Santa Ana Regional Board Postpones October 19 Copper Decision; RBOC Urges Boaters to Participate in Workshops

October 1, 2018

RBOC is cautious but encouraged that the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has taken an initial step to respond to concerns being expressed by individual boaters and clubs, SCYA, RBOC, BoatUS, the boating industry and the City of Newport Beach by cancelling the Public Hearing for the consideration of the adoption of proposed Basin Plan amendments to incorporate Total Maximum Daily Loads [TMDLs] for Copper and Non-TMDL Action Plans for Zinc, Mercury, Arsenic, and Chromium in Newport Bay.

The TMDL amendment to the Basin Plan aims at reducing copper in Newport Bay with recreational vessels identified as the major contributor.

Stated RBOC President John Marshall of Newport Beach: “RBOC is cautious but encouraged that the regional board is responding to the numerous concerns by delaying this key decision to allow for further engagement with the boating community and other stakeholders. Hopefully, those discussions will take place this time, as similar statements and promises were made 21 months ago. We urge individual boaters and clubs to continue and increase their engagement by attending and participating in any workshops that are held.”

The water board announcement of the meeting cancellation states that: “The public hearing has been cancelled to allow time for staff to further engage with stakeholders and the public regarding the proposed Basin Plan amendments. A new date for the Public Hearing has not been set at this time. Further notification will be provided when the Public Hearing is rescheduled.”

More on this issue:

RBOC filed formal comments in August urging the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board not to adopt basin plan amendments that would impose stringent new requirements impacting the use of copper-based anti-fouling paints by recreational boaters. In those comments:

RBOC reiterates the comments we submitted in 2016 and also endorses the August 22 comments that have been submitted by the City of Newport Beach, the points raised in those comments, and the City’s request. These include:

It has been 21 months since the October 28, 2016 workshop and there have been no workshops, no outreach to the boating community, no inclusion of named dischargers in the development of the latest draft TMDL.
To date, we do not believe that our concerns about the practical impacts of the proposed implementation plan to our community and Newport Bay have been acknowledged or appreciated. Our original comments and concerns still stand.
The copper TMDL unlawfully attempts to force local agencies to solve a conflict caused by the Regional Board's failure to convince the Legislature or its sister state agencies to ban copper anti-fouling paint [AFP].
The copper TMDL is unlawful because alternatives to copper AFP are not effective or available and may have significant adverse environmental impacts.
The phased implementation schedule is unreasonable and unsupported, and would force substantial early investments that may be unnecessary.

In addition, RBOC is significantly concerned that:

The revised amendments place an unfair and unreasonable responsibility on boats to continue to be responsible for lowering the levels of copper even after boat copper loads have been reduced to recommended levels, if the water column then shows that copper levels exceed 3.1 CTR.
The information included in the attachments establishes that there may in fact not be a copper impairment [either in the water or sediment], and that no implementation plan is necessary at this time.
The board has not acknowledged and learned from the challenges ongoing at Marina del Rey Harbor and Shelter Island.
The revised amendments do not reflect the fact that alternatives to copper-based AFP may cause greater environmental harm and may increase the entrance and spread of invasive species.
The copper TMDL imposes unfunded state mandates.
The substitute environmental document fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA's implementing guidelines.
The revised amendments seem flawed, preempted, give substandard consideration to current conditions and technical analyses, and do not comply with CEQA.

RBOC joins in the request of the City of Newport Beach that the board:

Not adopt the amendments at this time.
Select an additional review period a meaningful discussion about additional testing and monitoring, education, best management practices, the implementation timeline for DPR's updated AFP regulations, and more, with the goal of coming back to the Regional Board with more robust data and implementation ideas.
Commit to participating thoroughly and in good faith in that discussion provided all of the parties do so collaboratively, as has been the collective spirit in the past.

RBOC Urges Boaters to Testify October 19 - Newport Bay Plan for Copper

August 23, 2018

RBOC is urging the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board not to adopt basin plan amendments on October 19 that would impose stringent new requirements impacting the use of copper-based anti-fouling paints by recreational boaters.

RBOC is urging boaters to attend the October 19 meeting of the board and to testify against adoption of the revised amendments to the water quality control plan for the Santa Ana Region.

