Cash Poor City Of L.A. May Derail Sanitation's Plans For Infrastructure Investments

Judy, when MIR last interviewed you in July 2000, you made the following provocative statement: "We're moving away from being a landfill agency. Our goal is to be at 70 percent diversion from landfills by the year 2020. That's a very ambitious goal requiring new facilities-transfer stations. We're planning for that future-material recover facilities and eventually moving to rail haul." How well is the department progressing toward fulfilling your predictions?

First and foremost, we have completed our waste characterization study for AB 939. And I am proud to report that we are at the 58 percent diversion mark, that exceeds the stated goal of the bill, and we are continuing our pursuit towards 70 percent diversion.

Another endeavor we have just broken ground on is the $24.7 million East Valley Yard. That facility should be completed by July 2003 and will replace our old east valley facility built in the 20s when mules still pulled garbage wagons. This new yard will be state-of-the-art and equipped with alternative fuel, household hazardous waste and bulky item disposal facilities.

We are also working with the L.A. County Sanitation District-under a joint-powers authority-to locate, construct and operate a new transfer station in the north central part of Los Angeles. Ideally we will find an existing facility that can be acquired, but if not, we're going to have to site and develop this facility ourselves. This facility will be part of our preparation for the transition to rail haul.

And lastly, we are looking at siting an additional transfer facility on the Westside.

Let's take a half-step back. What are the numbers that drive the department's planning? What's the quantified need?

Recent population forecasts are predicting California will grow to 50 million people by 2020. We need to prepare for that population growth and we've seen such predictions track really well the tonnage we pick up in solid waste removal-currently we are moving approx. 879,000 tons of solid waste a year. That tonnage will continue to increase with the population. The facilities I've just described are necessary to cope with those increases.

Why does the City need to go to rail? Help us understand the significance re: the forecasted growth?

We'll probably run out of space in landfills sometime around 2018-2020. And to site the aforementioned facilities, get them permitted and then construct them takes a very long period of time. You can't just start looking around for a place to take the trash in 2015 and assume you will find a site. These things take time, particularly when one is trying to do them collaboratively and be fiscally responsible.

Clearly there is a long timeline for the implementation of these public works projects. Does the Bureau of Sanitation have a capital budget? How do you plan?

Our capital budget is $300 million a year and charts our department's goals and vision for the next decade. We revisit the budget annually and make adjustments to its allocations and timelines. Currently the bulk of our current budget-$250 million-is allocated to major sewer replacement work including the East Central Interceptor Sewer (ECIS) and the North East Interceptor Sewer.

In our last interview in July 2000, you said, "We neglected the infrastructure of Los Angeles for a very long time, not just sewers, but sidewalks, streets, tree trimmings, street resurfacing. We really need to reinvest in the infrastructure of Los Angeles. Without some sort of state and federal assistance, it's a burden I don't believe L.A. can bear." What, if anything, has changed?

The bottom has fallen out of the budget after the events of September 11th, and if anything, the situation has become worse. The general fund-which is where a large part of public works allocations come from-is out of money. So, any service that receives an allocation from the general fund doesn't have the wherewithal to do anything new or improved. We are scrambling just to get the operating dollars we need to complete our basic city services.

Additionally, what I am currently hearing is that we will have to reduce our symbolic allocations to sidewalk repair, tree trimming and street resurfacing. Unfortunately, while these may not be as public health critical as sewer repair and refuse removal, these are the services people want, need and see on a daily basis. These are the ones that they talk about. They only talk about sewers when they don't work, and that's not often because we're a pretty reliable service.

We have a new Mayor, a new City Attorney, a fundamentally different City Council, a new Charter and a continuing debate about secession. As head of the Bureau of Sanitation, you're in a service that must look 10, 15, 20 years out re: infrastructure. How does one manage all this change in a term-limited world?

We obviously anticipated a significant change and have tried to prepare for it and make sure that the new representatives on the Council, Public Works Board and in the Mayor's Office are informed. But the loss of all that experience is really hurting our infrastructure issues. Those issues are really difficult to communicate and often times require a long tenure to really understand.

Luckily infrastructure is important to Mayor Hahn. From the outset he has said that public works was going to be a priority. But that assumed a continuation of the booming economy. Now the city faces a $250 million deficit and his hands are tied. Absent some state and federal largess, which is unlikely, it certainly doesn't look like the next couple years will see increased funding for us. I do understand that the Mayor plans to move forward on a Blue Ribbon Committee for Public Infrastructure. Hopefully, through the work of that Committee, the City can be ready to move forward as the economy improves.

Give our readers an example of what will happen to the programs that you currently operate because of the shortfall.

We have had an urban runoff permit from L.A. County since 1991. However, this most recent iteration of the permit is very strict and very expensive because it begins to address the RWQCB's stricter regulations regarding Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), zero-trash stipulations and year-round, low-flow diversions for the L.A. River and bacteria removal during wet weather.

Currently we have seven of these low-flow diversions where we divert urban runoff into the sewer system from April until October and treat it at Hyperion. These are great projects, and while each diversion costs about $1 million, they upgrade a grade-F beach to a grade-A beach. This program is fantastic and is well worth the expense.

However, the Regional Board is also beginning to look at wet-weather bacteria TMDL-a system of treating storm water during wet weather. If that TMDL is implemented as currently written, the City of L.A. will face a multi-billion dollar mandate. For example, last November we had a storm which dropped less that an inch of rain in Los Angeles. That amount of rain translated into 2.1 billion gallons of water flowing through Ballona Creek. Hyperion can only treat 350 million gallons a day. To treat that much flow during a storm would take many Hyperion-sized plants and billions of dollars of investment.

