HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report on Water IssuesE
Ir�
0
ITEM 12
TO: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
FROM: Dave Kiff, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: City's Response to OC Grand Jury Report entitled Coastal Water
Quality and Urban Runoff in Orange County
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Authorize the Mayor to sign letter responding to the Orange County Grand
Jury's report entitled Coastal Water Quality and Urban Runoff in Orange County.
EXECUTIVE The Orange County Grand Jury recently completed a review of coastal water
SUMMARY: quality and "urban runoff" through storm drains in Orange County. In its
Report, the Grand Jury directed cities to respond to two" findings" and two
"recommendations" associated with water quality. This agenda item contains
both the Report and the City's proposed response via a letter to the Grand Jury
from Mayor O'Neil.
BACKGROUND: The Clean Water Act, a 1972 -era federal law, requires local and state
governments to manage discharges into waterways. These discharges can either
by from both point sources (identifiable sources associated with human
habitation, manufacturing, or processing) or non -point sources (sources, which
are of uncertain origin and cannot be identified).
NPDES and Point The National Pollutant Discharge :Elimination System (" NPDES ") is an
Sources outgrowth of the Clean Water Aces point source requirements (§402). It requires
specific permits for any discharge. A memorandum of understanding (MOU)
between the California Water Resources Control Board and the US
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) authorizes the Board and its
regional boards to issue NPDES permits on behalf of US EPA.
OC Stormwater Because NPDES is structured to limit known discharges into waterways,
Management Program Congress also directed states and localities to address non -point discharges
through area -wide waste treatment management plans ( §208). As a result, the
County of Orange and the county's 32 cities created the Orange County
Stormwater Management Program in an attempt to limit non -point source
discharges into tributaries to our coastal waters. These tributaries include the
Santa Ana River, creeks, and the thousands of storm drains that remove storm
flows from urban areas.
Newport Beach City Council
Page 2
BACKGROUND: The current Stormwater Management Program includes:
(cont'd) . Educational brochures mailed annually to residents
• Locations for disposal of household hazardous waste
• Coordination of a network of storm drains to allow for tracing any traceable
discharge.
NPDES Phase II Recent amendments to the Clean Water Act (called NPDES Phase II Stormwater
Program) further delineate what cities with populations greater than 50,000 will
have to do by May 2002. NPDES Phase II mandates the development of six
measures to control pollution from storm drains:
• Public Education (impact of fertilizers, pesticides, animal waste, etc)
• Public Involvement in the measures development
✓ Elimination of illegal discharges
✓ Controls on construction activities
✓ Post -construction management of wet weather runoff
✓ "Good housekeeping' measures for City operations
Grand Jury Actions In Spring 1999, the Orange County Grand Jury examined local agencies water
pollution prevention systems. After reviewing relevant laws and interviewing a
wide variety of individuals, the Grand Jury issued a report on June 15,1999
entitled Coastal Water Quality and Urban Runoff in Orange County. The Report
found that:
Findings
• Efforts of Orange County agencies to solve the (urban runoff) problem are
fragmented.
• The public is inadequately informed about sources of ocean pollution and .
means of prevention.
While citing a variety of statistics to back up their conclusions, the Grand Jury
noted among other things that:
"Businesses must be made aware of the economic impact to them ofpolluted
waterways."
"Public employees who work in the community should be encouraged to report
violations of disposal regulations."
"Public education should be intensified. Campaigns need to create an awareness
that storm drains lead directly to the ocean with no treatment plants in between."
"If (penalty) fines set by cities were to be raised substantially, income could, and
should, feedback to fund public education on (water quality) issues."
City's Actions These comments are not new to the City Council. Indeed, the City's efforts to
limit non -point source discharges are extensive, from stenciling storm drains
with messages stating "No Dumping - Drains to Bay," to "vactoring" catch
basins in storm drains annually, to issuing administrative citations to violators,
and to sending an annual letter out to restaurant owners advising them of their
obligations relating to" hose downs" (see Attachment C). In addition, the City
Council offered new direction on June 28,1999 to the Harbor Quality Advisory
Committee to develop a new community education plan on water quality.
1]
Page 3
This Agenda Item These comments and more are in a proposed response to the Orange County
Grand Jury (see Attachment B). The Grand Jury's report is included here as
Attachment A. This agenda item asks the City Council to authorize the Mayor to
sign the City" response and forward it to the Grand Jury -the City is required to
provide such a response by September 15,1999.
PREVIOUS On August 5,1999, the Harbor Quality Committee voted to recommend that the
ACTIONS: City Council approve the proposed response to the Grand Jury Report.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Proposed GJ Response by the City of Newport Beach
Attachment B: Grand Jury Report on Coastal Water Quality and Urban Runoff
in Orange County
Attachment C: Annual Letter to Restaurant Owners
0
0
AFUTA -...-a R
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
August 10, 1999
Orange County Grand Jury
County Courthouse
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, California 92701
DRAFT
RE: REPORT ON COASTAL WATER QUALITY
AND URBAN RUNOFF IN ORANGE COUNTY
Dear Members of the Grand Jury:
This letter represents the City of Newport Beach's formal response to your recent report entitled Coastal
Water Quality and Urban Runoff in Orange County. As a coastal city that also surrounds the Upper
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, the City appreciates the Grand Jury's attention to this issue and looks
forward to working with a future Grand Jury on later implementation of your recommendations.