Meeting Details:

DATE: October 19, 2018
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
LOCATION: Orange County Sanitation District, 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA

RBOC Concerns:

RBOC submitted comments to the regional board today in response to the July 10, 2018 notice that the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region will consider adopting Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region to incorporate Total Maximum Daily Loads for copper and non-TMDL Action Plans for other metals in Newport Bay.

Boaters in the Santa Ana watershed and throughout the region have a keen interest in the issues being addressed by the regional board, and RBOC provided written comments in 2016 when this issue was previously considered. Our organization remains greatly concerned today.

It has been 21 months since the October 28, 2016 workshop and there have been no workshops, no outreach to the boating community, no inclusion of named dischargers in the development of the latest draft TMDL.
To date, we do not believe that our concerns about the practical impacts of the proposed implementation plan to our community and Newport Bay have been acknowledged or appreciated. Our original comments and concerns still stand.
The copper TMDL unlawfully attempts to force local agencies to solve a conflict caused by the Regional Board's failure to convince the Legislature or its sister state agencies to ban copper anti-fouling paint [AFP].
The copper TMDL is unlawful because alternatives to copper AFP are not effective or available and may have significant adverse environmental impacts.
The phased implementation schedule is unreasonable and unsupported, and would force substantial early investments that may be unnecessary.

In addition, RBOC is significantly concerned that:

The revised amendments place an unfair and unreasonable responsibility on boats to continue to be responsible for lowering the levels of copper even after boat copper loads have been reduced to recommended levels, if the water column then shows that copper levels exceed 3.1 CTR.
The information included in the attachments establishes that there may in fact not be a copper impairment [either in the water or sediment], and that no implementation plan is necessary at this time.
The board has not acknowledged and learned from the challenges ongoing at Marina del Rey Harbor and Shelter Island.
The revised amendments do not reflect the fact that alternatives to copper-based AFP may cause greater environmental harm and may increase the entrance and spread of invasive species.
The copper TMDL imposes unfunded state mandates.
The substitute environmental document fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA 's implementing guidelines.
The revised amendments seem flawed, preempted, give substandard consideration to current conditions and technical analyses, and do not comply with CEQA.

RBOC joins in the request of the City of Newport Beach that the board:

Not adopt the amendments at this time.
Select an additional review period a meaningful discussion about additional testing and monitoring, education, best management practices, the implementation timeline for DPR's updated AFP regulations, and more, with the goal of coming back to the Regional Board with more robust data and implementation ideas.
Commit to participating thoroughly and in good faith in that discussion provided all of the parties do so collaboratively, as has been the collective spirit in the past.

For these and other reasons RBOC respectfully requests that the Regional Board not adopt the amendments on October 19, 2018, and provide additional time for all stakeholders to further discuss the stated concerns.

RBOC appreciates the Regional Board's objective to protect the water and the recreational boating community remains willing and ready to discuss the development of amendments that incorporate a justified, reasonable, fact and science-based implementation plan to address actual water quality concerns in the Newport Bay.

RBOC Opposing Santa Ana Regional Water Board's Copper Plan

October 17, 2016

RBOC is opposing the copper implementation plan proposed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region that would significantly impact the ability of recreational boaters in the area to utilize copper-based anti-fouling paints.

RBOC's concerns have been submitted to the regional board through formal comments regarding the proposed Basin Plan Amendments to Incorporate Total Maximum Daily Loads for Copper and Non-TMDL Action Plans for Other Metals in Newport Bay.

RBOC wil also be testifying at the public hearing the regional board will hold on October 28.

This issue is important to boating. From recreational boats in the water for a season to commercial ships that are in the water year round, antifouling paint on the underwater part of the boat is fundamental to the proper maintenance and performance of almost all watercraft. The uncontrolled growth of marine organisms on boats significantly degrades performance, increases fuel consumption, contributes to the spread of aquatic invasive species and can even lead to a vessel sinking in extreme cases.

Many antifouling paints contain cuprous oxide, a form of copper, as the licensed pesticide that is their primary active ingredient. These antifouling paints, approved by the USEPA, are designed for the copper to gradually leach into the water from the boat. Paints containing copper are currently the most effective, affordable and available antifouling products for all vessels, including recreational boats.

With regard to the proposed basin plan amendments, RBOC endorses and concurs with the comments of the City of Newport Beach:

1. The Copper TMDL unlawfully attempts to force local agencies to ban copper anti-fouling paint.

The Copper TMDL is unlawful because: (1) It explicitly relies on an implementation plan that requires local agencies to take actions the Legislature has prohibited; and (2) The Regional Board purports to usurp the authority of the Department of Pesticide Regulation to govern the use of copper anti-fouling paint.

