Suggested MRP Talking Points for Discussion with Water Board Staff
San Mateo County’s Environmental Quality Committee Meeting - November 18, 2008
The following provides a list of MRP issues that may be worthwhile including in a discussion with Bruce Wolfe, Executive Officer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board and his staff, at this upcoming meeting. This list should be supplemented with other issues and examples as meeting attendees choose. It is generous of Mr. Wolfe to make his time available for this meeting, and it would be good to have a productive discussion of issues and concerns.
1.
MRP needs to set clear priorities. SMCWPPP believes that the previous version of the draft permit (Dec. 2007) was unfocused and unnecessarily expensive. The MRP should have clear priorities – one would assume that the priorities should be to implement the total maximum daily loads. The MRP should minimize activities, such as monitoring, that do not lead directly to improved water quality. Monitoring was estimated by SMCWPPP to be the most expensive portion of the previous version of the draft permit. Another area of the permit that seemed like an unnecessary distraction and expense was the reinvention of numerous areas of stormwater implementation, such as exempted and conditionally exempted discharges, which have been successfully implemented for more than ten years.
2.
MRP needs to allow flexible implementation with accountability. This is an ongoing item of discussion among stormwater agencies and Water Board staff. Hopefully, the reissued version of the MRP strikes a more useful balance than the previous version of the draft permit between allowing agencies flexibility to accomplish results and the tracking, recording, and reporting of permit implementation activities. BASMAA will be offering suggestions for the MRP regarding litter and trash, monitoring, and reporting for construction site control, industrial and commercial site control, and illicit discharge elimination and detection.
3.
MRP needs to recognize municipalities funding realities. SMCWPPP and its member municipalities do not have a way to easily increase stormwater fees to pay for new tasks that would be required by the MRP. SMCWPPP hired a consultant (HF&H Consultants 2008) to look at how municipalities could raise fees. One of the conclusions of this study is the following:
“Surveys indicate the public is unwilling to pay fees directly for stormwater requirements. Significant lead time (i.e., multiple years rather than months is required to try and secure these funds with no guarantee of success. In the current economic environment and given the recent results of public surveys, success will probably be minimal.”
Four-year phase in period. The MRP should have at least a four-year phase in period so that municipalities have an opportunity to raise revenue. It may require more than one election to educate voters about the benefits of increasing their stormwater fees. A four-year phase in period also may allow an opportunity for the first stormwater fee increase election to occur, hopefully, when the economy is no longer in a recession.
State stormwater fee increases. Another difficulty is that every time that the State Water
Resources Control Board and Regional Water Boards raise their stormwater NPDES permit

fees, as they did in October, it decreases the amount of funding available to implement permit requirements. As part of minimizing possible future fee increases, SMCWPPP supports Governor Schwarzenegger’s interest in helping the State Water Resources Control
Board/Regional Water Boards be more effective, accountable, and consistent.
Creek restoration. The public is probably more supportive of fees tied to creek restoration than to stormwater, and a stormwater fee increase may be more achievable if it includes measures to protect and restore local creeks and streams. Efforts by the North Coast and San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Boards and by the State Water Resources
Control Board to develop a policy to protect wetlands and riparian areas may be useful in developing a program that can be used to generate funding support for both stormwater and creek and wetland protection and restoration activities.
4.
SMCWPPP requests Water Board support its application for Proposition 84 grant funding. The SMCWPPP has been implementing a low impact development, Sustainable
Green Streets and Parking Lots Program, using local vehicle registration fees. SMCWPPP would like to expand this program with a Proposition 84 stormwater grant. We appreciate
Shin Roei Lee’s and Keith Lichten’s assistance to date with this program, and would like to request continued help from Water Board staff in putting a winning Proposition 84 stormwater grant application together. In addition, SMCWPPP is interested in including funding for additional trash and litter controls as part of this grant application.
5.
Request for at least 60 day comment period for revised MRP . SMCWPPP appreciated the additional comment time that Bruce Wolfe allowed one year ago on the previous draft version of the draft permit. It will take some time to understand proposed changes to the permit and fact sheet and the Water Board staff’s responses to comments. Further, time will be needed to develop and offer constructive comments that support the ongoing dialogue regarding the MRP. In addition, municipalities need to involve their elected officials in this comment preparation process. We request that given the complexity of the MRP issues, the
Water Board staff consider allowing at least a 60-day comment period for the reissued MRP.
6.
Water Board should not put all of its regulatory eggs in the MRP basket . Having observed the four plus years that have been devoted to developing the MRP and the collateral reduction of Water Board staff involvement in SMCWPPP, SMCWPPP recommends a more balanced approach. SMCWPPP and its member agencies benefit when Water Board staff pays attention to its work and identifies deficiencies needing correction when they occur.
There are positive benefits when the Water Board staff reviews and provides timely feedback on annual reports and meets with municipalities to audit stormwater efforts. Much of this type of ongoing involvement with SMCWPPP occurred prior to the advent of work on the
MRP in 2004. We believe that the Water Board and SMCWPPP will make more progress with a better balanced approach than just focusing on the MRP.
7.
What help does Water Board staff need from SMCWPPP and its member municipalities ? The Water Board staff should let us know where we are able to help them as we move toward completion of the MRP and transition into the implementation of the new permit requirements.