It’s Time to Reimagine the Safe Clean Water Program
To fully deliver on its promise of healthy waterways, thriving communities, and resilient water supplies, the Safe Clean Water Program has to change.
April 4, 2024
Bruce Reznik, LA Waterkeeper Executive Director
East LA Sustainable Median Project
“It is fair to consider the SCWP one of the LA region’s most important tools in combatting climate change. “
Let me start by saying that the passage of Measure ‘W’, the $280M per year stormwater funding measure better known as the Safe Clean Water Program (SCWP), is one of my proudest career achievements. At its inception in 2018, the SCWP was intended to be bold and visionary. Unlike typical funding measures, the SCWP pursues several goals simultaneously: from reducing water runoff pollution to providing new community recreational areas. As such, it is fair to consider the SCWP one of the LA region’s most important tools in combatting climate change.
A little over 6 years after voters approved Measure W, there is a lot to celebrate. As proud as everyone involved in the SCWP should be, however, the program is nevertheless falling drastically short of several of its community, climate resilience, and ecological restoration goals. Significant changes – perhaps a rethinking of the entire SCWP process – must be made.
To deliver on the program’s promise to improve our region’s water quality, increase our local water supply, and provide tangible, nature-based benefits to our communities, the SCWP must undergo a fundamental shift from its current reactive, grants-based model to a proactive, watershed planning-driven one.
A Great Egret Blue Heron along the Los Angeles River
“While large-scale improvements in water quality and pollution prevention are certainly important, the escalating threats posed by climate change demand a more transformative, holistic strategy.“
Multi-, not Single-Benefit
The current version of the SCWP Regional Program functions essentially as a grants program. Applicants submit proposals for stormwater infrastructure projects, which are then reviewed by one of nine watershed committees (WASCs). However, the current scoring rubric tends to favor projects focused on water quality compliance over other criteria like increasing water supply or providing community green spaces. Additionally, the complexity of the application presents challenges for smaller applicants, who may lack the resources needed to navigate the process effectively. As a result, even projects that ostensibly align with the program's multi-benefitting goals, as well as those spearheaded by smaller organizations, can struggle to get funding.
While large-scale improvements in water quality and pollution prevention are certainly important, the escalating threats posed by climate change demand a more transformative, holistic strategy.
By prioritizing multi-benefit projects rooted in nature-based solutions, we can enhance water quality while also offering valuable community benefits such as cleaner air, shade, and recreational spaces. These advantages go beyond what more narrowly focused single-benefit projects can achieve.
Particularly as the county plans to allocate billions to water infrastructure in the coming years, Los Angeles stands at a pivotal crossroads. The decisions we make now will determine whether we give ourselves a shot at true environmental justice and sustainability, or bury ourselves under even more concrete and asphalt. The Safe Clean Water Program holds the key to this change, but only if we commit to radically reshaping it into the visionary and transformative initiative it was meant to be.
The transformation I propose can be achieved by implementing four key steps:
Step 1: Establishing clear, measurable, and time-bound countywide targets for water quality, water supply, community greening, etc., to be attained through the SCWP.
Step 2: Breaking down these targets more granularly into watershed-specific goals.
Step 3: Engaging in robust community-driven watershed planning to identify specific priority projects/project types to achieve these targets.
Step 4: Developing a target-driven long-term investment strategy within each watershed to guide SCWP funding decisions.
East LA Sustainable Median Project
“The Safe Clean Water Program holds the key to this change, but only if we commit to radically reshaping it into the visionary and transformative initiative it was meant to be.“
Step 1: Setting Clear, Measurable Targets
It’s impossible to properly evaluate the SCWP without having targets to measure against. The Regional Oversight Committee (ROC) should spearhead the creation of clear, measurable, and time-bound countywide targets through the SCWP. Doing so would allow for more effective progress measurement and timely achievement of program objectives. Goals already in discussion by the ROC and Board of Supervisors (BOS) include adding 300,000 acre-feet per year of water capacity (tripling current capacity countywide) and replacing 12,000 acres of impermeable surfaces with new green space by 2045.
Step 2: Breaking Down Targets by Watershed
Of course, setting broad countywide targets is not enough. Once countywide targets are set, WASCs should spearhead thorough watershed planning efforts to determine more granular, watershed-specific targets aligned with the overarching countywide goals (e.g., remove x amount of concrete, fund x acres of green space, x acre-feet/year of water supply, etc.).
Rather than employing a uniform rubric for all projects across diverse watersheds, infrastructure investments should reflect the unique characteristics and community needs of each area. For instance, in the upper LA River watershed, it may make sense to prioritize large-scale watershed capture projects to recharge the San Fernando Valley Basin. In contrast, the lower LA River, known for its heavy industry, could set targets to prioritize projects that enhance community green spaces and improve water quality.
Step 3: Identifying Projects to Meet Targets
Once watershed-specific criteria and goals are established, WASCs can identify the most suitable projects or project types to meet the established targets within each watershed. This is where robust, community-driven watershed planning – led by each WASC in partnership with their watershed coordinators – is most critical. Identifying the best (and most community-supported) projects must rely on the expertise and engagement of local residents and other stakeholders. In fact, such engagement is already a core component of most well-constructed watershed planning efforts.
