FACT SHEET:
SANTA MONICA BAYKEEPER / NRDC V. LOS ANGELES COUNTY
What are these cases about?
They are about attaining clean water bodies in the Los Angeles area. They address the leading source of coastal water pollution, polluted runoff, and seek to enforce requirements in a water pollution control permit issued by the State of California in 2001. The permit is issued under the federal Clean Water Act, the nation’s water quality law, to control polluted runoff within Los Angeles County.
Why are the issues raised in the cases important?
The litigation is a major departure from previous clean water battles locally and nationally because Baykeeper and NRDC seek to enforce water quality standards—specific limits on allowable levels of water pollutants—to the leading source of coastal water pollution, urban runoff. These cases are about results, measured as clean water. In the past, permits like the one at issue required efforts, but not specific results.
Also for the first time, the enforcement action seeks to enforce a “no discharge” mandate established to protect a state-designated coastal preserve in the waters off northern Los Angeles County.
What is polluted runoff?
General references to polluted runoff include storm water runoff, which occurs when it rains, and “non-storm water” runoff, which can occur at any time and is composed of substances—for example, used motor oil—that enter the storm drain system.
How is runoff collected and discharged?
According to Los Angeles County, the storm drain system collects municipal stormwater runoff from approximately 3,100 square miles of land within the County in 73,000 catch basins. The storm sewer system drains this runoff through 450 miles of open channels and 2,650 miles of enclosed storm drains and discharges it into inland waters, including the Santa Clara, Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and their tributaries, Malibu Creek and its tributaries, and coastal waters, including Santa Monica Bay and the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor.
In most cases, no treatment or cleanup of the polluted runoff occurs before it is discharged.
Why is the runoff a water quality problem?
Runoff picks up a broad array of pollutants common to the urban environment, including fecal bacteria, oil and grease, heavy metals, and other pollutants like trash. Most of the time, this runoff flows to rivers and the ocean without any cleanup.
What sort of problems does polluted runoff create?
Scientific studies in the LA area have established facts including these about the scope of the problem:
Human health impacts. A recent study by UCLA and Stanford on the public health cost of contaminated coastal waters estimates that almost 1.5 million cases of gastrointestinal illnesses occur at Southern California beaches each year, with a total estimated annual economic loss that may exceed $50 million.
Beach closures. Los Angeles County continues to be plagued with the greatest increases and number of reported beach closings and advisories of any county in the State—reaching 2,072 in 2005. NRDC, Testing the Waters, CA-16 (2007).
Largest source of pollution. Coastal stormwater discharges rival, and often exceed, those from point sources (such as sewage treatment plants) (Schiff et al. 2001). Based upon the increasing population of southern California and the lack of storm water quality infrastructure, it is likely that stormwater loads will continue to increase, according to these same studies.
Significant impact on water quality. Regional monitoring of southern California beaches has shown that shorelines which receive dry weather runoff via storm drains are 10 times more likely to exceed water pollution threshold for human contact than those that are distant from storm drains (Noble et al.. 2000). More than 60 percent of the southern California shoreline exceeds water pollution thresholds following rain.
Algal blooms. In addition, large loadings of nutrients have been measured from urban creeks and these have ultimately contributed to the over-enrichment of estuaries at the mouths of urban watersheds, as indicated in part by large blooms of macroalgae (Kamer et al. 2001).
Acute toxicity to marine and freshwater organisms. Storm drain discharges have been shown to be toxic to marine and freshwater organisms and this toxicity persists over large areas as discharge plumes spread through coastal receiving waters (Jirik et al.. 1998). After these plumes settle to the bottom of the ocean, the pollutants have been measured in nearshore sediments (Schiff 2000).
Has there been previous litigation regarding the requirements at issue?
Yes, the County of Los Angeles was among the plaintiffs in litigation that ended over a year ago and which sought to invalidate the Clean Water Act permit that NRDC and Baykeeper now seek to enforce.
What happened in that case?
