we believe
will be more effective and cost efficient than the spot management solutions that we're
currently employing. This proposed act embraces this concept and provides funding to
make regional solutions possible. The BIA would welcome the opportunity to put the
burden elsewhere, e.g. others in the watershed, and as I have heard today, that may be
more appropriate in some circumstances.
8. Brinda: Comments by Opposed Rate Payer (1 Minute): Good afternoon, my name is
Brinda Sarathy and I am a property owner on Canal Avenue here in the City of
Stormville. This whole proposition sounds like a rain tax on property owners. Taxing
people on rain falling on their roof and driveway is just plain stealing from the public. I
know we've got to take care of the planet, and I'm an environmentalist. Ask my kids. I'm
a big fan of recycling. But I'm opposed to property based fees or taxes, because I'm not
the polluter. I’m drowning in fees not stormwater.
I can't afford to pay more fees, and if I had to, I'd pay for more important things like
education; my kids are sharing books with other students in our school district! If you
Stormwater – Recommendations for an Integrated Regional Management Approach Page 10
2013 Water Leaders Class
want to tax me, then put this stormwater fee on the ballot for a public vote. Anything else
is intended to mislead me and other citizens.
There's gotta be alternatives to property based fees. Home owners should be able to
reduce their fees by planting trees or installing rain gardens and doing other things on our
land to reduce runoff. Why not create an ordinance that would require property owners
who pave over soil to make up for that by doing something to capture runoff elsewhere?
I think everyone can make a difference and there is no guarantee that larger projects will
create efficiencies. So don't use this whole watershed scale language to impose more fees.
There has to be better options than increasing the financial burden on middle class
homeowners like myself.
9. Caitrin: Comments by Successfully Regionally Integrated Watershed Director (1
Minute): Good afternoon, my name is Caitrin Chappelle and I am the Director of a
Successfully Regionally Integrated Watershed. As a Successful Regionally Integrated
Watershed Director, I oversee several undertakings, including water resource related
collaborative planning and implementation activities with multiple agencies and
organizations throughout the watershed to support cost efficiency, integration, and
synergy creating anew. These joint efforts among the Planning Department staff and
watershed stakeholders, sometimes called the “Roundtable” efforts, operate under formal
and informal agreements. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is often a party to
these agreements. We have successfully implemented a number of multi-jurisdiction
multi-beneficial projects that would not have been possible had all the stakeholders not
come to the “Roundtable.” In addition, we have a number of task forces, coalitions or
workgroups under our facilitation that address water resource programs, such as Imported
Water Recharge Emerging Constituents Program Task Force, beneficial use assurance
Task Force), or watershed improvement. We have implemented more successful projects
working together than we would have been capable of on our own.
Close Public Comments and Open to Board of Directors (30 Seconds)
David Mooney: Portraying Hearing Director.
David: This concludes the public comments. Thank you for the different perspectives on
the proposed bill. We would now like to entertain questions from the Water Education
Foundation Board regarding our proposed bill or Water Leaders experience before we
wrap up with a vote.
Stormwater – Recommendations for an Integrated Regional Management Approach Page 11
2013 Water Leaders Class
Questions from the Board of Directors (Not Included in Time Limit)
Open Vote (One Minute)
David Mooney: Portraying Hearing Director.
Sandra Lynch and Kristin White: Portraying mock committee members.
Shaun Horne: Portraying a reporter presenting issues just prior to hearing.
David: At this time I’m looking for a motion to vote on this bill.
Sandra Lynch: I move to vote.
Kristin White: I second
David: All those in favor, please indicate by saying, “aye.”
David: Those opposed please indicate by saying, “nay.”
David: The bill passes. End of session.
Shaun Horne: There you have it folks, the next step in storm water management. We
heard questions on the complicated issues of funding, management, and regulation.
While it may not solve all the all of California’s complex stormwater issues, the proposed
legislation will setup a foundation for moving forward. This proposed bill could be a
catalyst for innovation and help move California past its current state of ineffective
stormwater management. It is clear that the proponents see potential in regional
watershed integration by transforming regulation away from established geopolitical
boundaries and providing incentives for a more efficient and effective collaborative
approach. On behalf of the Water Leaders Class of 2013, thank you for providing us with
this opportunity and we hope you enjoyed our class project.
