The Stormwater Blogs

The Blogger

Janice Kaspersen Janice Kaspersen Stormwater Editor

More from this blogger

  1. Local Voices in Washington
  2. Out of Sight
  3. Sentinel Species
  4. Collection System
  5. Living Underground
  6. Appealing the New Flood Maps
  7. EPA Sets Nutrient Limits for Florida
  8. Some Like It Hot
  9. Skip the Bag, Save the River
  10. Maintenance The Unglamorous Necessity
  11. Put the LID on Stormwater
  12. Federal Responsibility for Katrina Flooding
  13. Certifying Performance
  14. EPA's Construction Effluent Guidelines Released
  15. StormCon Abstracts Due December 2
  16. Reclassified
  17. Reusing Runoff
  18. More Than Just Pipes
  19. Two Announcements from EPA
  20. Separation Anxiety
  21. Federal Funding for Local Projects
  22. Undoing Progress
  23. StormCon 2010 Call for Papers
  24. A Decimal Point Makes a Difference
  25. Lovely as a Tree
  26. Stimulus Funds and Stormwater
  27. Thanks to the StormCon Session Moderators!
  28. Live From StormCon..
  29. StormCon '09 More You Should Know About
  30. Counting Beach Closures
  31. Still Growing
  32. Density Done Well
  33. A Combination Problem
  34. One Driveway at a Time
  35. Underground
  36. Making Sure Infrastructure Doesn't Become a Hazard
  37. A Beach Comes Back
  38. With a Grain of Salt
  39. Blocking Out the Storm
  40. LID in Washington State
  41. Florida Gains Land in Public-Private Partnership
  42. A High-Density Debate
  43. Stormwater Management in Plain Sight
  44. Charging More for Potential Pollutants
  45. At Home in the Watershed
  46. We Have Met the Polluter - He Is Us
  47. Mobile Car Wash Runoff
  48. Red River Rising
  49. Summer School
  50. Rain Barrels, Anyone
  51. Getting Serious About the Weather
  52. Taking the Pulse of Utilities
  53. Not Your Ordinary Utility Debate
  54. How Dangerous Is Chitosan, Really Do We Need Certification
  55. Debating Dollars
  56. Demonstrating Green
  57. Paperless Stormwater
  58. Looking for Shovel-Ready Projects
  59. Online Erosion Control Training - Let Us Know What You Think
  60. No Relief Yet for the Northwest
  61. Happy Holidays From Stormwater
  62. Remedying Retention Pond Dangers
  63. New Funding on the Way
  64. The Case of the Missing Manhole Cover
  65. StormCon '09 Abstracts Are Due December 3
  66. A New Plan in the Everglades
  67. Down the Drain
  68. Gunk in the Ocean Our Problem
  69. Save the Date December 3 Is Closer Than You Think
  70. Watershed-Based Permitting
  71. Looking Outside Our Own Backyard
  72. The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
  73. Show Me the Money, If You Can Find It
  74. The Safety Issue
  75. StormCon '09 Call for Papers
  76. Worse Weather Or Does It Just Seem That Way
  77. Gustav a Reminder of What's Left To Do
  78. Recovering After the Storm
  79. Who Owns the Rain
  80. BMPs and the Bigger Picture
  81. How Are Your Pipes
  82. Regulations We've Got Those Covered, Too
  83. You Asked for BMPs - We've Got 'Em
  84. Simplifying Public Outreach
  85. New Terminology
  86. Buying Time and Space for the Everglades
  87. The Worst Is Over
  88. Midwest Flooding - Could This Have Happened Differently
  89. EPA's Message to Homebuilders
  90. StormCon '08 Is Less Than Two Months Away
  91. Welcome to our new Website!
  92. The State of Water Quality
view all

SW Editor's Blog

February 2nd, 2010 6:58am PST

Keeping Stormwater Onsite in LA

Posted By Janice Kaspersen 1 Comment

Los Angeles is getting serious about runoff. An ordinance just approved by the city’s Department of Public Works would require new developments and some redevelopment projects to capture runoff for reuse or infiltration or to pay a mitigation fee.

Much of the Los Angeles area is known for its huge, open concrete-lined storm channels. You’ve seen them in chase scenes from Hollywood movies, if nothing else—remember Terminator 2? If the ordinance passes, the city will begin moving away from the need for drainage ditches so large that a semi truck can easily navigate them.

Under the proposed ordinance, covered projects would need to capture 100% of runoff from a ¾-inch storm. Those that do not would pay a fee—currently proposed at $13 per gallon of runoff that leaves the site, down from an earlier proposal of $20 per gallon. Low-impact development techniques could be used to infiltrate stormwater onsite; the fee would help to fund larger public LID efforts, such as bioswales and porous pavement in public spaces.

If implemented, the ordinance could stop more than 100 million gallons of storm runoff from reaching the ocean, its supporters say. They’d like to see it in place by 2011. There is concern, though, about whether it can actually be implemented, especially on sites with less-permeable soils. The Building Industry Association is asking for more flexibility depending on site conditions, as well as a lower per-gallon fee.

Although the ordinance has been approved by the Department of Public Works, it must be approved by reviewed by various city council committees before being voted on by the city council and approved by the mayor.

What Do You Think?

Post a Comment

LIDGuy

February 3rd, 2010 6:08 PM PT

The City of L.A. is a major player in the SoCal stormwater scene and has put a lot of effort into this ordinance. Its passage will set a significant precedent for the area. The building industry is complaining because LID interferes with the bottom line. LID amenities apparently mean more cost to the builders and less profit. The idea of less need for storm drain infrastructure hasn't sunk in yet, but at the same time, the municipality shouldn't demand the "belt and suspenders" approach of multiple methods. Also, in SoCal, development, mass grading, and soil compaction go hand in hand. I've heard that 75% of all the world's grading equipment is in SoCal!! That's why developers say it's infeasible to implement LID. I say impose strong restrictions on mass grading and spare the better soils from compaction. Parcel-by-parcel redevelopment will be a bigger (but not the biggest) challenge, though, especially in elbow-to-elbow ultra-urban cities like L.A. and the movement toward densification. Let's hope that innovative designers will step up to meet the challenge. It's interesting to note that the City requires 100% of the 3/4 inch rainfall be dealt with, but there's a case to be made for dealing with the DIFFERENCE in runoff volume between pre-development and post-development. After all, an undeveloped sight with naturally tight soils wasn't infiltrating much to begin with. The COUNTY of L.A. LID ordinance, on the other hand, makes such a distinction. But the County requires that the pre-developed condition must be an UNDEVELOPED state. The post-development design under County criteria, while still having to filter the water-quality storm runoff, wouldn't have to infiltrate all of the runoff. I say the City should relax the runoff standard to make the developer simply handle the pre-to-post difference. At the same time, though, the City should raise the uncaptured in-lieu fee to $30/gal!

Post a Comment

Not a subscriber? Sign Up
 
 
*  
 




 

Get Stormwater E-mail Updates!

Get weekly news and updates through our Stormwater e-mail newsletter!