Here are the issues that you asked each city to address: 0
Public Cooperation Finding #2: Although there is agreement that the average citizen is a significant
contributor to nonpoint source pollution, not enough has been done to enlist the
cooperation of the public in eliminating the source of the problem. There is also
inadequate information reaching the public concerning the correct disposal of
pollutants.
CiVs Response: We agree. While cities make a strong effort to educate their residents
that 'The Bay Begins at Your Door' via National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits and the distribution of a very helpful educational pamphlet,
we continue to see excessive amounts of trash and other contaminants entering Upper
Newport Bay via San Diego Creek (the Creek is the drainage for the cities of Lake Forest,
Tustin, Orange and Irvine) and the Santa Ana Delhi Channel (the drainage for the cities
of Costa Mesa, and Santa Ana). Newport Beach's own tributaries to the Bay are not
entirely clean, either.
To improve upon our educational programs, the City's Harbor Quality Citizens
Advisory Committee (a 14 -year old advisory committee to the Newport Beach City
Council) has re -written its mission to focus on the development of effective educational
programs for our own residents, visitors, and for upstream cities. The Committee's
work product will be submitted to the City Council for approval in the near future.
C�
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92659 -1768
DRAFT Letter to OC Grand Jury
August 10, 1999
Page 2 .
Enforcement Finding #3: Responsibility for enforcing nonpoint source abatement laws lies with the
offices of the sheriff - coroner, city police, county five, and city fire departments.
Problems in enforcing compliance of nonpoint source pollution abatement laws are
exacerbated by the difficulty of identifying the polluter. In addition, once identified,
fines are often so minimal that it is more cost effective for the offender to pay the fine
rather than to properly dispose of pollutants.
CiVs Response: As the Grand Jury has noted, it IS difficult to identify the polluter to
the extent that it meets the appropriate criminal thresholds that will lead to a conviction.
In fact, our Police Department reports that about 90% of the cases "do not meet the
District Attorney's thresholds for criminal prosecution and get rejected." So the City has
pursued a strategy of issuing Administrative Citations under current Municipal Code
sections. With these citations, we can effectively penalize the person responsible for the
spill (if he or she can be identified) OR the owner of the property where the spill
originated. Because these are civil violations, the standards of proof and evidence are
less stringent than for criminal cases. Under our Code, property owners, construction
company owners, and /or forepersons can be held responsible for tenants, employees,
and subcontractors actions.
We agree, too that the initial fines for these administrative citations are small -ours are
$100 for the first violation. But a second offense is $200 and a third is $500. Since the
City began actively enforcing this ciliation system in May 1998, we have issued 328
citations, with 60% to 70% for prohibited discharges, including:
• Restaurant mat washings
• Shopping cart cleaning
• Materials from masonry work and landscapers
• Soap and grime discharges from mobile auto detailers
. • Commercial steam cleaning of garbage and parking areas
• Concrete trucks spilling concrete into storm drains, and
• Rug cleaning truck discharges
In addition to developing this Administrative Citation program, the City has issued a
letter to all Newport Beach area restaurants reminding them of their responsibilities and
obligations to protect the Bay and the Ocean water quality (attached).
Finally, where large scale or purposeful violations might occur and there is a greater
likelihood of criminal prosecution, our Police Department agrees that the City should
better train its rank -and -file public safety employees to treat such occurrences as serious
crimes deserving of careful collection of needed evidence for later prosecution. We
believe that the Fire and Marine Department's Hazardous Materials response team and
the Police Department's Environmental Services Coordinator always recognize these
violations, but some of our less specialized personnel may not.
Education Recommendation #2: The Public Facilities and Resources Department and all City
Enhancement Managers (must) make a strong effort to continue and enhance education regarding the
correct disposal of materials that result in ocean pollution. Such efforts should include:
• Posting of signs in areas of the source of major pollution showing the range of
fines for illegal disposal
• (A) provision for a mobile collection service throughout the county for pick -up of
toxic substances
• An information campaign to communities with a large population of immigrants
on appropriate methods of discarding materials that create polluted runoff)
Response: We concur with each recommendation. Sign posting will continue to be a
challenge, however, as we first must identify the pollution source. Regarding
educational programs, we have asked the City's Harbor Quality Committee to develop
an education campaign that reflects Change County's diversity. Finally, we would offer
that any mobile collection service will involve significant cost (especially for disposal),
DRAFT Letter to OC Grand Jury
August 10, 2999
Page 3
but there may be a cost - effective and fair way to distribute the expense between
participating cities and the County of Orange.
Street Sweeping Recommendation #7: Cities and unincorporated areas (should) require street sweeping
and Storm Drain weekly with both sweep and vacuum equipment. Cities and unincorporated areas
Cleaning (should) mark storm drains so as to readily indicate the last date of cleaning.
Response: The City of Newport Beach sweeps all City streets at least once each week. In
some business districts, we sweep up to six days per week. While the City agrees that
personnel should know when a storm drain was last cleaned, the City currently uses a
written log, organized by area, that notes the dates of inspection and cleaning of
drainage facilities. We believe that this log serves the same purpose recommended by
the Grand Jury without adding spray - painted numbers, dates, or symbols to the top of a
catch basin or the front of an adjacent curb face.