ITEM NO. 9.8
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013 Budgeted:No
To:Board of Directors Cost Estimate:$2,500
Funding Source:Operating Funds
From:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Account No:1-2010-0640-00
Presented By:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Dept:Administration
Prepared By:Steve Conklin, Acting General
Manager
Subject:Annual Membership Dues for Water Education Foundation
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors authorize payment of the District's membership in the Water Education
Foundation for calendar year 2013 at a cost of $2,500.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee discussed this matter at its meeting held
December 17, 2013 and support staff's recommendation.
DISCUSSION:
The District had been a member of the Water Education Foundation (WEF), but has not paid its
dues since February 2011 due to budget restrictions. However, with the anticipated approval by the
Board for Water Quality Engineer Derek Nguyen to participate on the Board of Directors of WEF, it
is recommended that the District Board consider reactivating its membership by approving payment
of its 2013 Membership Invoice for $2,500. A review of our current budget status indicates that
budget is available for this unfunded expense in the Administration Department budget for Dues,
Memberships and Subscriptions. If the above is approved by the Board, membership dues for 2014
and subsequent years would be included in future Fiscal Year budgets.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
WEF_Membership_Invoice.pdf WEF 2013 Invoice Backup Material
Approved by the Board of Directors of the
Yorba Linda Water District
12/23/2013
MB/RC 5-0
ITEM NO. 11.1
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
Subject:Executive-Administrative-Organizational Committee
· Minutes of meeting held December 17, 2013 at 4:00 p.m.
· Meeting scheduled January 21, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
121713_EAO_-_Minutes.docx EAO Mtg Minutes 12/17/13 Minutes
1
MINUTES OF THE
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
EXECUTIVE-ADMINISTRATIVE-ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 4:00 p.m.
1717 E Miraloma Ave, Placentia CA 92870
1. CALL TO ORDER
The December 17, 2013 meeting of the Yorba Linda Water District’s Executive-
Administrative-Organizational Committee was called to order by Director Melton
at 4:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Admin Conference Room at the
District’s Administration Building located at 1717 East Miraloma Avenue in
Placentia, California 92870.
2. ROLL CALL
COMMITTEE STAFF
Director Gary T. Melton, Chair Steve Conklin, Acting General Manager
Director Robert R. Kiley Damon Micalizzi, Public Info Officer
OTHER ATTENDEES
Art Kidman, Partner, Kidman Law LLP
Heather Dion, Senior Director, Townsend Public Affairs (By Teleconference)
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
The following item was taken out of order.
5. DISCUSSION ITEMS
5.1 Status of Legislative Affairs (Verbal Report)
Ms. Dion discussed state and local legislative items of interest with the
Committee. Following completion of her report she ended her
teleconference connection with the committee meeting.
4. ACTION CALENDAR
4.1. Adoption of FPPC Form 806 for the Purpose of Reporting Public Official
Appointments
At the request of Mr. Conklin, Mr. Kidman reported that per a recent
amendment to the California Government Code, public agencies are
required to complete Form 806 for the purpose of reporting public official
appointments and compensation for each appointed position. Following
discussion, the Committee recommended that the Board: 1) adopt FPPC
2
Form 806 for reporting official appointments each year, and 2) direct staff
to post the completed form on the District’s website.
4.2. Annual Membership Dues for Water Education Foundation (WEF)
Mr. Conklin reported that the District had been a member of WEF but has
not paid its dues since Feb 2011 due to budget restrictions. However, with
the anticipated approval by the Board for Water Quality Engineer Derek
Nguyen to participate on the Board of Directors of WEF, it recommended
that the District consider reactivating its membership by approving
payment of its 2013 Membership Invoice for $2500. Following discussion,
the Committee supported this recommendation to the Board.
4.3. Completion of 2013 Water Leaders Class and WEF Board Member
Participation
Mr. Conklin reported that Derek Nguyen has completed the program for
the WEF’s Water Leaders Class of 2013, and referenced the summary
memo by Mr. Nguyen on his experiences in the program. Also noted was
the report prepared by the Water Leaders Class on their research into
“Stormwater as a Resource.” Mr. Conklin also reported that Mr. Nguyen
has been nominated to serve on the WEF Board for a 3-year term.
Following discussion, the Committee supported the staff recommendation
that the Board approve the participation of Derek as a member of the WEF
Board for a 3-year term, and approval for payment of related expenses.
5. DISCUSSION ITEMS CONTINUED
5.2. Status of OCWD Annexation Project (Verbal Report)
Mr. Conklin reported that there is no new information to report; the
documentation for annexation has been submitted by OCW D to LAFCO
for review and processing.
