The Stormwater Blogs

The Blogger

Janice Kaspersen Janice Kaspersen Stormwater Editor

More from this blogger

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