In summary, the City of Newport Beach believes that it aggressively works to protect water quality in
the Pacific Ocean and in Newport Bay. We admit, however, that we can do more both with our own
staff, residents and visitors AND in assisting upstream cities in their efforts to reduce urban runoff.
We remain committed to continually improving the water quality of the Bay and Ocean and look
forward to working with the County of Orange, Orange County's 32 cities, and the Grand Jury in future
efforts to make our coastal waters a useful resource for all.
Please direct any questions you may have about this matter to me or to the City Manager at 949/644-
3000. Thank you again for your interest in water quality.
Sincerely,
DRAFT
DENNIS D. O'NEIL
Mayor of Newport Beach
Attachment: Letter to Restaurant Owners, August 1998
cc: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
Members of the Harbor Quality Citizens Advisory Committee
Members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors
Homer Bludau, Newport Beach City Manager
Honorable Kathleen O'Leary, Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court
9
COASTAL WATER QUALITY AND
URBAN RUNOFF IN ORANGE COUNTY
SUMMARY
espite a history of federal and state legislation enacted to eliminate nonpoint
source ocean pollution (runoff in stone drains), little progress has been made in
improving ocean quality. Contamination is primarily caused by materials that are
swept by rainwater into stonndrains. The contaminants include trash, household and yard
products, chemicals, animal waste and oil from automobiles. The most effective solution
would be to educate and gain the cooperation of the public to eliminate the human
sources of coastal pollution. The Grand Jury found:
• Efforts of Orange County agencies to solve the problem are fragmented.
• The public is inadequately informed about sources of ocean pollution and means of
prevention.
The Grand Jury recommends more effective coordination among county agencies that
work with ocean management policies. Orange County needs new and aggressive
methods of educating the public about ocean water quality and ways to minimize polluted
runoff.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
onpoint source pollution is runoff caused by materials that wash off city streets,
suburban lawns, and agricultural land, and flow through storm drains into the
ocean. This pollution is difficult to trace to any one source, increasing the
complexity of control. Runoff creates contamination, which creates a health risk for
swimmers and surfers, makes fish unsafe to eat, kills sea life and compromises the coastal
tourist industry by forcing beach closures.
Interviews with officials working under the auspices of county and private agencies
confirmed that there is little public awareness of individual practices that would
significantly improve the quality of Orange County rivers and coastal waters.
The Grand Jury investigated: (1) methods used to reduce nonpoint source pollution in
county waterways, and (2) approaches that might broaden public awareness of the
problem and promote an investment by the public in controlling the impairment of county
waters.
METHOD Or STUDY
Tlie Grand Jury met with representatives of coastal cities and environmental groups
and county agencies concerned with coastal water quality. Water and sanitation
district officials conducted tours of flood control channels, wetlands, and beaches.
The Grand Jury reviewed federal, and state and local legislation that impacts county
programs for regulation and enforcement of water quality standards. Reports from
various conferences on ocean pollution were examined for relevance to county waters.
Newspaper and magazine articles and Internet documents were also reviewed.
BACKGROUND
Federal and state legislation sets standards for the quality of water in Orange County.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Clean Water Act) was intended
to abate pollution and provide financial assistance for wastewater treatment
facilities. The thrust of the bill was to regulate point sources (readily identifiable
sources). It minimally addressed nonpoint sources (debris from streets, yards and
household products, hydrocarbon wastes, untreated sewage from pets, fertilizers and any
other substance on city streets and sidewalks). In 1987 the act was reauthorized with
additional provisions, including a requirement that the states develop and implement
programs to control nonpoint sources of pollution (urban runoff). However, states have
not comprehensively addressed nonpoint pollution problems, and the Environmental
Protection Agency has been criticized for focusing the bulk of its resources on point
source control activities with nonpoint pollution a low priority.
The California Coastal Act was enacted by the State Legislature in 1976. It created a
partnership between the state and the coastal comities and cities for planning and
regulating coastal resources. The California Coastal Commission has permit jurisdiction
over development proposed on the immediate shoreline and in the inland areas within its
permit authority. The Commission (in cooperation with state water quality control
agencies) is charged with implementation of a strategy to reduce nonpoint pollution.
Commission accomplishments include providing a check on environmentally unsound
development and stimulating public participation in reducing ocean pollution. However,
lack of staff and budget make it impossible for the Commission to mount the type of
aggressive campaign that is essential to educate the public so that local solutions to
coastal pollution are found.
The Water Quality Act amendments of 1987 followed, requiring states to develop and
implement programs to control nonpoint source pollution. The Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 introduced a more aggressive approach to
Pollution control. The California "Right to Know Bill" of 1997 requires monitoring of
beaches and a hotline to let beach -goers know which beaches are polluted. Federal
agencies issued a Clean Water Initiative in 1998 that focused on runoff from animal
waste.
As a result of a January, 1999, agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Natural Resources Defense Council (representing Heal The Bay and
Santa Monica Bay Keeper), deadlines were set through 2011 for EPA to establish limits
on the amount of pollutants allowed to flow into various bodies of water (total maximum
daily loads) in Los Angeles County. These limits wi!3 also be set in other counties in the
state. The federal law that mandated clean waters (the Clean Water Act) called for
establishment of these limits 20 years ago. The new agreement presents the formidable
challenge of assigning the limits for 750 specific pollutants. Studies are just now taking
place (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project) to determine the specific
impacts of certain pollutants on the environment.
