Tragedy of The Commons
Can we even blame trash on the beach
Cigarette butts, plastic bags, styrofoam cups, fast food clamshell containers, dirty diapers, and other litter float in Ballona Creek, south of Marina del Rey, after it rains. However, while the trash is unsightly, not even the booms put out by public officials can stop the torrent of bacteria from dog and cat droppings, oil and grease from cars, and chemicals from lawns. Whenever it rains, the detritus from streets, sidewalks, and yards washes down storm sewers into Ballona Creek and other waterways, all the way to the sea. This flow of urban flotsam and jetsam prompts the Los Angeles County Public Health Department to routinely advise people to stay out of the water at beaches.
Years after the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2001 put in place tough standards, calling on cities to control pollution in stormwater runoff, county beaches still routinely are closed whenever it rains. In Heal the Bay’s latest beach “report card” issued before last summer, 27 percent of the beaches in Southern California earned an “F” grade during wet weather. Even during the dry weather, Will Rogers State Beach at Chautauqua Boulevard in the county got an “F” based on bacterial levels in water samples. Among others earning an “F” during dry weather were Manhattan Beach, Cabrillo Beach in San Pedro, Redondo Beach, and many in the Malibu area.
To prevent beach closures, cities are supposed to carry out a wide array of activities, from preventing and removing litter from streets and sidewalks, to installing and cleaning filters in storm drains. The measures are aimed at protecting swimmers against infections, and sea life against toxics and strangling on plastic.
Yet five years after the regional standards were adopted, the American Society of Civil Engineers (California Region 9) gave the state a “D+” grade on controlling pollution in stormwater. To rectify the situation, it said, cities, counties, and the state would have to pony up and spend $5.5 billion a year to improve the grade to a “B.”
At the current rate of spending, however, water will be dirtier than it was before the federal Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, said William P. Henry, former president of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Call it the tragedy of the commons, a combination of personal irresponsibility by those who litter and don’t pick up after pets, a lack of spine among many local politicians, and an unwillingness of taxpayers to fund programs to control the pollution. For most in the metropolitan area, stormwater pollution is out of sight and out of mind.
“We are absolutely in a state of disrepair,” says Mark Gold, president of Heal the Bay. Gold, who has been fighting water pollution for 20 years, blames the lack of investment in stormwater cleanup by cities on Proposition 218, which he says “was definitely a spin-off of Proposition 13.”
Prop. 218, passed by voters in 1996, required all new local taxes and property-related assessments and fees to be approved by two-thirds of city voters. Exemptions have been carved out for sewage treatment, drinking water, and garbage collection.
Even when cities do pass bond – like the $500 million measure passed by city of Los Angeles voters in 2004 – they do not have money to maintain and operate new infrastructure systems, according to Gold. Moreover, aside from Los Angeles, few of the other cities from which stormwater drains to local beaches have passed bonds.
One solution is to amend the state Constitution to make it easier for cities to finance stormwater pollution-control programs.
“We know there has to be an easier way for cities to come up with money for cleaning up stormwater and urban runoff,” said Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California legislative representative. “These contaminate drinking water. They get our beaches dirty.”
To that end, state Senator Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch) has sponsored a constitutional amendment bill, SCA 12. Currently pending on the Senate floor, it would add an exemption from the vote requirement for “stormwater and urban runoff management.”
The amendment, if approved by two-thirds of lawmakers in Sacramento, would then require passage by a simple majority of voters statewide. It has wide support from California cities, including the city of Los Angeles. Only the California Taxpayers’ Association and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association oppose the amendment.
“For stormwater and flood management, we probably should treat them more like water and wastewater,” says Ellen Hanak, Public Policy Institute of California associate director. “California has very high thresholds for allowing local governments to raise funds.” For instance, she notes, aside from California, only Missouri and North Dakota require two-thirds “super-majorities” to pass local bonds.
Kris Vosburgh, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association executive director, dismisses all the criticism aimed at the anti-tax measure. “The problem is artificial in that it’s created by the various officials who complain they don’t have enough to address our infrastructure needs. They do. It’s just that they divert the funds to more politically popular purposes.”
While stormwater is a major focal point for discussions about a lack of funding for local government environmental programs, energy efficiency may be one of the next. State regulators are relying more and more on energy efficiency in buildings to hold down demand for electricity and cut down emissions of greenhouse gases from power plants.
However, as the state requires more energy efficiency features – like insulation and tighter-fitting windows – when new homes and buildings are built or old ones remodeled, it is up to city building departments to enforce those standards. Indications are they are not doing a very good job, due to lack of staffing.
Take air conditioning. It is one of the biggest energy users on homes and buildings, according to Cynthia Mitchell, Energy Economics economist.
New high efficiency systems are on the market, but unless they are installed properly, home and building owners do not benefit from spending money on them. Poorly installed systems, she says, in which ducts are not properly sealed, can increase energy use by as much as 30 percent.
Yet, cities are paying little attention when they inspect new construction and sign off on occupancy permits, and even less when air conditioning and heating systems are installed in existing buildings.
A California Energy Commission survey last year showed that fewer than 10 percent of air conditioning systems are even installed under building permits, and consequently inspected by city building departments for quality installation and compliance with existing standards. As a result, the state is rife with inefficient installations that waste energy.
Likewise, the Energy Commission found the non-compliance rate with energy standards on renovations stands at 30 percent. So, the lack of training for city inspectors on energy standards, not to mention even a sufficient number of inspectors to begin with, means that home and building owners are paying for insulation and equipment that is supposed to lower their energy bills, but not fully realizing the expected savings, according to the survey.
To enable cities to better protect the environment, the answer may be for voters to rely more on the judgment of those they elect. “We should let our representative government do its job,” says Hanak, for instance, when it comes to raising fees to finance stormwater cleanup. “If they screw up, boot them out.
Published: 01/23/2008
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
Another enormous environmental cost is the epic communtes that some homeowners take to protect their advantageous property tax. I know at least half a dozen co-workers who drive more than 100 miles round-trip every day; they don't want to move closer to where they work because their property taxes would go up by 3x or more. Another co-worker did move, bought a cheaper place, but his taxes doubled. This is just nuts!
--Michael Gorder