5.3. Status of Sage and Esperanza Hills Development Projects (Verbal Report)
Mr. Conklin recalled that the draft EIRs for both projects are available for
review by the public. He noted that he attended a public information
meeting on December 16, 2013 for the Cielo Vista Project to solicit public
comments. He also reminded the Committee of the meeting scheduled
with Supervisor Spitzer on December 23, 2013 to discuss the two projects,
that will include directors and staff from the District.
5.4. Status of Plumosa Property Sale (Verbal Report)
Mr. Conklin reported that the formal appraisal report is expected to be
received by December 19, 2013. He indicated that he will bring it to the
Board shortly thereafter so that the consideration for sale can proceed.
5.5. Director’s and General Manager Fees & Expenses
The document was reviewed by the Committee with no comments.
3
5.6. Future Agenda Items and Staff Tasks
None.
The Committee adjourned to Closed Session at 4:50 pm. Directors Melton and Kiley
were present. Also present were Messrs. Conklin and Kidman.
6. CLOSED SESSION
6.1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation
Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the California
Government Code
Name of Case: ACWA/JPIA, et al vs. Insurance Company of the
State of Pennsylvania, et al (OC Superior Court –
Case No. 00486884)
6.2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation
Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the California
Government Code
Name of Case: City of Anaheim vs. Ana J. Matosantos, et al.
(Superior Court of CA, Sacramento – Case No. 34-
2013-800001529)
6.3. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision
(d) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Related to line break at 1301 North Rose Drive, Placentia CA 92870.
Number of Potential Cases: One
6.4. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision
(d) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code
Related to written communications from potential plaintiffs threatening
litigation.
Number of Potential Cases: One
The Committee reconvened in Open Session at 5:00 p.m. Director Melton announced
that no action was taken during Closed Session that was required to be reported under
the Brown Act.
4
7. ADJOURNMENT
7.1. The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. The next Executive-
Administrative- Organizational Committee meeting is scheduled to be held
Tuesday, January 21, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
ITEM NO. 11.2
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
Subject:Finance-Accounting Committee
· Minutes of meeting held December 16, 2013 at 12:00 p.m.
· Meeting scheduled January 27, 2014 at 12:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
121613_FA_-_Minutes.doc FA Mtg Minutes 12/16/13 Minutes
1
MINUTES OF THE
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
FINANCE-ACCOUNTING COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, December 16, 2013, 12:00 p.m.
1717 E Miraloma Ave, Placentia CA 92870
1. CALL TO ORDER
The December 16, 2013 meeting of the Yorba Linda Water District’s Finance-
Accounting Committee was called to order by Director Hawkins at 12:00 p.m.
The meeting was held in the Admin Conference Room at the District’s
Administration Building located at 1717 East Miraloma Avenue in Placentia,
California 92870.
2. ROLL CALL
COMMITTEE STAFF
Director Phil Hawkins, Chair Steve Conklin, Acting General Manager
Director Gary T. Melton Delia Lugo, Acting Finance Manager
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.1. Budget to Actual Results for November 2013
Mrs. Lugo reviewed the November 2013 Budget to Actual Results report
with the Committee. It was noted that there were no significant items to
report at this time.
4.2. Investment Report for Period Ending November 30, 2013
Mrs. Lugo presented the Investment Report for the Period Ending
November 30, 2013. She noted that the average yield for the reporting
month is 0.66%. There were no other key items to discuss.
4.3. Future Agenda Items and Staff Tasks
None.
5. ADJOURNMENT
5.1. The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m. The next Finance-Accounting
Committee meeting is scheduled to be held Monday, January 27, 2014 at
12:00 p.m.
ITEM NO. 11.3
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
Subject:Personnel-Risk Management Committee
· Minutes of meeting held December 10, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
· Meeting scheduled January 14, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
121013_PRM_-_Minutes.doc PRM Mtg Minutes 12/10/13 Minutes
1
MINUTES OF THE
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
PERSONNEL-RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:00 p.m.
1717 E Miraloma Ave, Placentia CA 92870
1. CALL TO ORDER
The December 10, 2013 meeting of the Yorba Linda Water District’s Personnel-
Risk Management Committee was called to order by Director Collett at 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was held in the Admin Conference Room at the District’s
Administration Building located at 1717 East Miraloma Avenue in Placentia,
California 92870.