Over the years several conferences addressing critical ocean issues have been held in
California. Experts from academia, environmental groups, business and industry, and
government (local, state and federal) tackled coastal environmental issues and suggested
approaches for conserving and managing them. Findings consistently agree with the
various initiatives in calling for more effective control of polluted runoff through
preservation of wetlands, better public education. and more technical assistance to
communities.
The limited effect of legislation and of conference recommendations was evident in
1998 (the 25`h anniversary of the Clean Water Act) when it was found by the Sierra Club
that " ...polluted runoff from agricultural fields, animal feedlots, and urban streets, and
overflows and leaks from sewage facilities represent major pollution problems still
today." Little has changed.
ORANGE COUNTY BEACHES
In 1997 in Orange County there were approximately 225 beach closings /advisories
due to poor water quality (sewage spill or elevated bacteria levels) with an additional four
indefinite closings. Health risks for swimmers, surfers, scuba divers, snorklers, and
windsurfers, are extensive (fever, chills, ear discharge, vomiting, cough with phlegm).
Tourism, the sixth largest industry in Orange County, is jeopardized by closed and
contaminated beaches. Bio- accwnulative chemicals ingested by sealife move up the food
chain to humans and threaten human health. Sanitation districts, such as the Orange
Count- Cnnitncra District, monitor ocean water as well as gathering and analyzing
de'un.iue health level.
An epidemiological study of 1996 by the University of Southern California School of
Medicine related upper respiratory and gastrointestinal problems in swimmers to flow
from runoff. It is a sad reflection on ocean quality that the Surfrider Foundation advises
county residents to avoid all ocean water contact for a period of 72 hours after a rain.
TECHNOLOGY
0
There are products that will remove various constituents of runoff pollution. In the
past they have given unsatisfactory performance and have been prohibitively expensive.
Recently, devices have been developed that are relatively economical, provide long term
reliability, and require minimal maintenance. An example is a storm water interceptor
that fits into a new or existing storm sewer where it removes sediments and oil from
runoff by diverting sediments to the bottom of the tank and trapping petroleum products
at the top. Removal of both substances by vacuum truck is simple and fast. Other
products successfully kill bacteria. The most effective method for reducing pollution
level close to the source is in utilization of both types of units. Such devices installed at
sites of the greatest amount of polluted runoff would significantly reduce the ocean
contamination level in Orange County.
The technology is available for removing trash from the flood control channels. A
debris boom traps objects in a net -like structure. Trash racks divert debris and brush by
picking up the material and rotating it over the top of the machine to the shore where it
can be collected at a later time. Both should be used more widely in the county.
Even with ideal public cooperation there will always be some polluted runoff.
Emerging technologies are providing methods for preventing polluting materials from
entering the ocean. Many such devices are now in the trial and error stage of
development.
WETLANDS
Wetlands (marshes/swamps) help prevent nonpoint pollution by intercepting runoff
and filtering pollutants before they reach the ocean. They act as sponges, storing excess
runoff and slowly releasing it to streams or ocean. Wetlands are damaged by uncontrolled
residential and commercial development, road building, oil and gas drilling, and gravel
mining. About 300,000 acres of wetlands are being destroyed annually in the United
States. Half of the original 221 million acres of wetlands in the lower 48 states had been
destroyed by 1991 and over 90% of the wetlands in California have been destroyed.
Although recent Coastal Commission vigilance has helped to contain the depletion of
wetlands in Orange County, there has been a history of wetland loss in the county.
Further loss must be prevented
Preservation efforts center around monitoring development that is harmful to
wetlands, purchasing wetlands for conservation by environmental groups, restoring
endangered wetlands, and creating artificial wetlands. Restoration of damaged wetlands
includes restoring vegetation as it removes most of the sediment and nitrates. The Army
Corps of Engineers is involved in restoring wetlands that serve as buffer strips along the
runoff channels in some parts of the county. The network of constructed wetlands in the
Prado Dam area allows part of the flow from the Santa Ana River to be treated by a cost
effective nitrate reduction process. Creating new wetlands is an effective
accommodation; but it is difficult to find the space in densely populated coastal areas, 0
and the land is very costly. When a satisfactory reproduction is accomplished, it is
unlikely to function as optimally as the original wetland.
On the East Coast some recent efforts to protect wetlands include one city's
requirement for state -of -the -art storms water treatment facilities, including artificial
wetlands, for all new, large commercial developments. Another converted the large,
central lawn of a shopping mall into a wetland to collect drain water.
Despite the admirable management plans in some cities, such as Huntington Beach,
development continues to choke out natural wetlands more rapidly than remediation can
neutralize the consequences.
SCHOOL PROGRAMS
Schools in Orange County have a comprehensive curriculum in environmental issues.
Science topics in grades seven through twelve include conservation, water pollution, and
human pollution of shore zones. A sixth grade unit addresses environment and
ecosystems. In addition, both public and private organizations sponsor programs to
engage youngsters in coastal conservation issues. Resources for educators, such as a
video lending library, slide shows, and speakers are provided by the California Coastal
Commission. These include:
• Save Our Seas (hands -on K through twelve curricular materials on ocean pollution
and the marine environment),
• Children's PoslerArt Contest (K through six students invited to submit ocean related art),
• Adopt -A -Beach (school groups work with adult volunteers in cleaning beaches), and
• Internet environmental education materials.
