A comparative analysis storm water pollution policy California and Australia

X. Swamikannu,* D. Radulescu,* R. Young** and R. Allison** * California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles, 320 W. 4th Street, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90013, USA (E-mail: xswami@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov) ** Melbourne Water Corporation, 630 Church Street, Richmond, Victoria 3121, Australia Abstract Urban drainage systems historically were developed on principles of hydraulic capacity for the transport of storm water to reduce the risk of flooding. However, with urbanization the percent of impervious surfaces increases dramatically resulting in increased flood volumes, peak discharge rates, velocities and duration, and a significant increase in pollutant loads. Storm water and urban runoff are the leading causes of the impairment of receiving waters and their beneficial uses in Australia and the United States today. Strict environmental and technology controls on wastewater treatment facilities and industry for more than three decades have ensured that these sources are less significant today as the cause of impairment of receiving waters.

This paper compares the approach undertaken by the Environmental Protection Authority Victoria for the Melbourne metropolitan area with the approach implemented by the California Environmental Protection Agency for the Los Angeles area to control storm water pollution. Both these communities are largely similar in population size and the extent of urbanization. The authors present an analysis of the different approaches contrasting Australia with the USA, comment on their comparative success, and discuss the relevance of the two experiences for developed and developing nations in the context of environmental policy making to control storm water and urban runoff pollution.

Keywords Australia; best management practices; diffuse pollution; environmental policy; storm water pollution; stormwater quality; United States

Water Science and Technology Vol 47 No 7–8 pp 311–317 © IWA Publishing 2003

A comparative analysis: storm water pollution policy in California, USA and Victoria, Australia

Introduction Storm water and urban runoff pollution

Storm water and urban runoff (diffuse pollution) are often contaminated with pesticides, fertilizers, animal droppings, trash, food wastes, automotive byproducts, and many other toxic substances generated by our urban environment. Water that flows over streets, parking lots, construction sites, and industrial, commercial, and residential areas carries these pollutants via the storm drainage system directly into surface waters.

In the USA, research performed under the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) and the US Federal Highway Authority showed that storm water discharges from residential, commercial, highway, and light industrial areas contained significant loading of conventional and toxic pollutants (USEPA, 1983; Lord, 1987). More recently, Reports to Congress (USEPA, 1998, 2000) have documented the trend of impairment in US waters from contaminated storm water and urban runoff. According to these reports, urban runoff and storm water discharges in the USA affect 11% of rivers, 12% of lakes, 28% of estuaries and 63% of coastal shorelines. Other recent studies further support a finding of the adverse impact of urbanization on storm water quality (USGS, 2000a, 2000b).

Los Angeles, California The monitoring of storm water conducted in Los Angeles County, California indicates that instream concentrations of pathogen indicators (fecal coliform and streptococcus), heavy metals (such as lead, copper, zinc) and organo-phosphate pesticides (such as diazinon) exceed California and US water quality criteria (LACDPW, 1999).

311

X. Swamikannu et al.

Also, the mass emissions of pollutants in storm water to the marine environment are significant from these urban watersheds (catchments) (Schiff, 1996). Source characterization monitoring data for facilities (such as auto-salvage yards, primary metal facilities, and automotive repair shops) show that total and dissolved heavy metals (lead, copper, zinc), and total suspended solids exceeded California and US water quality criteria by as much as 2 orders of magnitude (LACDPW, 1999). Storm water runoff data from light industrial, commercial, and transportation land uses had the highest range of exceedances. One pesticide (diazinon) was detected in higher concentrations from residential land use. Receiving water impact studies found that storm water discharges from urban watersheds exhibit toxicity that are attributable to heavy metals (Jirik et al., 1998). Sediment analysis showed higher concentrations of pollutants, such as lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), in urban watersheds than in rural watersheds (2 to 4 times higher). In addition, toxicity of dry weather flows was also observed (Bay et al., 1996). Other studies in the Los Angeles area have documented adverse human health impacts from swimming near flowing storm drains (Haile et al., 1999).

