Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Epa Water Quality Offsets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks EPA to reconsider blanket water-quality offsets, eases language to "question" offsets
Summary
Facing a near-term comment deadline, the City Council voted to send comments on proposed EPA water-quality regulations that would require offsets. After debate about unintended consequences, the council changed language from "oppose" to "question" and approved the amended motion 13-1.
The Los Angeles City Council approved a motion to submit comments on proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency water-quality rules, amending the draft to replace language that would have "opposed" water-quality offset requirements with wording that "questions" those requirements. The amended motion passed 13-1.
Lede: Councilmembers raised concerns that EPA's proposed offset requirements could unintentionally encourage development at the metropolitan fringe rather than infill development, impose administrative burdens, and outpace available science and permitting structures. Council members said a coordinated city comment would urge EPA to refine proposals and consider local conditions.
Nut graf: Councilmember Bernard Ridley Thomas and others noted a tight timeline for comments and said the city must send a clear, constructive position. City staff and the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) worked with members to revise language that would preserve the city's ability to support strong water quality protections while warning against offsets that could lead to sprawl or be unimplementable without permitting infrastructure.
Councilmember Ridley Thomas emphasized urgency: "we have a deadline, literally, tomorrow," and asked the CLA to finalize a document for submission. Supporters of the amended language, including Councilmember Henry Wax and Councilmember Ruth Galanter, said the motion was intended to ensure EPA considers urban circumstances and the city's interest in infill development, not to oppose environmental protection in general.
The Council approved the amendment substituting "question" for "oppose" and adopted the motion as amended, 13 ayes and 1 no. Councilmembers asked staff to pursue further interagency dialogue with federal and state regulators and to provide scientific and planning analysis to support the city's comments.
Ending: The council directed the CLA and relevant departments to finalize and file city comments by the EPA deadline and to return to council with any new information about offsets, implementation feasibility, and potential unintended consequences for infill development.
