College of Business Administration

Article Reprints:

Dan Weikel Christine Hanley

CALTRANS Working to Foil Runoff Effort, Groups Say

LA Times Online

ORANGE COUNTY

Caltrans Working to Foil Runoff Effort, Groups Say

Environment: The state agency is spending millions to undermine a storm-water study instead of remaining neutral as required, their court filing says.

By DAN WEIKEL and CHRISTINE HANLEY, TIMES STAFF WRITERS

Two environmental groups Wednesday accused Caltrans of waging an aggressive propaganda campaign to sabotage a court-ordered study of treatment methods that could reduce the flow of polluted storm water from the state's vast highway system.

Instead of remaining neutral as required during the research, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica BayKeeper charged that Caltrans spent tens of millions of dollars in an effort to discredit an array of pollution controls designed to keep toxic runoff from reaching waterways and the ocean.

The allegation was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, where the organizations have waged a nine-year legal battle to force the giant transportation department into complying with the storm-water provisions of the federal Clean Water Act. "Like a nefarious cigarette manufacturer, who knows that the facts are against it, Caltrans has embarked on a campaign of deceit designed to sell the unsuspecting public a pack of distortions and half-truths," NRDC attorneys charged.

Officials at Caltrans' Sacramento headquarters declined to comment, saying the agency has not reviewed the latest court filings. In the past they have said the department is committed to improving its storm-water programs and developing effective pollution controls.

Caltrans was ordered in January 1998 to work with NRDC and BayKeeper on a five-year study to determine the effectiveness and cost of devices that could filter highway runoff--a potentially toxic brew of oil, hydraulic fluid, exhaust particles, brake dust and metals that can harm aquatic life.

Judge Edward Rafeedie required both sides to remain neutral as they studied 38 treatment sites, including roadside strips of sand and vegetation, detention basins, vaults of compost or minerals, and simple devices to catch trash before it enters storm drains. The results are due out within a year.

But NRDC attorneys charged in legal papers filed Wednesday that Caltrans has engaged in a multimillion-dollar campaign to undermine the very methods now under consideration.

Caltrans' in-house research has concluded that many of the treatment devices are too expensive and impractical to install on a widespread basis. The department has estimated it could cost as much as $54 billion to retrofit highways in Los Angeles County alone, not to mention the annual maintenance cost of $200 million.

Based on Caltrans' studies, the California Transportation Commission warned in a 2002 report that the cost of treating runoff could have catastrophic effects on the state's highway construction budget.

Court records state that Caltrans publicized its cost estimates and criticized storm-water treatment at professional conferences in California, Minnesota, Nevada, Florida and Washington, D.C.

"What we have identified is an effort by Caltrans to discredit storm-water controls at a time when the department is supposed to be reviewing them in a neutral way," said David Beckman, an NRDC attorney in Los Angeles.

The groups want a court order forcing Caltrans to retract its research, publish corrections in trade journals and refrain from releasing any new storm-water reports until the study is completed.

An NRDC comparison with other states indicates that Caltrans has grossly overestimated the cost of storm-water controls, as much as 10 times for certain methods. Highway departments in Maryland and Washington have installed the controls without paralyzing their ability to build or repair roads.

NRDC attorneys complain that some of Caltrans' own research amounts to "hit pieces chucked full of unsupported assumptions."

While Caltrans spread its anti-treatment gospel around the country, NRDC attorneys allege the agency was shelving research from UC Davis showing that certain controls, such as mesh bags, screens, grates and drain inserts, were cost-effective in controlling trash, debris and other pollutants.

Court records state that Caltrans never finalized the August 1998 study from UC Davis. As one department official put it in a sworn deposition, "We didn't feel it warranted further investigation."

NRDC and BayKeeper officials say Caltrans' anti-treatment campaign has been picked up by municipal governments, the petroleum industry and groups opposed to current storm-water regulations, such as the Construction Industry Coalition, the Building Industry Assn. and the Coalition for Practical Regulation, a group of 42 Southern California cities.

Wednesday's legal complaint is the latest salvo in what has become a protracted debate over whether Caltrans is making the best effort to comply with federal law.