The good news is that WASCs and watershed coordinators would not be starting from scratch. To the extent possible, they can and should rely on existing studies and data (e.g., CalEnviroScreen, the County Park Needs Assessment) to help identify the specific characteristics and needs of each watershed. Additionally, extensive community surveys have already been conducted to gauge local needs and preferences. Leveraging these past engagement initiatives will prevent community fatigue, though further outreach can be conducted as necessary to validate or supplement previous efforts.
#4: Developing a Target-Driven Investment Strategy
Finally, after establishing countywide and watershed-specific targets and priorities, each WASC should craft a long-term Strategic Investment Plan, potentially spanning 20 years or more. To the extent specific projects are identified, each WASC can work with project proponents to earmark funding over coming funding cycles. Should there be a shortage of viable project proposals, WASCs can collaborate with key stakeholders, including cities, school districts, water agencies, NGOs/CBOs, and tribes, to develop projects pursuant to the established targets. The investment plan should also pinpoint funding gaps and devise strategies to leverage SCWP funding with other local, state, or federal programs, as well as explore options like debt financing, to expedite project development.
East LA Sustainable Median Project
“In other words, if we are going to ‘think big’ about re-envisioning the SCWP … now is the perfect time to do it.”
Why Now?
I want to take a moment to discuss why this is the perfect time to undertake such a rethink of the program.
First of all, there is a good chance there won't be a call for new projects this year to give the County Flood Control District (FCD) time to update the online application module. While this might seem like a setback initially, it also offers an opportunity to pause the scoring process and focus on strategic program reforms.
Furthermore, the reforms I’m proposing are in line with existing momentum and other efforts elsewhere within the program. The recent biennial report audit conducted by the ROC identified significant recommendations for program reform, including the aforementioned addition of 300,000 acre-feet per year of stormwater capture by 2045. These recommendations were echoed in a recent motion by BOS Chair Horvath and Supervisor Solis and then adopted by the BOS. The ROC will further be launching an effort in May to work with the FCD and other key stakeholders to adopt metrics for aspects of the SCWP.
In other words, if we are going to “think big” about re-envisioning the SCWP to ensure investments are as responsive and effective as possible, now is the perfect time to do it. Robust watershed planning informed by meaningful community engagement can largely build off work already done, though WASCs and Watershed Coordinators are situated perfectly to do additional engagement as needed. Data compiled through the FCD’s Metrics and Monitoring Study can also help ensure we are making the smartest possible investments.
The Los Angeles River
Towards a Truly Resilient, Healthy, and Equitable LA
As mentioned above, there is already widespread agreement that something needs to change with the SCWP, but not a lot of clarity of what that change should be. Less drastic options certainly exist. We could retain the current scoring process but implement distinct criteria for each watershed, for example. Alternatively, we could issue more focused "calls for projects" guided by WASC feedback.
But I don’t believe these types of measures will address some of the program’s more fundamental issues. The intricate and costly application process will still hinder many applicants. And even updated watershed scoring criteria might not accommodate diverse watershed priorities and could remain challenging to navigate, especially as we more earnestly prioritize multi-benefit projects.
I am also not suggesting such a dramatic change to the SCWP will be easy (or even popular). Significant work will still be needed to develop some type of criteria that ensures WASC-chosen projects will, in fact, deliver the benefits promised.
But I have come to the conclusion that the only way we will truly maximize the investments made through the SCWP – placing the right projects in the right areas; leveling the playing field for various types of applicants; fostering a mix of larger and smaller-scale projects; and ensuring truly meaningful community engagement – is through a proactive investment approach that brings all stakeholders together to lay out that longer-term vision for the region.
Let’s make sure our next $1B investment moves us as far as possible towards a truly resilient, healthy, and equitable LA.
About The Author:
Bruce Reznik, Executive Director of LA Waterkeeper, has played a significant role in the development, passage, and implementation of the Safe Clean Water Program. As co-chair of the policy committee of the Our Water LA (OWLA) coalition, Reznik helped to convene experts, develop coalition positions on key aspects of the ballot measure, and negotiate with various stakeholders to shape Measure W. Following its placement on the ballot by the County Board of Supervisors, OWLA led the promotion of the measure publicly, with Reznik personally speaking at several community events discussing the ballot measures, and LA Waterkeeper contributing directly and assisting in fundraising efforts to pass ‘W’.
After the measure was overwhelmingly passed by nearly 70% of LA County voters in 2018, Reznik assumed the role of chair of the Scoring Committee, responsible for evaluating all applications submitted to the Regional Program. Additionally, he has served as a member of the Central Santa Monica Bay (CSMB) WASC since its formation, helping direct nearly $100M in stormwater investments to date.
LA Waterkeeper continues to play a leadership role in OWLA, advocating regularly for program improvements and participating in numerous studies of the program, including its own Changing the Course? report, which is possibly the most thorough assessment of the SCWP (rounds 1-3).
It’s safe to say few people have seen the SCWP as ‘up close’ and from as many perspectives as Bruce, who remains passionate about seeing the program be as effective as possible in cleaning our waterways, enhancing our water supplies and greening our communities.