Muddied Waters, Part 2

UPDATE: I spoke with Brian Boyd, the City's Water Resources Engineer for the project. In returning my call, he indicated that he consulted with the City's Stormwater staff who told him that since it is a minor amount, it's not technically required to do any Stormwater BMP's. Fine, so my assertion below that it is against the City's Stormwater Ordinance is in error; but it doesn't change the fact that the City should be setting a higher standard when it is its own project. If we ignore a thousand of these small pollution inputs into our creeks, the cumulative effect by the time it gets to the treatment plant is an increased cost to treat the water and it has an impact on aquatic habitat and wildlife - per the City's own words in its Stormwater Manual (see below.) I can only say that it is unfortunate that the culture of the Water Resources department is not one of taking the extra step to protect water quality. I can only hope that this changes. Mr. Boyd did indicate that they would try to clean up the street and perhaps install a filter sock or inlet protection device. We will see.
It seems that the City's contractor, Heitzman (?) on this project continues to ignore the City's own Stormwater Ordinances. I took the pictures below (and to the left) today showing that the contractors are leaving large amounts of mud on the asphalt after they are done and not placing ANY drain protection inlets to keep it from entering the creek. And surely it will rain again tonight and wash this mud in the creek.

The drain at the left should have an inlet protection barrier surrounding its opening to keep the mud and debris from entering the creek. (See example of this in last photo below).

So far I've left messages with two people in the Stormwater division of Water Resources, one with the Water Resources Engineer on the project. I also tried calling the "Environmental Help Line" which, it turns out, is really just the City Contact number (373-CITY). The guy answering the phone had no idea what I was talking about. When I called the City Contact number earlier, a nice lady put me on hold and when she got back on the phone, she told me that she was told that the City's main priority is to fix the water line. Sure, fixing the water line is great, but why is water quality not also a priority - especially when it would take a few bucks and 2 minutes to place a barrier around the drain inlet.

[This from the City's Stormwater Management Manual: The City has also set up an “Environmental Helpline” (373-2812) to take calls on pollution problems from spills to excessive erosion problems from construction sites and to answer questions.

I'm looking forward to getting calls back, but in the meantime, I'm amazed by the following:

1. The two Water Resources staff on site yesterday didn't seem to care or understand that water entering the storm drain ended up in the creek and that it was even important.
2. The two responses I got from the City Contact number - that water quality is not a priority, and that, "huh? we have an environmental help line?"

I hope the City can do some education of its staff on the importance of water quality.

By the way, this excerpt is from the City's own Stormwater Management Manual, Section 1.2.1.1.5 (Paved Area Sweeping):

"Paved areas are a source of various pollutants (especially hydrocarbons and heavy metals emitted by vehicles). Small pollutants attach to sediment and when it rains, the sediment, along with the attached pollutants, flow with the stormwater runoff to the nearest waterway. By employing a regular paved area sweeping program, a facility can dramatically reduce the amount of sediment entering the stormwater runoff. This not only helps the City maintain clean waterways but also improves general housekeeping efforts at individual facilities."