Despite these efforts surveys indicate that when youngsters become adults they tend
to forget or disregard pollution abatement practices.
SURVEYS
In a recent study, 95% of Americans thought water pollution came from industry and
not from nonpoint runoff (from the National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration).
And, in a Santa Monica survey, less than half of those interviewed realized that storm
drain wastewater flows to the ocean. Most respondents did not believe that runoff through
storm drains is a source of ocean pollution. An Orange County survey (UCI) completed
several ago, showed that just more than half of the respondents were aware that storm
drain runoff ends up on the ocean.
SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Nearly 75% of pollutants entering ocean waters originate from land activities. This is
further complicated by the fact that 80% of the California population lives within thirty
miles of the coast.
The "who" that causes nonpoint source ocean pollution is each of "us." Everyone is
part of the problem. The contamination introduced by the average person is generated
from
• agricultural runoff
• auto leaks and spills. used oil and antifreeze disposal into storm drains
• landscape and construction debris
• restaurant grease
• lawn clippings
• excess fertilizer on home lawns and golf courses
• animal waste
• highway runoff
• litter
• household cleaners
• paint and paint thinner
• lead from gasoline
• rubber from tires
Informal surveys found that even those who are aware of the connection between
these sources of pollution and ocean toxicity were unaware of appropriate methods of
discarding harmful materials. Nor were they aware of altemative products that would not
create hazardous waste. Few know where county collection centers for deposit of
hazardous waste are located and virtually none are aware that there are gas stations (292
in Orange County) that accept discarded motor oil. Surveys show that people in inland
cities think that pollutants come from coastal residents; they do not recognize that runoff
from all points along a waterway lead to the ocean and contribute to ocean
contamination.
In particular, communities with sizeable populations of new immigrants need
information. There is a lack of understanding of how materials in the environment end up
in the ocean. Experience in native countries may not build such awareness. 'There is a
need for constant reinforcement of the message as new populations move into county
communities.
RESOLUTION ISSUES
Allowing the ocean to become polluted and paying to clean it up, as opposed to
preventing pollution in the first place, is illogical.
The general public is unaware that items dropped in streets are destructive to marine
animals. Six -pack rings and fishing lines entangle animals so that they can neither breathe
nor swim. Birds, fish, and mammals mistake plastic for food and, feeling full, do not eat
and die of starvation. Since plastic is not biodegradable, it remains floating on the surface
for as long as four hundred years (from Plastics In Our Ocean). The styrofoam cups and
plastic bags in the water are the result of everyday people's doing everyday things. Those
same people must be convinced that their one styrofoam cup tossed in the gutter
contributes to pollution in the ocean.
Businesses must be made aware of the economic: impact to them of polluted
waterways. And, since studies show that the vast majority of residents of the county use
the beaches, self-interest might be a powerful motivator to individual responsibility.
Signs could be placed both on the coast and inland with information and the amount of
fines for various types of illegal disposal. Public employees who work in the community
should be encouraged to report violations of disposal regulations.
Public education should be intensified. Campaigns need to create an awareness that
storm drains lead directly to the ocean with no treatment plant in between; whatever is on
the street goes to the coast.
Within Orange County there is a fragmentation of effort on the part of the public and
private agencies that are actively concerned with the issue. Partnerships such as the Santa
Ana River Watershed Group, the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
Authority, and the working relationship of county and cities are important and
productive, but there is enormous duplication of effort consuming limited budgets.
Several agencies may explore the same issues at the same time. Cooperation is needed
between agencies and organizations within the county, as well as all neighboring
counties. Watershed management plans show promise in involving inter - county
constituents. The enornious cost of protecting and managing ocean resources mandates
interorganizational cohesiveness as all are hampered by a lack of budget and staff,
complicated by unfunded mandates from federal and state legislation. And those funds
that are available must be rapidly directed toward the resolution of coastal pollution
problems before lawsuits force the issue. The lead agency for a county coalition would
logically be the Public Facilities and Resources Department. Although clean water is
mandated, professionals do not agree on how to implement the legislated standards.
Exploration is only now in progress to detennine the consequences to marine and human
life of each pollutant. Priorities for county ocean cleanup efforts should logically begin
with areas that have the highest value to the community.
Los Angeles County is now starting construction of a diversion system which (from
April 15 to October 15) will send runoff to sewage treatment systems pollutants will be
removed and the treated water will be piped out to sea. The treated water will be cleaned
to sanitary sewer standards. For additional diversion systems are scheduled for beach
locations that have high pollution. Two Los Angeles County coastal cities have already
diverted drains.
The Los Angeles County system will function during the dry season when large
numbers of people are on the beaches. It is hoped that the size of sewage treatment plants
can be increased so that a higher volume of runoff may be treated for more months of the
year. Costs for the Los Angeles County project were aided by a grant from county
Proposition A. 0
Diversion of storm water to sewer treatment has been initiated on a small scale within
Orange County. The larger Los Angeles project should be evaluated for possible
replication in Orange County. Representatives of Orange County agencies stated that this
procedure would be a dependable way to clean runoff water but indicated concern for the
cost. A possible source of funding would be from the county Real Property Tax
allocation for exclusive use of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks.
