The Stormwater Blogs

The Blogger

Janice Kaspersen Janice Kaspersen Stormwater Editor

More from this blogger

  1. Dead Zones
  2. Five Years On
  3. Closer Together
  4. Thanks to the StormCon Moderators!
  5. Dam Breach in Iowa
  6. Two Weeks to StormCon
  7. Mosquitoes and Malaria
  8. More Mosquitoes
  9. Storms in the Gulf
  10. Seeking StormCon Moderators
  11. Never Flooded Before
  12. Storms in the Midwest
  13. Restoring the Penobscot
  14. Hurricanes and Oil
  15. The Uninvited
  16. Half of Our Trees Are Missing
  17. A Hairy Solution
  18. Oil in the Gulf
  19. A Multitalented Plant
  20. Where It Falls
  21. Floating BMPs
  22. Regulating Copper in Brake Pads
  23. EPA Addresses Water Contaminants
  24. Getting Along With the Neighbors
  25. Local Voices in Washington
  26. Out of Sight
  27. Sentinel Species
  28. Collection System
  29. Living Underground
  30. Appealing the New Flood Maps
  31. EPA Sets Nutrient Limits for Florida
  32. Some Like It Hot
  33. Skip the Bag, Save the River
  34. Maintenance The Unglamorous Necessity
  35. Put the LID on Stormwater
  36. Federal Responsibility for Katrina Flooding
  37. Certifying Performance
  38. EPA's Construction Effluent Guidelines Released
  39. StormCon Abstracts Due December 2
  40. Reclassified
  41. Reusing Runoff
  42. More Than Just Pipes
  43. Two Announcements from EPA
  44. Separation Anxiety
  45. Federal Funding for Local Projects
  46. Undoing Progress
  47. StormCon 2010 Call for Papers
  48. A Decimal Point Makes a Difference
  49. Lovely as a Tree
  50. Stimulus Funds and Stormwater
  51. Thanks to the StormCon Session Moderators!
  52. Live From StormCon..
  53. StormCon '09 More You Should Know About
  54. Counting Beach Closures
  55. Still Growing
  56. Density Done Well
  57. A Combination Problem
  58. One Driveway at a Time
  59. Underground
  60. Making Sure Infrastructure Doesn't Become a Hazard
  61. A Beach Comes Back
  62. With a Grain of Salt
  63. Blocking Out the Storm
  64. LID in Washington State
  65. Florida Gains Land in Public-Private Partnership
  66. A High-Density Debate
  67. Stormwater Management in Plain Sight
  68. Charging More for Potential Pollutants
  69. At Home in the Watershed
  70. We Have Met the Polluter - He Is Us
  71. Mobile Car Wash Runoff
  72. Red River Rising
  73. Summer School
  74. Rain Barrels, Anyone
  75. Getting Serious About the Weather
  76. Taking the Pulse of Utilities
  77. Not Your Ordinary Utility Debate
  78. How Dangerous Is Chitosan, Really Do We Need Certification
  79. Debating Dollars
  80. Demonstrating Green
  81. Paperless Stormwater
  82. Looking for Shovel-Ready Projects
  83. Online Erosion Control Training - Let Us Know What You Think
  84. No Relief Yet for the Northwest
  85. Happy Holidays From Stormwater
  86. Remedying Retention Pond Dangers
  87. New Funding on the Way
  88. The Case of the Missing Manhole Cover
  89. StormCon '09 Abstracts Are Due December 3
  90. A New Plan in the Everglades
  91. Down the Drain
  92. Gunk in the Ocean Our Problem
  93. Save the Date December 3 Is Closer Than You Think
  94. Watershed-Based Permitting
  95. Looking Outside Our Own Backyard
  96. The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
  97. Show Me the Money, If You Can Find It
  98. The Safety Issue
  99. StormCon '09 Call for Papers
  100. Worse Weather Or Does It Just Seem That Way
  101. Gustav a Reminder of What's Left To Do
  102. Recovering After the Storm
  103. Who Owns the Rain
  104. BMPs and the Bigger Picture
  105. How Are Your Pipes
  106. Regulations We've Got Those Covered, Too
  107. You Asked for BMPs - We've Got 'Em
  108. Simplifying Public Outreach
  109. New Terminology
  110. Buying Time and Space for the Everglades
  111. The Worst Is Over
  112. Midwest Flooding - Could This Have Happened Differently
  113. EPA's Message to Homebuilders
  114. StormCon '08 Is Less Than Two Months Away
  115. Welcome to our new Website!
  116. 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!