2. ROLL CALL
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Director Ric Collett, Chair Steve Conklin, Acting General Manager
Director Michael J. Beverage Gina Knight, HR and Risk Manager
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
4. ACTION CALENDAR
4.1. Potential Claim Filed by Law Offices of Robert A. Stutman, P.C. on Behalf
of Mercury Insurance Group, Insurer for Charles Busch
The Committee discussed the claim and will recommend that the Board of
Directors reject and refer the claim to ACWA-JPIA at the next Board of
Directors meeting scheduled for December 23, 2013.
5. DISCUSSION ITEMS
5.1. Status of Emergency Preparedness Plan (Verbal Report)
Nothing reported.
5.2. Status of Performance Evaluations (Verbal Report)
Staff advised the Committee members on the status of existing past-due
performance evaluations. The Committee recommended that Human
Resources staff reach out to assist Managers that are having difficulty with
preparing timely performance evaluations in an effort to reduce past-due
evaluations.
5.3. Status of Assessment of Job Descriptions and Titles (Verbal Report)
Staff presented a summary of job titles and specs from various water
agencies to replace and/or revise the District’s Project Engineer job
classification. The Committee instructed staff to bring back a revised job
classification for an Associate Engineer position to include the following
2
language: a Bachelor degree in civil engineering or related field required
as well as three years of engineering experience.
5.4. Status of Policies and Procedures (Verbal Report)
Staff updated the Committee on the status of the Employee Performance
Evaluation Policy. Staff will present the Employees Association
representatives with a draft copy of the policy in January 2014.
5.5. Human Resources, Risk Management, and Safety Activity
Staff advised the Committee on the following: The successful candidate
for the Water Production Superintendent joined the District on November
18, 2013. The Sr. Accountant recruitment opened on December 9, 2013
and will close on January 9, 2014. In addition, the Records Management
Specialist recruitment was extended for an additional three weeks and
would now be open to the public with a closing date of January 7, 2014.
5.6. Future Agenda Items and Staff Tasks
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
6.1. The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. The next Personnel-Risk
Management Committee meeting is scheduled to be held Tuesday,
January 14, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
ITEM NO. 11.4
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
Subject:Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee
· Minutes of meeting held December 10, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
· Meeting scheduled January 6, 2014 at 12:30 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
121013_PRM_-_Minutes.doc PEO Mtg Minutes 12/10/13 Minutes
1
MINUTES OF THE
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
PERSONNEL-RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:00 p.m.
1717 E Miraloma Ave, Placentia CA 92870
1. CALL TO ORDER
The December 10, 2013 meeting of the Yorba Linda Water District’s Personnel-
Risk Management Committee was called to order by Director Collett at 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was held in the Admin Conference Room at the District’s
Administration Building located at 1717 East Miraloma Avenue in Placentia,
California 92870.
2. ROLL CALL
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Director Ric Collett, Chair Steve Conklin, Acting General Manager
Director Michael J. Beverage Gina Knight, HR and Risk Manager
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
4. ACTION CALENDAR
4.1. Potential Claim Filed by Law Offices of Robert A. Stutman, P.C. on Behalf
of Mercury Insurance Group, Insurer for Charles Busch
The Committee discussed the claim and will recommend that the Board of
Directors reject and refer the claim to ACWA-JPIA at the next Board of
Directors meeting scheduled for December 23, 2013.
5. DISCUSSION ITEMS
5.1. Status of Emergency Preparedness Plan (Verbal Report)
Nothing reported.
5.2. Status of Performance Evaluations (Verbal Report)
Staff advised the Committee members on the status of existing past-due
performance evaluations. The Committee recommended that Human
Resources staff reach out to assist Managers that are having difficulty with
preparing timely performance evaluations in an effort to reduce past-due
evaluations.
5.3. Status of Assessment of Job Descriptions and Titles (Verbal Report)
Staff presented a summary of job titles and specs from various water
agencies to replace and/or revise the District’s Project Engineer job
classification. The Committee instructed staff to bring back a revised job
classification for an Associate Engineer position to include the following
2
language: a Bachelor degree in civil engineering or related field required
as well as three years of engineering experience.
5.4. Status of Policies and Procedures (Verbal Report)
Staff updated the Committee on the status of the Employee Performance
Evaluation Policy. Staff will present the Employees Association
representatives with a draft copy of the policy in January 2014.
5.5. Human Resources, Risk Management, and Safety Activity
Staff advised the Committee on the following: The successful candidate
for the Water Production Superintendent joined the District on November
18, 2013. The Sr. Accountant recruitment opened on December 9, 2013
and will close on January 9, 2014. In addition, the Records Management
Specialist recruitment was extended for an additional three weeks and
would now be open to the public with a closing date of January 7, 2014.