Control of point source pollution relies on enforcement. Control of nonpomt pollution
relies on voluntary compliance and this has not been effective. For control to be effective,
the public must take an active role in curbing pollution. Agencies responsible for some
aspect of enforcement include Fire Departments, Police, Fish and Game, Health Care
Agency and, under water quality ordinances, the county and all cities. Enforcement of
what businesses are obligated to do according to their permits would substantially
diminish pollution.
Despite conflicting budget needs, clearly the impact of the pollution problem on our
coastal waters suggests that a substantially larger portion of the income from the special
district tax, which is dedicated to exclusive use of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks, should be
allocated for preventing ocean pollution. Funds saved from no longer requiring abatement
would become available to contribute to the cost of preventing the damage. In addition. if
fines that are set by cities were to be raised substantially, income could, and should, feed •
back to fund public education on the issues. Current fine levels may invite some polluters
to continue polluting, as fine costs are less than abatement costs.
In order to prevent drains from becoming congested with trash, debris, and other
pollutants, street sweeping should be scheduled a minimum of once a week with vehicles
that both sweep and vacuum residue.
Cities have a responsibility to clean catch basins once a year. Each year at the time
drains are cleaned, Newport Beach changes the logo which is stenciled on storm drains so
that staff can quickly tell whether a stormdrain has been cleaned as scheduled. Ideally,
before an expected storm, streets would be swept and catch basins and surrounding curbs
and gutters would be cleaned.
The technology to aid in cleanup of runoff in stormdrains is finally at a workable
stage, and it is important for the county to monitor developments that are likely to create
effective and affordable solutions.
Since sonic residents do not have transportation to take toxic materials to collection
sites, truck routes might be established countywide with frequent stops for collection.
Clearly labeled containers could be provided to residents who use the mobile collection
service to serve as a reminder of which substances are not to be dumped. The city of
Garden Grove provides pickup at homes for used motor oil. Los Angeles County's 0
"hazardous waste round -up" collection sites are scheduled to average once a week in
some parts of the county. The sites change each week, so that all areas of the county are
covered.
The issues arc complex and the challenges formidable. When dealing with
environmental problems, a solution to one may create another. Clearly the cost of a clean
ocean is immense, but the bencflts are worth it. The enormous strides that have been
made in air quality, highway littering, and recycling prove it is possible. Changing public
habits is daunting in our "disposable" society. Identifying polluters in order to assign
responsibility and levy fines will take ingenuity.
The cost of the solution must be weighed against the value obtained and, as with other
major civic projects, where there is a will to have a clean and healthy coastal area, the
money will be found. Despite the cost, we cannot afford to ignore the issues of our
marine environment, or we will leave a toxic, unusable coastal zone to future generations.
FINDINGS
Under California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses are required to all
findings. The 1995 -99 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at 7 major findings.
1. Historically, nonpoint source pollution received little emphasis and it continues to be
a major source of ocean pollution. Many programs addressing ocean pollution have
been initiated by agencies and organizations in the county but there is insufficient
coordination of effort both within the county and between Orange County and
adjacent counties.
A response to Finding 1 is required from the following county offices: Public Facilities
and Resources Department and the Orange County Sanitation District.
2. Although there is agreement that the average citizen is a significant contributor to
nonpoint source pollution, not enough has been done to enlist the cooperation of the
public in eliminating the sources of the problem: There is also inadequate information
reaching the public concerning the correct disposal of pollutants.
A response to Finding 2 is required from: Public Facilities and Resources Department,
all City Managers and the Orange County Sanitation District.
3. Responsibility for enforcing nonpoint source abatement laws lies with the offices of
the sheriff - coroner, city police, county fire, and city fire departments. Problems in
-cing compliance of nonpoint source pollution abatement laws are exacerbated by
ale difficulty of identifying the polluter. In addition, once identified, fines are often so
minimal that it is more cost effective for the offender to pay the fine than to properly
dispose of the pollutants.
A response to Finding 3 is required from the following county agencies: Orange County
Sheriff - Coroner Department, all City Police Departments, County Fire Department,
all City Fire Departments.
4. Technology for stonnwater treatment and management is an emerging field. The best
of the new systems can be expected to remove pollutants from stomtwater, to be cost -
effective and to have loa maintenance requirements.
The Grand Jury does not require a response to this finding.
5. A percentage share of Orange County district property tax dollars is designated by
statute for exclusive use of Harbors, Beaches and Parks.
The Grand .fury does not require a response to this finding.
6. A diversion system in Los Angeles County is in- process and will connect pipes and
filters to send runoff to existing sewage treatment systems where toxic substances
will be removed before the runoff water enters the ocean.
The Grand Jury does not require a response to this finding.
7. Streets are not being swept and storm drains are not being cleaned at sufficiently
frequent intervals.
The Grand Jury does not require a response to this finding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In'accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, each
recommendation nmst be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed.
These responses are submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the
findings, the 1995 -99 Orange County Grand Jury recommends that:
1. The Public Facilities and Resources Department make a strong effort to coordinate
the program activities of all public and private agencies and organizations in the
county dealing with nonpoint source ocean pollution. (See Finding 1.)
The Public Facilities and Resources Department is required to respond to this
recommendation.
2. The Public Facilities and Resources Department and all City Managers make a
strong effort to continue and enhance education regarding the correct disposal of
materials that result in ocean pollution. Such efforts should include:
Posting signs in areas of the source of major pollution showing the range of fines
for illegal disposal
Provision for a mobile collection service throughout the county for pick -up of toxic
substances
An information campaign to communities with a large population of immigrants on
appropriate methods of discarding materials that create polluted runoff. (See Finding
The Public Facilities and Resources Department and all City Managers are required
to respond to this recommendation.