Metro Melbourne, Victoria Monitoring conducted in the Metro Melbourne area has demonstrated that higher concentrations and loads of conventional pollutants such as total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total suspended solids, and gross pollutants are associated with storm water discharges (RossRakesh et al., 1999; Allison and Chiew, 1995).

Comparisons

No two urbanized communities, especially in different hemispheres, can be exactly alike in terms of urbanization patterns, physiography, demographics, and economy. On the other hand, the impacts of urbanization in developed nations can be validly attributed to similar causes resulting from comparable urban development, industrialization, and transportation patterns. Both the County of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles may be aptly compared with Metropolitan Melbourne on the basis of population, motor vehicle traffic, and the constructed drainage systems (see Table 1). They both have storm drainage systems that convey rainfall runoff. Their storm drain systems are separate from the sanitary sewer systems, which convey industrial and domestic wastewater to wastewater treatment plants.

In terms of precipitation, Melbourne typically receives twice more rainfall annually than Los Angeles does, and in Melbourne it rains on five times as many days. Both communities are vibrant politically and have sufficient fiscal resources to dedicate towards improving the quality of life and the environment. Their residents value their beach culture and coastal tourism and have strong environmental awareness to influence public policy on environmental protection.

Table 1 Comparison of physiographic, demographic, economic, and infrastructure measures between City of Los Angeles, California and Metropolitan Melbourne, Victoria (data reference year 2000)

312

Land area

Population

Mean annual

No. of rain

(kkm2)

(million)

rainfall (mm)

days (d)

19 4.7 3.5 28 8.9 4

– – 660.8 – – 383.5

– – 147.6 – – 31

Australia 7,682 Victoria 228 Metro Melbourne 8.8 California 411 Los Angeles Co. 10.6 Los Angeles City 1.2

No. of motor Gross product Length of built vehicles (million) ($US billion)

11.7 3.1 – 26 6.1 –

428 78.8 – 1,301.7 363.7 –

drains (km)

– – 1,100 – 7,728 3,413

Environmental and regulatory framework EPA Victoria

X. Swamikannu et al.

The Environmental Protection Authority Victoria (EPA Victoria) regulates the discharge of wastes to waterways under the Environmental Protection Act of 1970 through a framework of licensing, monitoring, and auditing (EPA Victoria, 2001). To minimize the impact of urban storm water discharges, the agency is embarking on a three year program to support municipalities in developing and implementing storm water management plans using guidance developed in partnership with Melbourne Water Corporation and local governments (Victoria Storm Water Committee, 1999). EPA Victoria takes a non-regulatory approach to managing the quality of storm water discharges to waterways. The agency, (i) has established a storm water program to achieve environmental objectives by encouraging the use of best practices; and (ii) facilitates the achievement of water quality goals by non-regulatory means by promoting best practices through the cooperative development of best practices guidelines.

California EPA

The California Environmental Protection (CalEPA LA) regulates the discharge of wastes to waterways under the US Clean Water Act of 1972 and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970. For an overview of the US Clean Water experience see Swamikannu, 1998. Wastewater discharges are subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES) permits issued for five-year terms. These permits impose conditions that require wastewater discharges to meet the more stringent numerical technology based or water quality based criterion. The wastewater discharger demonstrates compliance with the permit conditions through a self-monitoring and reporting program and the permitting authority conducts annual inspections of the facility. Violations of permit conditions are subject to stiff monetary penalties.

Urban storm water in the US was made subject to the same NPDES permit program as wastewater in 1987. For a discussion of the regulation of storm water in the US, see Skoch II, 1993. Permit compliance is to be achieved through the implementation of best management practices “to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable�

(MEP standard). Where the permitting authority so requires, urban storm water discharges must also meet water quality standards through an iterative process of implementing more and better best management practices. CalEPA LA utilizes a regulatory approach to control storm water pollution in urban areas.

More recently, a little previously noticed provision of the US Clean Water Act (§ 303) has been resurrected, to require permitting authorities to develop pollutant load allocations known as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for all discharge sources of pollutants to waterways that are causing or contributing to impairment of beneficial uses, including urban storm water. For a review of the evolution of TMDLs, see Houck, 1997. TMDLs once developed by the regulatory authority are to be achieved through the use of both regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms.