5.6. Future Agenda Items and Staff Tasks
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
6.1. The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. The next Personnel-Risk
Management Committee meeting is scheduled to be held Tuesday,
January 14, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
ITEM NO. 11.5
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
Subject:Public Affairs-Communications-Technology Committee
· Minutes of meeting held December 2, 2013 at 4:00 p.m.
· Meeting scheduled January 6, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
120213_PACT_-_Minutes.docx PACT Mtg Minutes 12/02/13 Minutes
1
MINUTES OF THE
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT
PUBLIC AFFAIRS-COMMUNICATIONS-TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, December 2, 2013, 4:00 p.m.
1717 E Miraloma Ave, Placentia CA 92870
1. CALL TO ORDER
The December 2, 2013 meeting of the Yorba Linda Water District’s Public Affairs-
Communications-Technology Committee was called to order by Director
Beverage at 4:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Admin Conference Room at
the District’s Administration Building located at 1717 East Miraloma Avenue in
Placentia, California 92870.
2. ROLL CALL
COMMITTEE STAFF
Director Michael J. Beverage, Chair Steve Conklin, Acting General Mgr
Director Ric Collett Art Vega, Acting IT Manager
Damon Micalizzi, Public Information Officer
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.1. Status of Dynamics GP HR Consultant (Verbal Report)
Mr. Vega reported on the status of work being provided by the consultant
for the Human Resources module of the Dynamics GP software. A
decision was made to hold off on implementing the Position Control
section of the HR module due to the pending upgrade of Dynamics GP.
Once the upgrade has been completed, staff will probably need to enter
data for all the District’s positions and delete the outdated information.
Staff believes this is the best approach as the new version will have new
options. Staff anticipates position control will be completed and resolved
once the new data is entered.
4.2. Dynamics GP Upgrade Status (Verbal Report)
Mr. Vega informed the Committee that the date of the upgrade has been
changed from November 23, 2013 to December 5, 2013. Cogsdale will
begin the upgrade late Thursday night, Dec 5, after closing with the
assistance of IT staff. IT staff will be in on Friday working with Cogsdale
to complete the upgrade. Testing has gone well and all the issues
discovered having been resolved with the exception of one permissions
issue within Cogsdale billing still remaining. This minor issue will be fixed
by the “go-live” date of Monday, December 9, 2013.
2
4.3. Freeway Complex Fire Five Year Anniversary Media Coverage (Verbal
Report)
Mr. Micalizzi recapped the news coverage of the Five-Year Anniversary of
the Freeway Complex Fire for the Committee.
4.4. Purchase of Portable Water Tanks for Emergency and Community Events
Mr. Micalizzi informed the Committee of the District’s plan to purchase five
200-gallon portable water tanks that will fit in the back of the District’s
Pick-up Trucks. These tanks will replace the old 500 gallon drum that the
District uses to provide drinking water at various community events. They
can also serve as mobile potable water sources in the event of an
emergency.
4.5. Provision of Bottled Water to District Customers During Scheduled
Shutdowns (Verbal Report)
The Committee discussed options for distribution of bottled water during
scheduled shutdowns and the impact of doing so on the bottled water
program. After some discussion the Committee directed staff to continue
the practice and calculate and track the numbers for future discussion with
the Committee.
4.6. 2014 Bottled Water Label Contest (Verbal Report)
Mr. Micalizzi updated the Committee on the Annual Bottled Water Label
Contest. The Committee discussed having a February 14, 2013 deadline
for entries so to expedite the contest to best accommodate supply and
demand for bottled water in the upcoming year.
4.7. Winter Newsletter Content
The Committee reviewed the content for the Winter Newsletter. The
content was approved with minor edits.
4.8. History of YLWD Video
The Committee discussed potential interviewees for a History of YLWD
video. Mr. Micalizzi informed the Committee that he plans to begin the
interviews in February of 2014.
4.9. Status of Current Public Outreach Activities
The Committee reviewed the report. Mr. Micalizzi reported to the
Committee that sports teams were going to be offered refillable YLWD
sports bottles in lieu of bottled water. Initial responses to this offer have
been well received.
4.10. Future Agenda Items and Staff Tasks
None
3
5. ADJOURNMENT
5.1. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. The next Public Affairs-
Communications-Technology Committee meeting is scheduled to be held
Monday, January 6, 2013 at 4:00 p.m.
