Backup Documents 06/25/2019 Item # 9B PP - Pollution Control Ordinance Presentation Final Approval
POLLUTION CONTROL & PREVENTION ORDINANCE
Danette Kinaszczuk, Pollution Control Manager
June 25, 2019
Have some slides that can address Mr. Pires concerns.
1
Majority of developments have ERPs
33% of waterbodies are impaired
Pollution is coming from somewhere
No pollution = no issue
Existing Pollution Is From Existing Development
I know I’m stating the obvious here but existing pollution comes from existing development. We can’t get out of the mess we are in by making rules that are only applicable to new development.
The majority of developments have Environmental Resource Permits with various requirements such as no land activities that cause water quality violations; you must do SW system maintenance,
you must do water quality testing, things like that.
But, we still have water quality issues so the pollution is coming from somewhere and we have to do something about it.
If there is no pollution issue coming from a specific development, then, the section of the ordinance that is causing concern isn’t applicable. The ordinance is only addressing the areas
that are polluting.
2
Presumptive criteria
Not designed to treat for all pollutants
33% of waterbodies are impaired
Stormwater Treatment Systems
I want to take a minute to explain Environmental Resource Permits. Most developments in Collier County have ERPs that require they treat stormwater using a pond detention or retention
system. Those ponds systems are designed by engineers based on based on calculations using something called Presumptive Criteria. For example, a stormwater engineer will presume a
detention pond treats for total suspended solids, 80% of the Nitrogen and 90% of the Phosphorus in the stormwater it holds. That’s it. It’s just presumed that it works. A couple
of other things…although there may be some small treatment benefits due to particle settling, a pond system’s primary function is to treat N, Phos and TSS, not other pollutants such
as petroleum, bacteria, or copper. AND, there is rarely any long term water quality monitoring follow up on the presumptive criteria to make sure it is working.
Remember those permit requirements? The…no land activities can cause water quality violations; you must do SW system maintenance, etc?
There is very little enforcement of those permit requirements. For example, people dump copper based algicides in their ponds on a monthly basis. We have 5 watersheds that are impaired
for copper. The ER permit says you can’t do any activity that would result in a water quality violation but pond treatment with copper sulfate is a standard practice.
33% of impaired waterbodies says our current system is not working.
3
County required to meet standards
County can’t meet standards if polluted water is being discharged
Private systems can’t pollute the public system
County Is Responsible
Here is the deal. Collier County Government is required to meet water quality standards. It’s not optional, it’s state law, it’s federal law, it’s a permit requirement. As you have
heard me say before, our options are to treat all of the water which will cost roughly 5 billion dollars per year (1.1 BGD from the 4 largest waterbodies x $4.ish/1000 gals is $5 million
per day assuming a 5 month rainy season = $5.3 B/year.) OR to stop it at the source so it doesn’t pollute the entire public stormwater system. The most efficient way to stop pollution
at its source is to have the polluter implement best management practices such as picking up their pet waste, street sweeping, FFL, or finding alternatives to copper based algicides.
I don’t know how we can possibly meet water quality standards if we continue to allow polluted water to be discharged into the public system. But I do know it’s a lot cheaper to stop
pollution from entering our waterbodies than it is to take it out.
Here is a scenario for stopping it at its source. Haldeman Creek watershed is impaired for copper. Lets say after many years of testing we manage to determine which development is
contributing above the allowed amount of copper. We go to that development and say-hey you discharge your stormwater to Haldeman Creek which has a copper impairment so you have to
stop discharging copper contaminated water. Because we know that copper impairments are caused by copper based algaecides, we suggest you stop putting copper based algaecide into your
ponds to kill algae. Instead, you could try using peroxide or mechanical removal to control algae. Or better yet-prevent the algae by replanting your lake littorals, having a buffer
zone, do Florida Friendly Landscaping etc. If the development refuses to do those types of things, then they need to figure something else out. Maybe that something else is putting
a filter into an existing stormwater structure.