Discussion Recent emphasis on storm water

The regulation of wastewater discharges in both Australia and California since the 1970s has led to considerable improvement in the quality of surface waters despite growth in population, transportation and industry (EPA Victoria, 2001; Swamikannu, 1998). Today urban runoff and storm water pollutant concentrations and loads to surface waters are substantial relative to other sources (Schiff, 1996). Thus for developed nations, improvement in the quality of urban storm water represents the next challenge to protecting receiving waters and their beneficial uses.

313

X. Swamikannu et al.

In general, Los Angeles when contrasted with Metro Melbourne shows higher risk for storm water contamination and adverse impacts from storm water discharges to receiving waters (Table 1). Los Angeles has a higher population density (8 times as much), less land area, significantly more motor vehicles, and less rainfall (44% less) over considerably fewer days. These factors in combination would be expected to increase pollutant concentrations and pollutant loads in urban storm water that will manifest in greater shock impacts on receiving water ecology and health. The monitoring of storm water in Los Angeles generally indicates that storm water discharges cause toxicity in the receiving waters, lending support to this hypothesis. In Melbourne, the concern is largely with conventional pollutants such as nutrients, total suspended solids (positively correlated with heavy metals and PAHs), and gross pollutants with a ten year time frame to substantially reduce their concentration and loads in storm water (Victoria EPA, 2001). It is likely that Metro Melbourne has the luxury of time to implement storm water solutions given the fact that its surface waters may not nearly be as impacted at the present time as those in Los Angeles.

Determinants for improved management of storm water quality

Factors that are important for the improved management of storm water quality include, (i) a common basis for water quality volume and flow design, (ii) definite objectives to integrate water quality considerations in flood control protection, (iii) an integrated framework for storm water master planning, and (iv) institutional organization at the local municipal agency level to address multiple objectives (Strecker and Reininga, 1999; Roesner, 1999). In addition, local government agencies must be committed to, (v) advancing and responding to the public interest in the environment and balancing it with the economic interests of industrialization, (vi) promoting public participation and involvement in implementing solutions, and (vii) educating elected officials and decision-makers to the importance of managing storm water quality and its relationship to tangible measures such as the improvement of quality of life and tourism revenues. Further, State and national authorities must, (viii) implement standardized procedures for measuring and accounting progress in storm water programs in order to account for the public investment and obtain continuing public support (USGAO, 2001).

In general, the impetus for improving storm water quality in Melbourne appears to be the result of government responsiveness to the public perception that downstream water bodies such as Port Phillip Bay need to be protected. In Los Angeles, the impetus comes from, in addition to US storm water regulations, the activism of regional and national environmental groups such as Heal the Bay and the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, who are able to make both a legal and economic argument around valuing beach and coastal tourism (a US $2 billion industry in Southern California). Their cause is aided by the powerful provision in the US Clean Water Act (U.S.C. § 1365) which empowers third parties to bring an action in US courts to seek remedy for statutory and regulatory violations where the permitting authority fails to act.

Different management strategies

314

CalEPA LA and EPA Victoria have taken divergent approaches to managing storm water quality and their impacts on receiving waters. CalEPA LA’s approach is a regulatory one requiring strict compliance with permit conditions and the possibility of stiff penalties where violations are identified. EPA Victoria takes a flexible approach by providing matching funding for the development and implementation of storm water plans and a tenyear objective to improve storm water quality (EPA Victoria, 2001). The agency relies on municipal self-regulation. In Victoria, the uncertainty of shared responsibility between

State, Regional, and local agencies has been a historical stumbling block. Notably, the US exercise in local government environmental enlightenment and self-regulation was largely unsuccessful, as demonstrated by the failure of the non-point source program to improve storm water quality. This US voluntary non-point source storm water program has existed since the 1970s.