For more than a decade, the agency has violated regulations designed to protect streams, rivers and oceans from toxic storm water and sediment that washes off highways, bridges, construction sites and maintenance yards.

Last week in Orange County, Caltrans District 12 was issued a notice of violation for discharging sediment into the Santa Ana Delhi Channel from a bridge project that will help link the San Diego and Costa Mesa freeways.

Beth Beeman, a Caltrans spokeswoman, said the agency reported the problems to the water board and quickly took action to correct the violations, which carry fines of up to $10,000 per day. The project, she added, now complies with all storm-water regulations.

* Drain Dispute Dates to 1993

Since 1993, Caltrans has repeatedly been the target of lawsuits and government complaints alleging violations of federal and state laws to control storm-water runoff. A timeline of major actions:

* October 1993: The Natural Resources Defense Council sues the Caltrans director and the Los Angeles Caltrans office, arguing that the agency has failed since 1991 to comply with the Clean Water Act.

* December 1994: A federal judge rules in favor of the plaintiff, saying Caltrans consistently failed to comply with the Clean Water Act at construction sites and highways in Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

* 1994-95: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency files a formal administrative complaint against Caltrans headquarters related to storm-water compliance problems.

* September 1995: The federal court overseeing the Los Angeles case finds that Caltrans failed to comply with the permanent injunction requiring monitoring programs and annual storm-drain cleaning.

* March 1996: A Los Angeles federal court orders Caltrans to show it is in compliance with drain cleaning and monitoring requirements, calling the agency's effort "wholly inadequate." Under the threat of contempt, the department begins cleaning about 30,000 freeway drains.

* March 1997: A Los Angeles federal court orders Caltrans to monitor effectiveness of storm-water control methods. The court also extends its supervision of the case.

* 1997: Environmental groups in the Bay Area sue Caltrans over erosion problems related to the reconstruction of the Cypress Freeway, which collapsed in the Loma Prieta earthquake. More than 500 violations are documented, including lack of adequate berms, silt fences and sheet covers. The case is quickly settled with a consent decree that orders corrections and a "stand-down day," with contractors put on notice to halt work until all problems are addressed.

* December 1997: Caltrans agrees to pay $430,000--the largest sum to date--as part of a settlement in a lawsuit filed by EPA and San Diego BayKeeper over some of the same allegations made in the Los Angeles case.

* April 1998: The Federal Highway Administration issues a report critical of storm-water controls at construction sites in four Caltrans districts, noting Caltrans' inability to police its contractors.

* 1998: EPA inspections of Southern California sites lead to a $55,000 fine related to storm-water violations during construction of State Route 126 in Santa Clarita and a $11,145 fine related to the widening of the Santa Ana Freeway in Anaheim.

* November 2000: The state water quality control board issues a cease-and-desist order against Caltrans for unlawfully allowing storm water from Pacific Coast Highway to enter Crystal Cove State Park, home to one of the state's two dolphin birthing grounds.

* July 2001: State water quality officials issue a cease-and-desist order after Caltrans acknowledges that 39 storm-water filters along the San Joaquin Hills toll road in Orange County are faulty and not being maintained.

* November 2001: Caltrans is fined $137,000 in a settlement of EPA allegations of improper storm-water discharges during construction of State Route 56 in San Diego. Large amounts of sediment and silt were entering Los Penasquitos Lagoon.

* Winter-spring 2002: Two central California water quality control boards investigate widespread violations of storm-water regulations involving a Caltrans project to improve Interstate 80. Fines of at least $140,000 have resulted so far.

* February 2002: The state water board issues a notice of violation after receiving a series of reports from San Diego Bay businesses about paint chips and blast grit being discharged from the Coronado Bridge during an ongoing retrofit project.

* May 2002: Natural Resources Defense Council files a complaint alleging that Caltrans has campaigned against storm-water controls in violation of a 1998 court order to study those methods without bias.

Source: Times reports

Researched by CHRISTINE HANLEY and DAN WEIKEL / Los Angeles Times

Return to Professor Dunn's home page.