Mandatory Rainwater Capture rules likely to slow construction growth
By Nathan Mintz | February 1, 2010
In today’s LA Times there is a story about how the LA County Public Works Commission is passing an ordinance to raise standards for “low impact development” in Los Angeles. The ordinance increase calls for 100% rainwater capture to prevent runoff into storm drains. This is all part of their “Low Impact Development” ordinance.
Living in Redondo Beach and working in El Segundo, I fully appreciate the havoc that winter storms can cause- our storm drain infrastructure is signficantly underpowered in some areas and the results are flooded streets during bad storms. There are certainly areas where better rainwater runoff could really help things along, so I can appreciate putting more money into storm drains. What I question is whether the solution is to require 100% rainwater capture, a measure that seems economically unreasonable, since it requires the addition of capture tanks and other measures more appropriate to desert areas where water is in scarce supply. Why wouldn’t an 80% solution like improving building standards for rainfall diversion (drainage for large concrete surfaces, wider storm drains, increasing paved surface slope to direct water more towards stormdrains) make more sense? Why must we have 100% diversion with twice the cost?
The other problem I have is how the city of Los Angles Public Works Commission defines “Redevelopment”– basically any “means land-disturbing activities that result in the creation, addition, or replacement of 500 square feet or more of impervious surface area on an already developed site.” In other words, anytime you add an extra bedroom to your house or decide to build a deck in your backyard, you may become subject to this ordinance. Sounds like a recipe for homeowners, businesses and even renters (since fees get passed on to them) to get dinged with extra fees. You can read the full text of the amended ordinance here: Low Impact Development Ordinance. This is just another example of California’s green bulding standards run amock: I’m all for green development when its reasonable, but not when it costs three time as much.
The irony of course is that this “Low Impact Development” ordinance is anything but “Low Impact” to taxpayers in Los Angeles. Expect to see higher construction costs, less development and longer construction times as a result of this law, which was passed unanimously and with little advertisement to the affected public by the LA public works commission.
Topics: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »
3 Responses to “Mandatory Rainwater Capture rules likely to slow construction growth”
Leave a Reply
« California’s Misplaced Priorities: Going for “Broke” with Universal Health Care | Home | Key Endorsements in Race for State Assembly »
“Why wouldn’t an 80% solution like improving building standards for rainfall diversion (drainage for large concrete surfaces, wider storm drains, increasing paved surface slope to direct water more towards stormdrains) make more sense?”
As I’m sure you know, storm water runoff is currently directed into a number of drainage systems and gutters and they all lead to our waterways and oceans. Along the way this water collects pollutants such as oil, trash, etc. which are eventually distributed to the ocean.
The whole point of rainwater capturing is to (A) prevent those pollutants from reaching our valuable waterways and (B) provide a renewable source of water that can be used for irrigation and other uses. Just adding more concrete slopes and more drains will only worsen the problem.
Yes, your proposal would make sense if the issue here was flooding, but that is not the main concern. The main concern, as stated above, is pollutants from storm water runoff.
Contractor Support First off, the good: Probably the best thing about Contractor Support is their estimation process implimented by there nationwide contractors and handymen.
Thanks for your comment.
I agree that ultimately it depends on what you are trying to do- prevent flooding or prevent pollution draining into the watershed.
However, with any ordinance of this sort – the key question is “at what cost?” and what are the possible alternatives to mitigate the problem.
So let’s talk specific pollutants:
Trash/Litter: is better rounded up through regular street cleaning than eliminating the water run-off (weekly sweeping programs already in place in most areas).
Motor Oil Leakage: oil is insoluble in water, so the amount of runoff/contamination due to this can be expected to be negligible. It’s also much more likely on pavement, and that’s mostly from our road system (non-germane to the discussion). Less of a problem with newer vehicles, so likely to decrease over time.
Anti-Freeze: more likely to come from deliberate dumping when someone bleeds their radiator carelessly. Probably better advertising/promotion of reclamation problems is more likely to mitigate this directly rather than trying to prevent run-off.
Did I miss any here? I think this is about 90% of our pollutants I would expect to see from an urban environment. Perhaps Sewage as well- but that’s a different problem.
In other words, I guess I’m disputing whether or not rain water reclamation is the right way to keep them out of the watershed. Seems like an indirect way to do it that has some serious economic consequences (i.e. significantly increases development costs). its much easier to address the pollutant’s release issues directly rather than indirectly through rainwater capture mandates.