CalEPA LA’s approach towards improving storm water quality is to require that municipal storm water system operators reduce the discharge of all storm water pollutants to the MEP. For those pollutants that cause or contribute to the exceedance of water quality standards, they are to be reduced so that receiving water standards are not exceeded, through an iterative process of implementation of more and better best management practices. Over the next thirteen years, specific allocations of pollutant concentrations and loads will be assigned to all sources through the TMDL process that are protective of receiving water impacts. The TMDL allocations for urban storm water will become effective and enforceable under the NPDES permit program once the TMDL is approved. A municipality’s storm water management plan must be revised promptly to include controls to achieve the TMDL allocation for the municipality. The municipality retains the discretion on the optimum selection of best management practices to achieve compliance with the TMDL allocation. CalEPA LA under the California Water Code (§ 13360) is prohibited from prescribing the manner of compliance to achieve TMDLs in order to provide flexibility and not suppress innovation. Compliance with TMDLs may also be achieved through nonregulatory methods as well such as pollutant load trading (Austin, 2001).

EPA Victoria’s approach to improving storm water quality takes into consideration the balancing of multiple objectives from water quality to flood control to public support and local government participation. The lack of objective criteria to measure performance and progress towards specific objectives makes it difficult to assess the success of implementation. There is much reliance on the willing participation of local government to develop and implement storm water management plans to protect water quality.

Nevertheless, this approach might provide the opportunity for local government agencies to develop multiple benefits and cost effective outcomes to control a suite of pollutants of concern rather than any one pollutant at one time.

X. Swamikannu et al.

Differences in implementation

Comparative analysis

Both CalEPA LA’s approach in addressing storm water quality in Los Angeles and EPA Victoria’s approach in Metro Melbourne may reflect the nature of their nations and the special characteristics of their communities.

In the USA, revolutionary advances in water quality protection have often arisen as a result of judicial intervention to interpret US laws. Such examples include the urban storm water program and the TMDL program. All too often, municipalities in the US believe it an inherent right to challenge State or US mandates. These local governments see the funding of environmental causes competing with other services such as education, police, and fire fighting. In this suspect relationship, legal disincentives for non-compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements provides the best chance for progress on improving storm water quality. A most significant element that has advanced the cause of storm water protection in Los Angeles is the provision of the US Clean Water Act that enables citizens harmed by government inaction to seek remedy in courts.

Australia’s approach of encouraging local government commitment to managing storm water quality must be given time to prove its efficacy. In the US, a similar approach implemented for more than three decades has largely been a failure because of institutional

315

inertia. With few exceptions, local governments or businesses are reluctant to receive national or state funds because of the accounting and bureaucratic reporting that goes with fund acceptance. Australia may have more success with its flexible approach because of its kind of democracy, which is built on consultation and not on the primacy of individual and local government rights.

X. Swamikannu et al.

The challenge for developing nations

For the developing world, water quality issues appear diminutive when compared with issues of water supply reliability and adequate drainage infrastructure (Roesner, 1999). On the other hand some of these nations, especially in South East Asia and Eastern Europe, are well on their way towards building advanced societies. While these nations may have adequate laws to protect water quality, their institutions are weak, trained personnel are limited, there is poor regulatory oversight, and enforcement is non-existent (Swamikannu, 1998). First, these nations must clearly designate the objectives for protection of their receiving waters. Next they must identify best available technology to be consistently applied to wastewater discharges to surface waters. To improve storm water quality, they must promote pollution prevention strategies so as to minimize pollution in a cost-effective manner. Finally, they must readily involve and seek participation from their public to improving the quality of their water resources.

Conclusion

California and Victoria have taken different approaches to managing storm water quality and mitigating their impact on receiving waters. EPA Victoria’s approach of working with business and local governments in a flexible manner to reduce storm water pollution may be appropriate because of the nature of Australian society. The process of consultation builds local government buy-in to implementation of storm water mitigation measures and may lead to quick progress. CalEPA LA’s approach of enforcing strict compliance with water quality standards through an iterative approach of best management practices and TMDLs relies on the successful model of the US point source program. This approach ensures that storm water pollutant reductions are squarely achieved in a timely manner, although lawsuits can often delay implementation and divert regulatory agency resources in defending the action.

References

316

Allison, R.A. and Chiew, F.H.S. (1995). Monitoring of Stormwater Pollution from Various Landuses in an Urban Catchment. The Second International Symposium on Urban Storm Water Management, Melbourne, Australia, 11–13 July 1995, pp. 238–243.