That is what the RWQCB is recommending we do. They want us to build and maintain treatment plants exclusively to treat rainfall before it is discharged into the ocean. Our view here at Public Works is that that is a really wasteful way of dealing with runoff. If we treat storm water, we should treat it for reuse and irrigation, not discharge it into the ocean.

Who pays for both our current treatment processes and those on the drawing boards? And how much?

Currently we get about $28 million from the Storm Water Pollution Abatement Fund. That is a fee on your property tax bill and collected twice a year-it's about $22 annually for a typical single-family home. And other than various State grants that we've received, that's our entire source of revenue for the storm water program. Regardless of whether we treat low flow diversions or wet weather diversions, clearly we do not have enough money.

In order to pay for just one of these mandates-e.g. the 2000 trash TMDL-we will have to find roughly $700 million. Now there are some ways we could raise that kind of capital including bond finance, etc., but now is not the time to put such a measure on the ballot. Right now we are appealing several of these mandates. Perhaps we can add some rationality to the discussion and find a happy medium that makes economic sense.

Doesn't this sound like the arguments that went on for decades re: Hyperion? That too was an unfunded mandate. There was a need but until the City was forced by the courts, nothing was built.

I don't know if you can make the same type of argument because while trash might be unattractive, it's not constituting a public health problem. It's more of an aesthetic issue. The zero trash TMDL is an attempt to help increase the aesthetic value and enjoyment of the river. That's what the trash TMDL states. But should we pay $700 million to improve the aesthetic value of the L.A. River?

I have no problem supporting the low-flow diversions because I can see the payoff-clean beaches. The problem I have is when we're investing a great deal of money and seeing no discernible improvement in the environment or public health. If we really want to pursue some form of legislation that aims at making the L.A. River cleaner, we need to find a better balance between economics and the environment. I think the current regulations are simply out of whack with science. TMDLs are supposed to be data driven. There's very little data to determine the assimilative capacity of the L.A. River for trash. It's some number, but it certainly isn't zero.

And is there enough of a healthy civic dialogue in the basin to help vet these ideas and find that balance?

There is a dialogue going on, but I wouldn't call it "healthy."

Clearly our action against the urban run-off legislation has drawn the RWQCB's attention. What remains to be seen is how they react to our appeals.

This process is a struggle for Los Angeles, but it's even more of a struggle for some of the smaller cities along the river that don't have L.A.'s diverse economic base. They can't meet these expensive mandates. And I expect that we have to win a few more lawsuits before we prove that to the RWQCB.

So far the legal route has been the only effective mechanism. We've challenged our permit for the Tillman and Los Angeles-Glendale treatment plants and won in Superior Court because the permits were unfair and based on soft-science. That decision is on appeal.

We also recently challenged the EPA on the municipal drinking water designated use on the Los Angeles River and we won in federal court. They used a potential municipal drinking water source as the beneficial use by which they came up with numeric limits for our permits. We said they couldn't require us to meet these numeric limits because the L.A. River is not a source of municipal drinking water. EPA has chosen not to appeal that decision, so that decision will stand.

We're trying to press our case before the regional board and the state board, but so far we haven't been successful. I'm hopeful that if we have continued success in the courts, the regional and state boards will begin to listen to us before they adopt regulations.

Let's go back to a point you made in your answer re: the urban runoff regulations. You mentioned that treated water should not merely be put into the ocean. There recently was a small flap about DWP and the toilet-to-tap endeavor. Does the Bureau of Sanitation have a role? And what's the status of that reclamation project?

Our forecasted growth has lead everyone to the same conclusion-we have to find new sources of water. And to really address that need we must get past some of the so-called "yuck" factors associated with microfiltration and water cleaning and get at the core issues of science.

To deal with that specific issue we are partnering with DWP on what we call our Integrated Resources Program-a long-range, truly integrated plan for the City of L.A. that looks at potable, waste and storm water.

The problem with the current public perception is that they believe the reclaimed water that would come out of Tillman would still be "dirty." In fact we're removing almost all of the chemicals present in the water through filtration. The proposed East Valley reclamation project would further filtrate this water through natural filtration. The water that would come from that plant would be the best water in the city. People should be getting in line to drink that water. It's really unfortunate that there is such a public misperception on this issue.

What's the basis of the public's basic misunderstanding of the reclaimed water issues in the City?

When Joel Wachs was running for Mayor he used public perception and the so-called ‘yuck' factor of reclaimed water to frighten people. He knew better. He absolutely knew better. Of course, now he's in New York. The East Valley Water reclamation project is now on hold. At this point, it may never move forward and the City may need to refund the $48 million in grants it received for the project from the state and federal government. That's a decision facing DWP as the project manager.

Judy let's end with two last questions. Frankie Banerjee, the GM for DOT has recently announced her retirement. The city is looking for a replacement. Do you have any inclination to go back to your roots-transportation?

Back to my roots? Probably not. I really enjoy the Bureau of Sanitation. I like the blend of science, regulation and policy. It's a very interesting place. The challenges that are in front of us in the regulatory environment in both solid resources and wastewater I find fascinating. And I really like the people I'm working with.

I wish DOT well in finding a good GM. I'm sure they'll find somebody wonderful. And things seem to be looking up at the MTA, so I'm hopeful that perhaps the worst is behind us in that arena.

More seriously, when we return to talk to you in another year, what should be the benchmarks against which your performance should be judged? What capital projects will have been completed?

My hope is that ECIS will be completed on budget and on schedule; that we have initiated the North East Interceptor Sewer; that the East Valley Yard is completed; and that we've either found sites for a new transfer facility or acquired a current transfer facility.

Additionally, I hope that we will have been able to add some common sense to the regulatory environment and help our policymakers balance economics against environmental benefits. We need to have discernible and significant environmental benefits in exchange for massive public investments.