3. The Public Facilities and Resources Department find creative ways or incentives to
identify nonpoint source polluters and address the possibility of increasing fines for
violators. (Sec Finding 3.)
The Public Facilities and Resources Department is required to respond to this
Recommendation.
4. The Public Facilities and Resources Department aggressively investigate new
technology for reducing nonpoint source water pollution. (See Finding 4.)
The Public Facilities and Resources Department is required to respond to this
Recommendation.
5. A review of the property tax find designated for Harbors, Beaches, and Parks to
determine the proper amount to be assigned to improve ocean quality. (See Finding 5.)
The Public Facilities and Resources Department is required to respond to this
Recommendation.
6. The Public Facilities and Resources Department evaluate the system in process in Los
Angeles County that will divert runoff water to sewage treatment systems for possible
replication in Orange County. (See Finding G.)
The Public Facilities and Resources Department is required to respond to this
recommendation.
7. Cities and unincorporated areas require street sweeping weekly with both sweep and
vacuum equipment. Cities and unincorporated areas mark stone drains so as to
readily indicate the last date of cleaning. (See Finding 7.)
All City Managers are required to respond to this Recommendation.
11
APPENDIX
]MEETINGS AND TouRs
July 28, 1998. "lour of Orange County Sanitation District
July 29, 1998. Tour of Orange County Water District
August 12, 1998. Meeting with Surfrider Foundation
August 18, 1998. Tour of Taormino Industries Disposal /Recycling
August 19, 1998. Tour of Rainbow Disposal Company
August 24, 1998. Meeting with Santa Margarita Water District
August 31, 1998. Meeting with Orange County Public Facilities and Resources
Department, Flood Control
September 14, 1998. Meeting with South Coast Air Quality Management District
October 5, 1998. Tour of Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department,
Olinda Alpha Landfill
October 5, 1998. Meeting with Local Agency Formation Commission
October 21, 1998. Tour of Orange County Frank R. Bowerman Landfill
December 7, 1998. Meeting with Orange County Sanitation District
December 14, 1998. Meeting with South Coast Air Quality Management District
January 12, 1999. Meeting with Orange County Public Facilities and Resources
Department, Coastal Facilities
January 22, 1999. Meeting with City of Santa Ana Fire Department
January 25, 1999. Tour of Huntington Beach Coastal Area, City of Huntington Beach
Public Works Department
January 26, 1999. Meeting with City of Newport Beach, General Services
February 11, 1999. Meeting with Los Angeles County Department of Public Works,
Environmental Programs Division
February 17, 1999. Meeting with California Coastal Commission
February 23, 1999. Meeting with Lake Forest Public Works Department
March 8, 1999. Meeting with Orange County Public Facilities and Resources
Department, Environmental Resources
March 9,1999. Tour of Prado Dam, Anaheim Catch Basins, Eastside Reservoir
March 25, 1999. Meeting with representative of a water treatment interceptor unit
manufacturer
1J
March 29, 1999. Meeting with Amry Corps of Engineers
• April 8, 1999. Meeting with City of Cypress Environmental Office
May 7 -8, 1999. Tour of the California Aqueduct System and Oroville Dam
June 11 -13, 1999. Tour of the Colorado River Aqueduct
REFERENCES
BOOKS
California's Ocean Resources. An Agenda /or the Future. Sacramento: State Printing
Office, 1997.
Novotny, Vladimir, Editor. Political, Institutional and Fiscal Alternatives for Nonpoint
Pollution Abatement Programs. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1988.
Roberts, Leslie, Editor -in- Chief. World Resources 1995 -99. New York: Oxford
University Press. 1998.
ARTICLES
Hoffbuhr, Jack W. Lessons From Dolan Under. Journal of American Water Works
Association, December, 1998
WORLD WIDE WEB
Amaral, Kimberly, Plastics in Our Oceans. Available at
http: / /www. umassd.edu/Public/ People /KamarzA /Thesis /plasticsarticle.htmi.
An Overview of the CLEAN WATER ACT, Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Available at: http: // www .webconi.com /- stabedcwa.html.
California Coastal Commission. Briefing on Status of California's Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program and Update on Staff Activities Pursuant to the CCC's
Polluted Runoff Strategy. Available at:
http://w-tvw.ceres.ca-gov/coastalcomm/web/npstatus.html.
. Coastal and Marine Resources for Educators. Available
at: http: // www. ceres. ca. gov/ coasta lcomm/web /ccd/educate.htmi.
Coastal Act. Available at: http: / /www. ceres .ca.gov /coastalcomm/web /qa.html.
Save Ora- Seas. Available at:
http://wvm,.ceres.ca/coastalcomm/web/saveseas.html.
California Coastal Commission Adopt -A -Beach Program. The Problem with Aforine
Debris. Available at: littp: / /w\vw.ceres.ca. gov /roastalcomm /web /ccd /debris.litml.
Caring for Our Coasr _http: / /www.uniontrib.com /news /rerports /coast /coast970818a.html.
City of Los Angeles. Stornnrater program: Educational Programs and Alaterials.
Available at: hitp:/h vww .cityofa.org/BOE/bini.ro.html.
