Stormwater parcel tax to appear on county ballots in November
Stormwater pools on the sand in Hermosa Beach after being released from the Herondo Street outfall following a rainstorm. A proposed county parcel tax could provide funds to address stormwater. File photo
Los Angeles County residents will vote in November on a parcel tax intended to address stormwater that flows from drains to beaches like those in the South Bay.
By a 4-1 vote last week, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors agreed to place the Safe, Clean Water Act on the Nov. 6 ballot. If approved, the act would raise up to $300 million per year for projects that would capture some of the estimated 100 billion that flows from streets and gutters into the ocean. It would be funded by a tax of 2.5 cents per square foot of “impermeable area” — surfaces like concrete that do not allow water to seep into the ground — that would appear on property tax bills starting in 2019.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn, who represents the South Bay and supported placing the item before voters, said coastal residents have a special interest in the resolution of stormwater issues.
“By the time stormwater runoff makes its way to our beaches, it is toxic and filled with plastic bags, cigarette butts and worse. Our Beach Cities are bearing the brunt of our outdated water infrastructure. We have to get serious about capturing and cleaning rainfall to not only preserve the health of our beaches but also replenish our water supply. I think it is important, and it should be up to the voters to decide if it is important as well,” Hahn said.
Among the projects that could potentially receive funds from the tax is a stormwater infiltration project proposed for a stretch of the Greenbelt in South Hermosa. The project has generated intense opposition from nearby residents. Another local project is the parking lot at 14th Street and Manhattan Avenue.
Hermosa City Councilmember Hany Fangary, who sits on the South Bay Cities Council of Governments and spoke at the board of supervisors’ meeting in favor of placing the tax on the ballot, has asked whether fellow council members wanted to consider a resolution supporting the parcel tax. On Tuesday, council members expressed support for the ideas behind the plan, including potentially getting inland cities who produce some of the runoff that ends up in South Bay to contribute to the cost of dealing with it. But they decided to wait until the COG had taken a position on the issue, in part because of the controversy created by the Greenbelt project.
“One of the problems we’re having with our infiltration projects is a complete lack of understanding about the mandates that exist for cities like us,” said Mayor Jeff Duclos.
The Henrietta Basin, in Torrance, collects and filters rainwater through the soil, mimicking the natural water cycle. The basin is connected to Hermosa and the Herondo outfall by a pipe that runs along 190th Street, one of the largest storms drains in the South Bay. Photo
Cities are obligated under state and federal environmental laws to address the impacts associated with stormwater flowing to the oceans. Along with harming local water quality, failing to do so can lead to stiff penalties for cities.
But over the last few decades, the cost of compliance has grown increasingly expensive for cities. For example, in neighboring Manhattan Beach, the city relies on an annual “enterprise fund” that collects revenue and sets it aside specifically for stormwater issues. But the rate has not been increased in years and has not kept up with growing costs, so the city annually borrows from its general fund to make up the difference.
Hermosa does not rely on enterprise funds but is nonetheless on the hook for the rising costs of dealing with stormwater. The Safe, Clean Water Act, as the tax is known, was sponsored by supervisors Hilda Solis and Sheila Kuehl, and aims to address what backers call a glaring deficiency in the funds available. Documents from the county’s Public Works Department indicate that bringing the region into compliance will cost $20 billion over the next 20 years.
“This is a historic opportunity to modernize L.A. County’s water infrastructure to meet the needs of the 21st century,” said Mark Pestrella, the county’s public works director, in a statement. “The flood protection system built in the 1940s and ‘50s has done an outstanding job managing flood risk within the L.A. basin. But it was never designed to handle the tremendous population growth and urbanization that has contributed to the volume of pollutants we see in our waterways today.”
Duclos said he plans to invite Pestrella to address the council next month.
If approved, the money would be split among the county Flood Control District, regional watershed groups, and individual cities. Councilmember Justin Massey, who has been among the strongest advocates for new stormwater projects, said that questions remained about how the revenue would be distributed.
“There are questions beyond simply the fact that cleaning up stormwater, keeping it out of the ocean is a good thing. It’s whether this measure is a good way to go about it,” Massey said Tuesday. When representatives from the county’s public works department appeared at a city study session on the Greenbelt project last month, they projected that Hermosa on its own could receive about $165,000 per year. For regional projects involving the South Santa Monica Bay Watershed, which stretches from the Palos Verdes Peninsula north to El Segundo and as far east as Compton, would receive about $19.9 million per year.
Because the tax is based on impermeable land area, businesses with large parking lots, like big-box stores, would be among those facing the steepest tax increases. The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce decided to remain neutral on the proposal, but other business groups have come out against it.
The lone no vote from the board came from Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents the northern reaches of L.A. County, some of which sits outside of the flood control district. Barger said in a statement that the fees would likely be passed on to renters and that there were more pressing financial needs for the county that may also require turning to voters.