The County of Los Angeles, along with a coalition of 32 cities, and building groups, mounted the most extensive legal challenge ever filed against a polluted storm water clean up plan in California, but the requirements were never suspended. The County and 32 cities filed their lawsuit in January 2003. The trial court ruled against the County and cities in March 2005. In November 2006, the California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s rejection of every single argument from the cities trying to invalidate the permit. Finally, in February 2007, the California Supreme Court denied petitions filed by the cities challenging the Court of Appeals’ ruling.
Is money available to implement solutions?
Yes. The County of Los Angeles, in both of its official 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 Storm Water Permit annual reports answered “Yes” to the question “Are the existing financial resources sufficient to accomplish all required activities?” In addition, the public has strongly supported paying for cleaner water, as exemplified by the passage of Proposition O, a $500 million bond to clean up urban runoff in the City of Los Angeles.
How many water quality violations do Baykeeper and NRDC allege and for what pollutants?
Baykeeper and NRDC have alleged that water quality standards were violated at least 235 times for Los Angeles County water bodies since 2002. The violations included exceeding water quality standards for fecal coliform, total aluminum, total copper, total cadmium, total lead, total silver, total zinc, total boron, dissolved copper, dissolved aluminum, cyanide, sulfate, nitrite, total dissolved solids, dissolved oxygen, and pH.
How can the water quality standards be met?
A wide range of solutions to the problems caused by polluted runoff have been developed and successfully implemented in other areas over the last decade. Typically, these solutions include the use of what are known as “Best Management Practices” or “BMPs,” which are practical and commonsense methods or practices which prevent or reduce pollution in runoff. Some of these methods include installing retention basins, infiltration basins, dry wells, or constructed wetlands (see table below), all of which can remove up to 80 percent of the metals and suspended solids and, in some cases, up to 100 percent of the pathogens contained in runoff. Other solutions include installing porous pavements, which remove up to 100 percent of the suspended solids, metals, pathogens, and nitrogen from runoff, and use of vegetated filter strips or various types of surface filters.
The following table is taken from R.H. Horner et al., Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues, Terrene Institute, 1994. The book’s primary author, Dr. Richard Horner, is currently a member of a National Academy of Sciences panel on controlling urban runoff.
| BMP Type |
Typical Pollutant Removal (percent |
| Suspended Solids |
Nitrogen |
Phosphorus |
Pathogens |
Metals |
| Dry Retention Basins |
30 – 65 |
15 – 45 |
15 – 45 |
< 30 |
15 – 45 |
| Retention Basins |
50 – 80 |
30 – 65 |
30 – 65 |
< 30 |
50 – 80 |
| Constructed Wetlands |
50 – 80 |
< 30 |
15 – 45 |
< 30 |
50 – 80 |
| Infiltration Basins |
50 – 80 |
50 – 80 |
50 – 80 |
65 – 100 |
50 – 80 |
| Infiltration Trenches/ Dry Wells |
50 – 80 |
50 – 80 |
15 – 45 |
65 – 100 |
50 – 80 |
| Porous Pavement |
|
65 – 100 |
30 – 65 |
65 – 100 |
65 – 100 |
| Grassed Swales |
30 – 65 |
15 – 45 |
15 – 45 |
< 30 |
15 – 45 |
| Vegetated Filter Strips |
50 – 80 |
50 – 80 |
50 – 80 |
< 30 |
30 – 65 |
| Surface Sand Filters |
50 – 80 |
< 30 |
50 – 80 |
< 30 |
50 – 80 |
| Other Media Filters |
65 – 100 |
15 – 45 |
< 30 |
< 30 |
50 – 80 |
Note that this summary presents a basic review of pertinent information regarding matters related to litigation filed by NRDC and Baykeeper against the County of Los Angeles and City of Malibu. It is intended to address basic information of interest to the public. The information set forth herein is by its nature an overview, and this document should not be viewed either as comprehensive discussion or a legal discussion of the matters at issue.
NRDC/Baykeeper v. Los Angeles County
Fact Sheet
|
