This is Part One in a three-part series examining stormwater pollution and the flawed system that polices it. Read Part Two here, and Part Three here.

Thousands – perhaps tens of thousands – of California businesses are polluting streams, bays and the ocean, but state environmental regulators don’t know how many companies are doing how much damage.

In places like Logan Heights or National City, industry-filled neighborhoods send metals and toxic chemicals into the water, helping to ruin it for humans and poison it for marine life.

An entire regulatory system exists to prevent this – to keep businesses honest, residents safe and fish alive. That system is a mess.

At the beginning of last year, the city of San Diego estimated that 2,400 businesses here were operating without the necessary water pollution control permit. Many business owners may not know they’re violating the law; others are trying not to get caught.

At the end of the year, fewer than 400 businesses in San Diego had the permit.

We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?

By evading the law, businesses without a permit are propping up their bottom lines. The state estimates it costs $188,400 over five years for a business to get what’s known as an Industrial General Permit and comply with its requirements. The goal of the permit is to make sure companies are monitoring and reducing their water pollution.

Across the state, there could be thousands or even tens of thousands of businesses dodging these rules and sending unknown amounts of pollution into the state’s waters.

One problem is the state doesn’t know how many businesses it’s trying to regulate. There could be 20,000 companies in California that need to get a permit and reduce their water pollution. Or 100,000. Or 130,000.

Whatever the actual number – those are each estimates, no one knows for sure – only about 12,000 state businesses are complying with the regulations today.

“The vast majority of people, of facilities that should be doing something about water quality, are doing nothing,” said S. Wayne Rosenbaum, an attorney who represents businesses covered by the permit.

That’s a huge liability for them if they get caught: If 20,000 businesses should be following clean water rules, the statewide cost to comply might be about $3.7 billion over five years. If 100,000 businesses are covered by the rules, those costs could be nearly $19 billion.

Some current and former environmental regulators wonder if the rules that few are following even make sense.


In the early 1970s, the federal Clean Water Act created the ambitious goal of making every American waterway fishable and swimmable by the mid-1980s. That didn’t happen and is a long way off.

In San Diego, about 100 miles of bays, creeks, rivers and shoreline fail to meet federal water-quality standards.

At first, an interwoven network of federal, state and local regulations targeted the biggest polluters – the heavy industries and sewage treatment plants, which had been dumping pollution straight into the nation’s waters.

Since then, environmentalists have set their sights on smaller polluters and on urban “stormwater,” which is just water on the ground after it rains.

Stormwater sweeps up all kinds of debris and bits of pollution and then carries it out to the ocean. That pollution adds up: copper from brake pads, zinc from the coating on fences and roofs, oil from parking lots, grease from restaurants, pesticides from yards and trash from everywhere.

In 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board tried to get its arms around the problem by expanding its clean water rules to cover businesses that had been exempted from regulations but were still likely sources of pollution. Businesses from scrapyards to vineyards must now get an Industrial General Permit.

Yet, these sites still tend to be a low priority for many regulators, in part because there are so many of them.

“It’s a large permit, it’s a statewide permit and we’re outnumbered,” said Laurel Warddrip, the manager of the State Water Resources Control Board’s stormwater program.

There are about 75 stormwater regulators at State Water Board and nine regional boards that report to it, including the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. They oversee not just industrial polluters but also pollution coming of the state’s highways, construction sites and sewer systems.

Over the past few years, though, the industrial sites have taken up a lot of their time.

The Industrial General Permit rules are supposed to be updated every five years. The new one was updated in 2014 and took effect in 2015. Before that, it hadn’t been updated since 1997.

When the state changed the rules to include more businesses, it arguably did something dumb: It made every business that already had a permit get a new permit. The businesses that had enrolled over the previous 17 years were suddenly kicked out of the system and forced to re-enroll.

David Gibson, executive director of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, said the state effectively doubled everybody’s workload. Now, regulators were not only trying to find new businesses that had to comply with the new rules but making sure the old ones got back in line.

Gibson is among those who believe all the attention on small industrial sites is sometimes misplaced. He favors figuring out the biggest threats to water quality and working to reduce those, rather than making sure everybody is doing their paperwork. But he doesn’t call the shots – the state does, and the state wanted everybody to get a new permit.

“It’s interesting, unfortunately, that we set out these goals of working on a watershed basis and identifying the pollutants of concern,” he said of his board’s own goals, “but it’s ultimately a bureaucratic decision that drives what you actually spend your time on.”

The state admits it doesn’t have the resources to make sure every business gets a permit. In fact, it doesn’t even think it can take a basic step that would ensure that most businesses at least know the permit exists: Send them a piece of mail saying so.

Warddrip said the state has thought about doing outreach to all the businesses that might need to get an Industrial General Permit, but is worried that effort will be more trouble than it’s worth.

“We dance around it, because to implement a statewide non-filer outreach effort is very expensive and is a huge staff workload,” she said.

If the state sent, say, 10,000 letters, it might have to answer 10,000 of replies or 10,000 phone calls. It would be totally swamped trying to enforce its own regulations.


It sometimes costs a lot to control a little pollution. Some pollution-control technologies are simple and inexpensive. A business can avoid stormwater rules if it’s operating indoors, out of the rain. A roof counts, a tarp might also work.

On the expensive end of the spectrum are high-end water treatment devices that use the same technologies desalination plants use to make ocean water drinkable.

Some businesses also try to capture all the water that comes on their property and then they pay truckers to carry it away. Others create small ponds for stormwater to run into, then they let it evaporate.