4
Property owner rights
Unanimous support as written
Recognition the system is failing
Recognition its up to the local government
Planning Commission
I’m bringing up what was said at the Planning Commission because it was suggested in Mr. Pires letter that we go back. We went to the Planning Commission twice for a total of about
4 hours. The rights of the property owner were discussed at length and we ended up with a unanimous vote supporting the ordinance as it is written. I want to read you some comments
made by a member of the planning commission who spent a significant portion of his career dealing with stormwater permits. He said : “The sad part about it is the Clean Water Act,
though it mandates requirements under Section 4.04 and specifically 4.01 for water-quality certification and in the state through your Environmental Resource Permit process they're
very strict in regards to the staffing and issuing of the permit, but once the permit is issued, none of the agencies are funded to do enforcement. Now, that may be a choice of our
legislators. I know in my years in the federal government, enforcement of 4.04, it's probably the most sorely funded program in the federal government because I think it's a conscious
decision of our elected officials; they want enforcement but they don't fund it. And if you don't fund it, it doesn't get done. So the sad part about it is under state and federal
permit process, they enforce the issuing of the permit, and they're, like I said, very strict prior to the issuing. But once it's issued, everything falls on the county. And if we want
to assure at least some water quality within Collier County, I really have to support this ordinance as written.
5
Polluter pays
Required to stop polluting
Following permit requirements & reasonable BMPs? No Issue
Not polluting? No issue
Accountability
Human behavior is funny. We are all ok with the polluter pays principle when it’s an obvious type of pollution like this picture but when its invisible, such as the ongoing long term
type of pollution that is causing 33% of our waterbodies to be impaired, people seem to be less comfortable with polluter pays idea.
Requirements to implement best management practices wouldn’t be random. It would be based on real water quality data from outfalls going into impaired waterbodies. The ordinance gives
us the authority to make the people that are polluting our waterbodies, put in best management practices so they stop polluting. This is making the people that are polluting accountable
instead of the rest of the taxpayers.
I want to be clear, we aren’t requiring a development put in structural BMPs, we are requiring they stop polluting. How they choose to make that happen is up to them.
I think what everyone needs to recognize is that we are all in this together and of course, we will do anything we can to help. As I’ve said before, Pollution Control is an education
based group. Our intent is not to be punitive.
With all of that being said, for your awareness, page 15 of the ordinance reads “this section will only become effective if permit requirements are not being met or reasonable BMPs are
not being implemented. So if a development is meeting all of their permit requirements and has put in reasonable BMPs, then they have no reason to be concerned.
One last thing, the letter from Fiddlers Creek CDD states they are “fully compliant with all State and Federal water quality and stormwater treatment standards” if that’s accurate, they
have no cause for concern because they won’t be discharging contaminated water.
6
Recommendation
To adopt new ordinance to be called the Pollution Control and Prevention Ordinance, repealing and replacing Ordinance No. 87-79, regarding the Transportation and Disposal of Sludge and
repealing Resolution No. 88-311 regarding fees for sludge transportation and disposal permits.
7
Live Green.
Save Blue.
Thank You
Report Pollution.
8
Potential Costs - Remediation
Here are some potential costs for remediation in the event of a spill. As you can see it is incident specific and depends on the type of pollutant, the amount, and where it spills.
This is the cost of doing business, if you spill something that can contaminate our surface water or groundwater, it needs to be cleaned up.
For example if you spill 2 gallons of diesel you can hand dig it and take it to the landfill, $54 for a half ton of contaminated soil. If a dry cleaner improperly disposes of any amount
of their chemicals it is going to contaminate groundwater which is very expensive to clean up and monitor. Under this ordinance we also will require reasonable best management practices
to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
For clean ups and pollution prevention, potential costs will vary, but customers who fail to meet permit requirements or implement BMPs will incur enforcement action under this Ordinance.
9