Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - SANDIST STATE LEGISLATION (2)CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: s Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: March 28, 2006 Michael P. Murphy PROPOSED STATE LEGISLATION: SANITATION DISTRICTS City Manager's Office RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council approve City of Santa Clarita co-sponsorship of legislative proposal sponsored by Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County and authorize staff to work with Senator George Runner for introduction of legislation. BACKGROUND For the past several years, the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) have been aggressively working with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) to address chloride levels in the Santa Clara River. Downstream agricultural interests in Ventura County believe that current chloride levels damage crops, primarily avocados and strawberries, irrigated with Santa Clara River source water. They identify the Santa Clarita Valley, specifically the Saugus and Valencia Wastewater Treatment Plants, as the source of introduction of high levels of chloride into the Santa Clara River. The Sanitation Districts have undertaken comprehensive studies of chloride sources in local wastewater. These studies have determined that more than one third of the existing chloride levels comes from the use of self -regenerating water softeners, which discharge brine into the sewers and is transported to the local treatment plants. Current treatment plant capabilities do not allow for chloride removal. Construction of advanced salt removal and brine disposal facilities would cost, at a minimum $350 million which would be paid for by Santa Clarita Valley ratepayers, resulting in a 400% increase in Sanitation District rates. Given the physical distance between the Sanitation Districts' two Santa Clarita Valley wastewater treatment plants and points of water use in Ventura County, it is conceivable that a substantial APPROVED investment in the treatment facilities may not eliminate the crop damage alleged by Ventura County agricultural interests. Other sources of chloride and other factors may contribute substantially to chloride levels in the downstream water supply. The Sanitation Districts, being sensitive to concerns raised by downstream interests, have already undertaken several cost effective measures to reduce chloride discharged from their two Santa Clarita Valley treatment plants. Through a variety of community outreach programs, the Sanitation Districts have promoted the voluntary removal of self -regenerating water softeners, which add salt to wastewater. These voluntary programs include public education about the impacts of the self -regenerating water softeners, information about other types of water softeners which do not introduce chloride into the wastewater system, implementation of an incentive program to promote removal of the salt -using water softeners and replacement with the non -salt alternatives, and working with local businesses on a voluntary basis to sell alternative water softeners, which do not exacerbate chloride levels in the wastewater system. In 2003, the Sanitation Districts implemented an Automatic Water Softener Ordinance which prohibited the installation of residential self -regenerating water softeners as of March 27, 2003. While these efforts are showing success, the Sanitation Districts are under increasing pressure to undertake more aggressive efforts. In a further demonstration of "good faith" the Sanitation Districts are proposing enabling legislation which, in the event it is necessary, would allow the enactment of a Sanitation Districts' ordinance mandating the removal of existing self -regenerating water softeners. While it is hoped that implementation of this measure will never prove necessary, given the need to have the authorization from the State Legislature and the protracted timeline involved, the Sanitation Districts is seeking the enabling legislation at this time. The proposed legislation is permissive, rather than a mandate, in that it would allow the Sanitation Districts to enact a self -regenerating water softener removal ordinance not earlier than January 1, 2009 and only after the following findings are made: 1. That such ordinance is necessary to meet the total maximum daily load requirements for chloride as issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board; 2. That the Sanitation Districts have assessed alternatives to the adoption of the ordinance; and 3. That the Sanitation Districts have evaluated the cost effectiveness and timeliness of the alternatives, as compared to the adoption of the ordinance. Additionally, prior to enactment of the ordinance, the Sanitation Districts must complete two other actions: 1. Prior to the effective date of the ordinance, the Sanitation Districts must provide a voluntary removal program which compensates residents to the reasonable cost of -removal and disposal of the offending water softeners; and 2. A majority vote of the electorate (referendum) must occur in order for a removal ordinance enacted by the Sanitation Districts to take effect. Senator George Runner has indicated that he will author such legislation under two very specific conditions. First, any future ordinance mandating the removal of self -regenerating water softeners enacted by the Sanitation Districts pursuant to this legislation must be subject to a vote of the electorate. Second, as the service territory of the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District includes the entire City of Santa Clarita, Senator Runner would like the City of Santa Clarita to cosponsor the legislation with the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Mayor Weste and Councilmember Kellar, as the City Council appointees to the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, have reviewed the legislative proposal and recommend that the City Council co-sponsor the authorizing legislation for the following reasons: 1. The legislation is enabling legislation which can only be implemented with specific findings being made by the Sanitation Districts, including an assessment of alternatives. 2. A voluntary program which compensates residents for the reasonable cost of removing and disposing the salt water softeners must be provided prior to the effective date of an ordinance. 3. Implementation of any ordinance would require a vote of the electorate. FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of the staff recommendation would result in no additional resources being required as the recommended action can be carried out utilizing existing resources contained within the adopted FY 05/06 City budget.