City proposes tougher stormwater rules

Update

Previously: In May 2006, the Vancouver City Council settled a lawsuit alleging the city, through inadequate stormwater controls, was violating the federal Clean Water Act.

What’s new: Vancouver, because of a provision in that settlement, is moving to adopt state-mandated stormwater rules early that could raise development and redevelopment costs in the northern portion of the city.

What’s next: The city council is tentatively scheduled to have a Dec. 22 work session on the rules, followed by possible adoption in January.



By Jeffrey Mize

Columbian staff writer

Vancouver is on track to become the first city in Western Washington to enact tougher stormwater standards that, according to a development representative, would cost millions and require detention ponds four to six times larger than current sizes.

The standards, which the city council could be asked to adopt in January, could have the most affect across 28 percent of city, essentially the northern portion that drains into Burnt Bridge Creek.

In that area, the proposed rules would require parcels, following development and redevelopment, to drain as efficiently as they did before European settlement, when 90 percent of precipitation would seep into the ground or evaporate into the air and only 10 percent would run off toward lakes, creeks and rivers.

Steve Madsen, government affairs director for the Building Industry Association of Clark County, said the stormwater rules have the potential not only to affect private development but public road projects as well.

“This is a huge deal to the development community, and it should be a huge deal to the city, too, because it’s going to be very expensive for municipal projects,” he said. “With the city in the budget situation Vancouver is in, one would think they wouldn’t be rushing to charge themselves more money.”

Madsen, along with more than a dozen engineers, geologists and others who make their living in development, attended a Monday city council presentation on the stormwater issue. No cost estimates were offered during the 45-minute session.

Later in the week, Madsen said one engineer applied the proposed rules to a subdivision project and concluded they would add $1.5 million to development costs. The rules, he said, could require detention ponds four to six times larger than current sizes, he said.

But John Karpinski, a Vancouver attorney who has been involved in litigation over stormwater controls, said ponds could be twice as large, not four to six times bigger. Developers could use pervious concrete, which allows water to seep into the ground, and other low-impact development techniques, he said.

“It’s a little more expensive to do,” he said. “But in the long run, that’s the future. Because that puts the water straight back into the ground, where we need to drink for future generations.”

Karpinski said “everyone with half a brain” knows current detention ponds are too small because they overflow. Current standards slow down the velocity of runoff, but they do little to reduce the volume, he said.

“It’s not that the new rules are so tough,” he said. “It’s that the old rules are so pathetic. So anything in the slightest realm of protecting the public interest is going to look tough in comparison to essentially nothing.”

Roughly 56 percent of Vancouver isn’t expected to be affected by the proposed rules because those areas discharge into the Columbia River and Vancouver Lake and are exempt from requirements for increased detention. The rules also aren’t expected to affect another 16 percent of the city where soil conditions allow rainfall to seep into the ground.

But across a stretch of north Vancouver, runoff readily flows into Burnt Bridge Creek, carrying with it dirt, oils, fertilizers and other contaminants, all harmful to fish and other aquatic life. During heavy rain, a torrent runoff also can have a “scouring” effect on stream beds and destabilize banks, sweeping away spawning gravel and removing vegetation that helps keep water cold for fish.

The Washington State Department of Ecology wants Vancouver and other Western Washington governments to adopt the tougher rules by August 2009, but the city is moving ahead now because of a May 2006 settlement with the Clark County Natural Resources Council and the Rosemere Neighborhood Association.

The two groups sued Vancouver in federal court in 2004 over their contention that the city was violating the federal Clean Water Act by not adequately controlling stormwater.

The 2006 settlement required the city to adopt the tougher stormwater rules by July 17, 2008. The city delayed taking that action, pending the outcome of litigation filed by Vancouver and 33 other local governments.

A Pollution Control Hearings Board’s Sept. 29 resolved some of those challenges. If Vancouver were to continue delaying adoption of the tougher rules, city officials say the Clark County Natural Resources Council and the Rosemere Neighborhood Association could haul the city back into court.

“We believe we don’t have a good defense against that lawsuit,” Linda Marousek, an assistant city attorney, told the city council.

Karpinski, who represented the two groups in the federal lawsuit, said even though Vancouver missed the July 17 deadline, he believes the city has been “acting in good faith.”

“I’m not the kind of person to jump all over them if they are a day late,” he said. “That’s not the type of group we are.”

But Madsen said he believes the provision for early adoption is illegal because it essentially requires the city to enact regulations without a public process.

“It’s outrageous that you would agree to adopt something when you don’t have any indication of what he implications are,” he said.

“I think the city is between a rock and a hard place because they entered into this agreement,” he added. “It’s our position that this agreement is illegal. And if they try to use that as justification for adoption (of proposed stormwater rules), it’s not going to be the Rosemere Neighborhood Association that’s suing them. It’s going to be the BIA (Building Industry Association) and the development community.”

Madsen said development representatives intend to lobby the 2009 Legislature to specify a base date for drainage regulations, instead of allowing the Ecology Department to use a pre-settlement standard.

Brian Carlson, Vancouver public works director, said the city is “at the end of our rope” and must move ahead with adoption.

“They are talking about taking a run into the Legislature to get things changed,” he said. “If they are successful, fine. But if they need to be aiming somewhere, they need to be aiming at the state and not at us.”

Jeffrey Mize: 360-735-4542; jeff.mize@columbian.com.