In a 3-2 vote, the board approved the first reading of a new storm water runoff ordinance that, if passed, would add sections to chapters 24A and 29 of the county code. Chapters 24A and 29 are related to administrative fines and sewer disposal protocol.

 

“I’m glad that the board approved the first reading of the ordinance,” said Santa Barbara County Water Agency Manager, Robert Almy. “It’s a step forward in improving the area’s water quality.”

 

The state mandated ordinance would introduce new guidelines and enforcement procedures relating to the regulation of non-storm water discharges into public drains. The proposed ordinance covers how the Public Works department would deal with a barrage of circumstances, ranging from the definition of a pollutant, notification of spills, ordinance enforcement, fines, violation appeals, criminal prosecution and liability, to name a few.

 

“The reason why we’re doing this is to stop the degradation of water that would keep other people from legitimate use of the water,” Almy said. “This whole regulatory scheme is built around what is called beneficial use, and the beneficial uses that have been adopted by the state of California. But the point is that the discharges from private property ought not prevent other people from using the water, which would otherwise be a useful public resource.”

 

“So the notion of a private property owner doing something on their property, doesn’t get in the way of the Clean Water Act until the pollution runs off the property, in other words if the private property owner can control the pollution on their property, then there’s no cause to go onto the property, but as soon as the pollution degrades water quality to a point where it can’t be used for legitimate use, then the federal government and the state of California have laws that say ‘you can’t do that,’ and now the county is required to have a similar ordinance,” Almy said.

Though the proposed ordinance would allow the county to be in compliance with state law, it has received criticism from both, the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business (COLAB) and Santa Barbara Channel Keeper.

 

COLAB expressed concern that the ordinance would infringe upon private property rights among other issues, however, the organization was relieved to hear that county staff made changes to the ordinance based on some of its recommendations.

 

“We asked for three things and we got all three things,” said Andy Caldwell, executive director for COLAB.

 

The group recommended that the ordinance be amended to exclude property owners from having to prove their exempt status in regards to agricultural discharges, eliminating the regulation that would require the reporting of non-hazardous spills within 24-hours and the inclusion of a guideline, which would require county employees to notify property owners before entering private property.

 

“We wish there wasn’t an ordinance,” Caldwell said. “We think the county did a good enough job. The board was faced with a mandate from the state, and in that case, all they could do was to try to make a bad situation as reasonable as possible in the face of the mandate, basically making the best of a bad situation.” 

 

“But, overall we think that the feds and state are chasing zero and not willing to admit that things are clean enough. It’s just getting to the point of ridiculousness.”

 

While COLAB is content with the proposed ordinance, Kira Redmond, executive director of Santa Barbara Channel Keepers, feels that the ordinance has many loop holes that would protect polluters.

 

“Santa Barbara Channel Keepers have been working with the county on this ordinance for over three years, and it’s really pretty simple, the municipal storm water permit is very clear what this ordinance needs to do. It needs to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical and it has to effectively prohibit discharges, and we think that the ordinance doesn’t do that,” Redmond said.  

 

Channel Keepers would like to see the ordinance have stricter guidelines and less discretion imparted to the Director of Public Works.

 

“The version that is being approved by the Board of Supervisors has way too many loopholes, there are exceptions to the rule and it leaves a great deal of discretion up to the Public Works Director,” Redmond said.

 

“There is a section that says that the Public Works Director shall adopt requirements identifying best management practices that commercial and residential facilities have to implement, but then at the end it says ‘as may be appropriate to minimize the generation, transference and discharge of pollutants,’ it’s not ‘as may be appropriate,’ they have to do it and it’s just that simple, and it’s not to ‘minimize,’ it’s to prohibit,” she said.

 

COLAB and Channel Keepers are not the only ones in disagreement over the adoption of the proposed ordinance. The board’s 3-2 vote made this clear.

 

Third District Supervisor Brooks Firestone expressed his concern about the proposed ordinance and the impacts that it may have on the residents in Santa Barbara County, North County especially.

 

“I just can’t believe that a rancher or cowboy who has been keeping his horse in a corral for 50 years believes that phenomena is now potentially illegal,” he said. “We are opening the door for a whole new set of laws, restrictions, lawsuits, that could fundamentally change the way people live and I’m just very apprehensive of this.”

 

First District Supervisor Salud Carbajal and 2^nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf were the two no votes against the approval of the first reading of the proposed ordinance.

 

“[The ordinance] did not include some of the other provisions that Supervisor Wolf and I wanted to strengthen and clarify,” Carbajal said. “My recommendation was to make it stronger in terms of enforcement, and changing the language to prohibiting from ‘limiting.’ Our ability to address these issues should not be limited to cost prohibitive. In my opinion it was just another barrier to getting polluters to be held accountable.”

 

Though by law the proposed ordinance must be approved through two readings, it is almost certain that the board will approve the second reading of the ordinance at its Sept. 25 meeting.

If passed the ordinance would be sent to the Regional Water District for final approval and would become effective 30 days after the Board of Supervisors approves the second reading.

 

For more information on the proposed ordinance or the Board of Supervisors meeting visit www.countyofsb.com and access the agenda minutes from the Sept. 11 Board of Supervisors meeting.