ITEM NO. 13.1
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
Subject:Meetings from December 24, 2013 - January 31, 2014
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
BOD_-_Activities_Calendar.pdf Backup Material Backup Material
Event Date Attendance by:
December 2013
District Offices ClosedWed, Dec 25
January 2014
District Offices ClosedWed, Jan 1
WACOFri, Jan 3_____/_____
Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee MeetingMon, Jan 6_____/_____
Pub Affairs-Communications-Tech Committee MeetingMon, Jan 6_____/_____
Yorba Linda City CouncilTue, Jan 7_____
LAFCOWed, Jan 8_____
OCWDWed, Jan 8_____
Board of Directors Regular MeetingThu, Jan 9
Yorba Linda LMAD CACThu, Jan 9_____
Personnel-Risk Management Committee MeetingTue, Jan 14_____/_____
CASA Winter ConferenceWed, Jan 15Kiley
MWDOCWed, Jan 15_____
Yorba Linda Planning CommissionWed, Jan 15_____
CASA Winter ConferenceThu, Jan 16Kiley
CASA Winter ConferenceFri, Jan 17Kiley
Exec-Admin-Organizational Committee MeetingTue, Jan 21_____/_____
Yorba Linda City CouncilTue, Jan 21_____
OCWDWed, Jan 22_____
OCSDWed, Jan 226:30PM_____
Board of Directors Regular MeetingThu, Jan 23
Yorba Linda LMAD CACThu, Jan 23_____
Citizens Advisory Committee MeetingMon, Jan 27_____
Finance-Accounting Committee MeetingMon, Jan 27_____/_____
Joint Committee Meeting with MWDOC and OCWDTue, Jan 28_____/_____
Yorba Linda Planning CommissionWed, Jan 29_____
ISDOCThu, Jan 30_____
4:00PM
6:30PM
11:30AM
6:30PM
5:30PM
8:30AM
6:30PM
8:30AM
12:00PM
8:00AM
8:30AM
6:30PM
8:00AM
8:00AM
4:00PM
6:30PM
8:30AM
5:30PM
8:30AM
6:30PM
4:00PM
7:00AM
7:45AM
12:30PM
4:00PM
Board of Directors Activity Calendar
Time
7:00AM
12/20/2013 9:59:11 AM
ITEM NO. 14.1
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
Subject:ACWA SWAP Presentation - December 13, 2013
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors ratify Director Collett's attendance at this event.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
ACWA_SWAP_Presentation.pdf Backup Material Backup Material
The As
memb
overal
that co
sustai
The re
unanim
the Sta
as the
for the
ACWA
comm
Decem
interes
ecosys
ssociation o
ber water inte
l water supp
ould be broa
nable path fo
esulting State
mously appr
atewide Wate
water comm
e state.
A is seeking f
unity. ACWA
mber 13, 2013
sted in heari
stem health,
f California W
erests in spri
ply reliability
adly supporte
orward for C
ewide Water
roved by the
er Action Pla
munity's reco
formal suppo
A Executive
3 at 10:00AM
ng ACWA's
please atten
Orange County
Water Agenc
ing 2013 to d
and ecosyst
ed by water i
California.
Action Plan
ACWA Boar
an to Californ
ommendation
ort of SWAP
Director Tim
M in the Oran
plan to addre
nd.
y Water District |
187
Fountain
cies (ACWA)
develop a sta
tem health. T
interests thro
(SWAP) was
rd of Director
nia Governo
ns for develo
from memb
m Quinn will
ge County W
ess the state
rennis@ocwd.co
00 Ward Street
n Valley, CA 927
convened a
atewide plan
The goal was
oughout the
s completed
rs on Sept. 2
or Edmund G
oping the Ad
ers of the wa
provide a pr
Water Distric
e's overall w
om | http://www.o
708
broad cross
n addressing
s to craft a s
state and se
in Septembe
27, 2013. ACW
G Brown Jr. o
dministration
ater and bus
resentation o
t Boardroom
ater supply r
ocwd.com
s-section of
the state's
pecific plan
erve as a
er and
WA submitte
on Oct. 2, 201
n's water plan
siness
on SWAP on
m. If you are
reliability an
ed
13,
n
d
ITEM NO. 14.2
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: December 23, 2013
Subject:CASA Winter Conference - January 15-17, 2014
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors authorize Director attendance at this event if desired.
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:Description:Type:
CASA_Conference.pdf Backup Material Backup Material
Approved by the Board of Directors of the
Yorba Linda Water District
12/23/2013
PH/RC 5-0