Total Maximum Daily Loads for Trash

1
Total Maximum Daily Loadsfor Trash

2
Why a TMDL for Trash?

• Required by the Clean Water Act-- when a
  waterbody does not meet water quality standards.
• In 1998, U.S. EPA found that the L.A.River did
  not meet water quality standards, due to trash.
• Federal Consent Decree compelled U.S. EPA to
  establish a trash TMDL for the L.A. River by
  March 22, 2002.

3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
January 11, 2001
12
Narrative Objectives for Trash

• Waters shall not contain floating materials
  including solids, liquids, foams, and scum in
  concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely
  affect beneficial use.
• And
• Waters shall not contain suspended or settable
  material in concentrations that cause nuisance or
  adversely affect beneficial uses.

13
(No Transcript)
14
TMDL Elements

• Numeric Targets
• Assimilative Capacity
• Waste Load Allocations
• Implementation Plan
• Monitoring
• Means of Compliance

15
Numeric Target

• Numeric Target Zero Trash Discharge
• Litter laws establish zero, no legal level of
  litter
• Waterbody does not assimilate trash
• A single piece of trash can have an negative
  impact on beneficial uses
• No studies to support a higher number
• Inherent margin of safety

16
Assimilative Capacity

• Do gross pollutants like trash assimilate in the
  waterbody?
• Trash does not dissolve
• Trash is not a typical suspended solid

17
Waste Load Allocations

• Municipal Stormwater Permit
• By Area x Default Generation Rate
• Applied at end of storm drain
• No allocation to non-point sources

18
Baseline Monitoring Goal

• Obtain representative data by land use to
  calculate base load allocations
• Watershed-wide data to be used in establishing
  baseline allocations
• Rewards cities that have already implemented BMPs
• Flexibility in allowing cities and the county to
  collaborate efforts

19
Trash Reduction Schedule
20
Trash Generation Ratesby Land Use

• Residential
• Commercial
• Industrial
• Transportation and Utilities
• Mixed Urban
• Open Space and Recreation
• Agriculture
• Water

21
Means of Compliance

• Anti-litter campaign and good house keeping
• Partial capture devices in storm drain catch
  basins
• Full capture devices in storm drain systems

22
Measuring Reduction in Litter

• Effectiveness of Anti-Litter Campaign and Good
  Housekeeping
• Annual measurement for a 30-day period during
  high litter season to establish the daily litter
  rate.

23
Example Full-Capture Systems

• Full Capture Zero Trash
• Full Capture defined
• 5 mm Mesh
• 1 hour 1 year storm

24
Trash Reduction Schedule
25
Trash TMDL Approved

• Regional Board adopted on 9/19/01
• State Board approved on 2/19/02
• Office of Administrative Law on 7/16/02
• USEPA approved on 8/1/02

26
City of Arcadia et al. V. State Water Resources
Control Board

• Coalition for Practical Regulation (CPR) cities
  file suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in
  July 2002
• Parties stipulate transfer to San Diego County
  Superior Court
• 12/23/03 San Diego County Superior Court Rules

27
Appeal

• Water Board and Cities appeal selected Superior
  Court Judgements
• Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate, rules on
  1/26/06

28
Water Board Appeal

• Water Board failed to conduct assimilative
  capacity study
• Water Board failed to conduct cost/benefit or
  consider economic factors
• TMDL inappropriately applied to Estuary, when
  Estuary not listed on 303(d) list
• Water Board failed to comply with CEQA

29
Court of Appeal - Ruling

• Assimilative Capacity
• Federal law does not require the regional board
  to conduct assimilative capacity study before
  adopting the Trash TMDL.
• Evidence shows that because of the nature of
  trash, including styrofoam containers and other
  materials, that are undiluted by water, in
  contrast to chemical pollutants, and dangers to
  wildife of even small amounts of trash, an
  assimilative capacity study would be difficult to
  conduct and of little value.

30
Court of Appeal - Ruling

• Water Board failed to conduct cost/benefit or
  consider economic factors
• Water Boards sufficiently complied
• Discusses costs of collecting and disposing of
  trash
• Discusses costs of various types of compliance
  measures
• Includes capitol and OM costs

31
Court of Appeal - Ruling

• TMDL applied to L.A. River Estuary
• Administrative record contains several pictures
  of trash deposited in the Estuary during high
  flows, . . .
• TMDL identification of the Estuary as impaired
  could have been clearer, but we conclude it was
  sufficient to put all affected parties on notice,
  and does not meet the arbitrary and capricious
  standard.

32
Court of Appeal - Ruling

• Water Board failed to comply with CEQA
• Agree with Superior Court finding that the
  regional boards environmental checklist was
  deficient and there is sufficient evidence of a
  fair argument that the project may a have a
  significant effect on the environment, thus
  necessitating and EIR or functional equivalent.

33
Cities Appeal

• Zero target unattainable
• Failure to allocate load allocation
• Beneficial Uses
• Scientific Methodology
• Administrative Procedures Un-listed waterbodies

34
Court of Appeal - Ruling

• Zero target unattainable
• A zero limit on trash within the meaning of the
  Trash TMDL is attainable because there are
  methods of deemed compliance with the limit.

35
Court of Appeal - Ruling

• Failure to assign a load allocation to nonpoint
  sources
• Agrees with Superior Court judgement that the
  although the Clean Water Act focuses on both
  point and nonpoint sources . . . nothing in the
  Act demands that a state adopt a regulatory
  system for nonpoint sources.

36
Court of Appeal - Ruling

• Beneficial Uses
• The Cities make no showing of prejudice. Swimming
  and bathing by the homeless are only two among
  numerous other beneficial uses that the Cities do
  not challenge and there is no suggestion that the
  numeric target of zero trash in the LA River
  would have been less stringent without
  consideration of the factors the Cities raise,

37
Court of Appeal - Ruling

• Scientific Methodology
• The Cities failed to establish the Water Boards
  scientific data is inadequate or scientifically
  invalid. The Water Boards have not failed to
  conduct on-going studiesand the record reveals
  studies relied upon by the Boards.

38
Court of Appeal - Ruling

• Administrative Procedures Un-listed waterbodies
• The trash TMDL sufficiently notified affected
  parties of the inclusion of the Estuary as an
  impaired water body, and the load allocation for
  nonpoint sources is necessarily zero

39
A View of the River Without Trash

• The End