The Legislature states that the City does not have the legal authority to ban copper paint, and that any action by the City would be “void and of no force or effect.” Local governments cannot regulate the use of pesticides in Food and Agriculture Code Section 11501.1, subdivision (a).

The Legislature has plainly granted exclusive authority to DPR to regulate the use of pesticides such as copper anti-fouling paint.

It would be arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law to end-run that process to compel local governments to regulate the use of registered pesticides in a manner contrary to DPR’s legislative judgment. There is a 1997 Management Agency Agreement between DPR and the State Water Resources Control Board that includes an established dispute resolution process in place to address conflicts between the two state agencies.

2. The Copper TMDL is unlawful because alternatives to copper anti-fouling paint are not effective or available.

Alternative paints are not widely commercially available, do not have a track record of being effective and are not affordable. The only alternative paints with any degree of effectiveness are not recommended by US EPA’s technical contractor because they present serious environmental hazards.

3. The margin of safety is too large and is unsupported.

The Copper TMDL is improperly and artificially lowered because the Regional Board proposes a margin of safety that is unreasonably large. The Regional Water Board’s staff report does not include any explanation of why such a large margin of safety is appropriate, and none is apparent. There is no justification to add a margin of safety amounting to one fifth of the TMDL on top of all the other conservative assumptions especially when the observed “impairment” is alleged, and isolated technical exceedances of the chronic water quality criterion have no observed toxicity.

4. The phased implementation schedule is unreasonable, unsupported and would force early investments that may be unnecessary.

The 20% reduction by the end of year 3, 50% by the end of year 7, and 83% reduction by the end of year 15 is unreasonable, unsupported and unlawful because it is too short and fails to allow time at the beginning to address the many problems with the TMDL and its implementation.

The Regional Board concludes that “voluntary compliance in Newport Bay [would be] difficult” given that neither the Regional Board nor any of the entities regulated by the TMDL may legally restrict the use of copper anti-fouling paint. The City submits that it will likely take considerable time for this vague plan to work, and the Regional Board’s failure to allow for such time in its implementation schedule is improper. Similarly, it would be wasteful and unnecessarily costly and controversial to develop site-specific objectives while at the same time being held to early and high percentage decreases.

And lastly, with the lack of available and affordable copper anti-fouling paint alternatives on the market today, it is irrational to adopt a schedule that does not allow the proposed new market to respond and develop.

5. The Copper TMDL imposes unfunded state mandates that the State must reimburse under the California Constitution.

Though the regional boards and the State Water Resources Control Board commonly argue that their programs are exempt from the reimbursement program under Government Code 17513, the Copper TMDL would represent a discretionary decision by the state to impose requirements beyond those mandated by federal law. This would be a “true choice” by the state to impose the mandate, and subvention will be required.

6. It is improper to promulgate a TMDL for an entire bay when only certain areas of water bodies within the bay may even be arguably impaired.

7. The Substitute Environmental Document (SED) fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Prior to approving the proposed TDMLs, the Regional Board must comply with CEQA and its guidelines. The SED is inadequate since its analysis of impacts uses an invalid “baseline” which generally consists of the environmental conditions that exist at the time of environmental review. It is legal error to determine significance of impacts in comparison with a non-existent hypothetically “permitted” action.

Further, the SED’s impact analysis is flawed because it fails to properly account for, or analyze, the foreseeable significant impact of its program. In fact, the Washington State Department of Ecology has concluded that there are no currently available non-toxic alternatives to copper anti-fouling paints. The SED must be revised to address the likelihood that a reasonably foreseeable implementation of the Copper TMDL will involve application of toxic anti-fouling paint, and to analyze the environmental impacts of applying those paints. Additionally, the SED is invalid for failing to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives, and it does not include an economic factors analysis.

8. The data sources in the staff report are older than 10 years, and were collected prior to significant dredging activities that recently occurred in the Upper and Lower Bay.

9. The vessel count used in the calculations is significantly different than the actual, verified number of 4,470 vessels in Newport Harbor.

In addition, RBOC objects to the provision of the basin plan amendment that would specifically identify boaters as dischargers responsible to reduce copper loads and correct sediment impairment. This will impose significant, costly and burdensome requirements on individual boat owners in the implementation of the basin plan amendment.