Austin, S. (2001). Designing a Nonpoint Source Pollutant-trading Program. Harvard Env. Law Review, 25, 337–403.

Bay, S.M., Greenstein, D.J., Lau, S., Stenstrom, M.K. and Kelley, C.G. (1996). Toxicity of Dry Weather Flow from the Santa Monica Bay Watershed. Bull. Southern California Acad. Sci., 5(1), 33–45.

Haile, R.W., Witte, J.S., Gold, M., Cressey, R., McGee, C., Millikan, R.C., Glasser, A., Harwa, N., Ervin, C., Harmon, P., Harper, J., Dermand, J., Alamillo, J., Barrett, K., Nides, M. and Wang, G. (1999). The Health Effects of Swimming in Ocean Water Contaminated by Storm Drain Runoff. Epidemiology, 10, 355–363.

Houck, O.A. (1999). The Clean Water Act TMDL Program: Law, Policy and Implementation.

Environmental Law Institute, Washington D.C., USA. 388 p.

Jirik, A.W., Bay, S.M., Greenstein, D.J., Zellers, A. and Lau, S.L. (1998). Application of Ties in Studies Of Urban Stormwater Impacts on Marine Organism, Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment, ASTM STP 1333, E.E. Little, A.J. DeLonay, and B.M. Greenberg, Eds., American Society for Testing Materials.

X. Swamikannu et al.

Lord, B. (1987). Non-Point Source Pollution from Highway Storm Water Runoff. Science of the Total Environment, 59, 437–446.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW)(1999). Los Angeles County 1998–1999 Storm Water Monitoring Report.

Roesner, L.A. (1999). Urban Runoff Pollution – Summary Thoughts – The State-of-Practice Today and for the 21st Century. Wat. Sci. Tech., 39(12), 353–360.

RossRakesh, S., Gippel, C., Chiew, F. and Breen, P. (1999). Blackburn Lake Discharge and Water Quality Monitoring Program: Data Summary and Interpretation. Technical Report 99/13. Cooperative Research Center for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne, Australia.

Schiff, K. (1996). Review of Existing Storm Water Monitoring Programs for Estimating Bight-Wide Mass Emissions from Urban Runoff. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Annual Report 1996, pp. 44–55.

Skoch II, E.A. (1993). Regulation of Storm Water Discharges under the Clean Water Act. Environmental Law, 23, 1087–1105.

Strecker, E. and Reininga, K. (1999). Integrated Urban Storm Water Master Planning. Proceedings of the First South Pacific Conference On Comprehensive Stormwater And Aquatic Ecosystems Management, Auckland, New Zealand, February 1999.

Swamikannu, X. (1998). A Quarter Century of the Clean Water Experience in the United States and A Strategy For Asia. Proceedings of WEFTEC Asia Conference, Singapore, March 7–11, 1998, 165–172.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2000). Quality of Our Nation’s Waters: Summary of the National Water Quality Inventory 1998 Report to Congress – USEPA 841-S-00-001.

USEPA (1998). Quality of our Nation’s Waters: Summary of the National Water Quality Inventory 1998 Report to Congress, Chapter 12 State and Territory Summaries, California, pp. 282–283. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington D.C. USEPA (1993). Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Non-Point Pollution in Coastal Waters. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington D.C., EPA-840-B-92-002.

USEPA (1983). Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Final Report, EPA Planning Division, NTIS Accession No. PB84-8552.

US General Accounting Office (US GAO) (2001). Water Quality: Better Data and Evaluation Of Urban Runoff Programs Needed To Assess Effectiveness. US GAO Report No. GAO-01-679.

US Geological Survey (USGS) (2000a). Water Quality in the Puget Sound Basin, Washington and British Columbia, 1996–98, Circular 1216.

USGS (2000b). Water Quality in the Long Island-New Jersey Coastal Drainages, New Jersey and New York, 1996–98, Circular 1201.

Victoria Stormwater Committee (1999). Urban Stormwater: Best Practice Environmental Guidelines.

268 p.

317