Clean Water Action Plan. Sarong Pollted Runoj)Connols. Available at
littl)://w%vNN,.cl)a.gov/cIcaiiwateer/actioii/c2c.litiii1.
Educational Programs and Materials. Stormwater Pollution Abatement Program: Speak.
Available at: hltp: /hv\vw.g itekeeper.com /stone water /pollution_abatcmeni /edu.
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
Nonpoint . Source Pollution Control Program (Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990). Available at:
hitp://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/coastnps.litnil.
A lanaging Wetlands to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution. Available at:
littp://www.el)a.gov/OWOW/NPS/facts/poiiltll.html.
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, Clean Water Act Amendments. Available at:
littp://www.ps.org/iippr cwa.html.
Nonpoint Source Control Branch. Protecting Coastal Waters from Nonpoint Source
pollution. Available at: litip: / /www.el)a. gov /OWOW/NPS /facts /point5.litml.
Orange County Water District. Prado Basin Wetlands and Conservation: Nitrate
Removal Research. Available at: http:// wN\,w.ocwd.com/PAGES/PRADONIT.litm.
Sierra Club. Hoprr 25 I BD-thcla},. Clean Water Act! Available at:
littp:/!%\,ww.sierrac]Lib.org/wwetlands/press.htnil.
Surfrider Foundation. Arc, You Sick ofh? from the study "An Epidemiological Study of
Possible Adverse Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica Bay." Available at
http://'\v\N,w.sdsc.edu/'Pi-ojects/Surfride/SDCC/sick.htnil.
U.S. News, A New Dal, at the Beach. Available at:
www.usnews.com /usnews /issue /990201/1 cali.html.
Vortechnics Engineered Products for Stormwater Treatment. Available at:
littp: / /www.vonechnics.com.
Water Online, EPA Bows to Enforcing CWA in CA. Available at:
htip://www.wateronline.coni.
DOCUMENTS
California Coastal Commission. Procedural Guidance Manual. Undated.
Model Urban Runoff Program (A1URP) Update.
March 13, 1998.
. Polluted Runoff Strategy of the California Coastal
Commission. February, 1997.
City of Huntington Beach. !miter pualiq- Management Plan, January 9, 1998
Committee for the National Institute for the Environment. Water Quality: Implementing
the Clean lVater Act. August 3, 1998.
0
E
0
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Watcr. WhY Watersheds? March 25, 1996.
. Findings for the California Coastal Nonpoinl Program. Undated.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Los Angeles Count), 1997 -98
Stornnvater Monitoring Report, July 10, 1998.
National Resources Defense Council, Inc. ArRDC Pro: Testing the Waters 1998. 1998.
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Managemcnt. The National Coastal Guardian
Campaign. Undated.
The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project. Attitudes Towards the Sawa Monica Bay: A
Public Opinion SurveY. June 24, 1992.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Functions of Wetlands, Undated.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program. January 21, 1997.
letlands Definitions /Delineation
Controversy, Undated.
BROCHURES
Flyers and brochures from the Integrated Waste Management Department, Los Angeles
County, Orange County and Cities, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County,
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
NEWSPAPERS
Numerous articles on coastal pollution in county /city, newspapers.
E
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RESTAURANT CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE GUIDE
August 7, 1998
TO ALL RESTAURANT OWNERS, MANAGERS AND STAFF
The City of Newport Beach has recently experienced several beach closures due to high bacteria counts in the Bay.
Orange County Environmental Health Division's stormdrain bacteriological monitoring has indicated that this high
bacterium count may be associated with Newport Beach Restaurants. During the course of cleaning equipment and
facilities some materials, cleaning agents and /or rinse waters may migrate into the storm drain system and finally into
the bay. In addition dumpsters provide a perfect incubator for bacteria and fluids may leak from the dumpster into
the storm drain system. The storm drain system consists of the curb and gutter, catch basins and pipes, which carry
rainwater from our streets into the bay.
The City seeks the support and assistance of all restaurant owners, managers and staff in eliminating the possibility
of this type of occurrence. It is in our mutual best interest to maintain the recreational waters in Newport Beach to
high standards in order to promote and facilitate the tourism that contributes to our local economy.
In order to eliminate potential undesirable material, dumpster effluent and cleaning agents from migrating into the
storm drain system and bay, it is necessary that all cleaning and dumpster storage be confined to a dedicated area
with a hard surface where any discharge is connected to the sewer system. This area must also have a cover to
keep rain from entering the sewer connection. Any new connections to the sewer system will require a permit from
the Building Department. Absolutely no material, dumpster effluent, cleaning agents and /or rinse waters should be
allowed to migrate into the storm drain system. Allowing any material, dumpster effluent, cleaning agents and /or
rinse waters to enter the storm drain system is a violation of numerous municipal, state and federal laws.
In addition it is important to periodically sweep your parking lot area in order to remove any potential contaminants.
Sweeping of the parking lot should be conducted on a weekly basis, at a minimum.
You should also be aware the City will be increasing it's efforts to enforce these requirements and the fines can be
severe, starting at $100.00 for the first occurrence.
Thank you for your support in making our community a better place to visit and dine in. If you have any questions
please call the City's Code Enforcement Supervisor, Jim Sinasek, at (949) 644 -3215 or the City's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Coordinator Stephen Luy, at (949) 644 -3330.
Sincerely,
Q— "iL
Don Webb
Public Works Director
E