SIGNAL HILL, Calif., April 26, 2002 -- Representatives of cities in Los Angeles County expressed extreme disappointment with the decision Thursday by the California State Water Board to deny a stay of implementation for controversial new stormwater rules recently adopted by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Local officials had urged the State Board to put the new regulations on hold, pending resolution of an appeal filed by 48 cities and L.A. County. At a March 25 public hearing convened to give stakeholders an opportunity to voice their opinions on a stay, representatives of numerous cities vigorously expressed their commitment to improving water quality, but noted that while the L.A. Board had failed to conduct a legally-required cost-benefit analysis of the rules, other public agencies had determined that the costs would be high and environmental benefits miniscule. They expressed extreme disappointment with today's announcement and the State Board's apparent disregard for the financial consequences of their decision. Now, they say, they face some immediate and very difficult budgetary challenges.
Said John Pratt, Mayor of Bellflower: "Today's decision is disastrous for taxpayers all over L.A. County. Without the stay, we'll have to start implementing questionable programs right away that we simply can't afford. And short of raising taxes, the only way we'll be able to pay for them is to divert funding for essential public services such as police and fire protection."
Said West Covina Councilmember Michael Miller: "We weren't asking to be relieved of responsibility for the environment -- what we were asking was that we not be required to displace scarce taxpayer funds on the equivalent of an environmental wild goose chase with no apparent basis in scientific or fiscal reality."
Councilmember Margaret Clark of Rosemead agreed: "It is in all our interests to have the cleanest water possible, but we cannot afford to simply sink millions or even billions of dollars into a plan which has not been scientifically proven will lead to cleaner water."
"It's not as if we were asking for an indefinite delay," continued Clark. "The appeal period is very brief -- now we are being forced to make tough fiscal choices before the Board even decides what the final plan will look like. That makes no sense and will cause tremendous financial hardship for our cities."
Covina Mayor David Truax observed: "Our city has a budget deficit of nearly $1 million this fiscal year and has not yet identified a funding source for the increased costs of the new stormwater program. It is unconscionable to ask us to waste precious taxpayer dollars on program requirements that may go away with the Board's decision."
All agreed that the cities had sufficiently proven the three requirements necessary for the Board to grant a stay: (1) evidence of substantial harm should a stay be denied; (2) evidence that there would be no substantial harm to the public interest and to interested persons should a stay be granted; and (3) demonstration of substantial issues of law and fact. If implemented in their entirety without amendment by the State Board, the new rules could cost taxpayers $54 billion for capital improvements alone, plus another $199 million per year in operating and maintenance costs, according to a state-funded study. The Chief Legislative Analyst of the City of Los Angeles determined the rules would carry a very high cost with little or no environmental benefit in return. A decision on the appeal is expected by late summer or early fall.