Some of the biggest companies – shipbuilders, like General Dynamics, for instance – are praised by environmentalists for doing the most to control their pollution, in part because of previous efforts by environmentalists to clean up those industries.

It’s now the smaller businesses that have environmentalists’ attention. In the past few years, several environmental groups have begun filing dozens of lawsuits against smaller industrial sites that are not complying with stormwater rules.

There’s plenty of places to go after.

In San Diego, a few thousand light industrial facilities are escaping oversight by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, according the city’s own pollution control team.

In January 2016, the city produced a list of about 2,400 businesses that it believes should get a pollution control permit but had not. They included bakeries, breweries, furniture-makers, printers, machine shops, limousine services, storage facilities and scrapyards.

At the end of the year, only about 260 businesses in the city had gotten a permit. About another 110 businesses in the city have gotten a “no exposure certification,” which means they are technically covered by the permit but don’t release any pollution. It costs $200 a year to get this certification, which is essentially the cost of telling the government one of its regulations doesn’t apply to you.

Even though the city identified businesses it thinks are breaking the law, the city’s job stops there. It doesn’t make them get a permit. Instead, it just sends its list to the regional board.

“The city is very diligent in our inspection process in making sure that we refer these businesses to the regional board to make sure they follow through on this state requirement,” said Drew Kleis, the deputy director of the city’s Division of Stormwater.

The board has found the city’s lists to be a waste of time.

Cynthia Gorham, an environmental engineer at the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, said her team has visited businesses on the city’s lists and found they are “not conducting industrial activities that are actually subject” to the regulation.

In any case, neither the city nor the board will find much love as they go about doing their job, which is identifying small business owners that may suddenly be on the hook for mounds of paperwork and tens of thousands of dollars in new regulatory costs.

    This article relates to: Environmental Regulation, Must Reads, Science/Environment, State Government

    Written by Ry Rivard

    Ry Rivard is a reporter for Voice of San Diego. He writes about water and power. You can reach him at or 619.550.5665.

    Chris Brewster
    Chris Brewster subscribermember

    There seems to be a certain mindset that you should be able to run a business (or a home) in such a way that contaminants you create can run into (and pollute) public waterways (and the water table). A basic concept of the Clean Water Act appears to have been intended to refute that mindset. One can view the proscription of allowing your business to pollute as over-regulation. One can conversely view this proscription as a simple principle that your business model cannot include shortcuts that pollute the property of others. I subscribe to the latter.

    Jay Berman
    Jay Berman

    This is nothing more than a massive money grab as it is almost impossible to control the rain and what it picks up on the way to the creeks, rivers, bays and the ocean.  You can't filter trillions of gallons of water that fall in very short periods of time, besides that, it doesn't rain much here.  In the end, with all the regulations, permits, and such, contaminants will still reach the ocean.  Contaminants dilute in the ocean within a few days, you can't control the rain ...  

    Ted Smith
    Ted Smith subscriber

     Interesting  story  .   It is  certainly true that parking lots may have very small amounts of toxins swept away with the rain into the storm drains  but  compared to the water  and toxins that land on the street my guess is that it is a  small  percentage.  (  this  would not include the roof  water  which is easy and inexpensive to catch and filter.)  One  could  calculate the private parking land vs the city property and find this ratio. I  suspect the city may sometimes captures and filter the streets , but I am guessing they do not capture most of it, especially during heavy rain days when the storm drains  go straight to the bay.  It would be  interesting to know.  

    New building permits  have required this capture in recent years as you report.  It is  extremely expensive for individual properties to capture the parking lot water  requiring under pavement  holding tanks in most of  San diego's mesas where the soil  doesn't perk well or  where there is a necessary amount of open space to make filtering on the surface feasible.  

     I would really like to see a comparison of the cost to filter individually verses up grading the city storm water system itself to capture the run off more completely.

    I hope your dig into this in Part 2 and 3 

    Ry Rivard
    Ry Rivard

    @Ted Smith Thank you for this comment. You're right that parking lot pollution is relatively small, but it's still about 6% of the zinc and copper pollution in the heart of San Diego. The data is a bit old, but for the Chollas Creek watershed, here's the estimates of copper ( and zinc ( going into the water from various sources. There's also a later report that supplements that information with more about aerial deposits of copper ( and is part of the suite of similar studies from various jurisdictions that helped prompt a law to reduce copper in brake pads ( 

    I've talked to BIA a bit to get their thoughts on your last point and hope to get to that debate over who pays for what in the very near future. This series alludes to the construction permit but focuses mostly on the industrial permit.

    Ted Smith
    Ted Smith subscriber

    @Ry Rivard @Ted Smith  Thanks  Rye,   I didn't mention that after the private parking lot water is filtered, it then is discharged on the street or alley where it travels a block or more picking up the pollutants again.  All regulation has good purposes but  should be viewed with the understanding that the impacts can work contrary to other good intentions.   In this case density is often impacted  which one could argue, adds more cars trips ( and pollutants) to the total toxin quantities.  Open space requirements to provide the areas to filter water gracefully replace parking which reduces unit counts. And the cost of the filtering systems in a current project I am working on is about $2000 per unit which of course is one of the many costs of regulation that we all pay in higher rents. 

    Please don't misunderstand. The central thesis of the requirement, asking businesses who work with pollutants to clean up their act, is important.  But  sometimes, well many times, there is foolish over reach in regulations.