Regulations may be coming for storm water discharges from all construction and industrial sites in the state.
A panel convened by the State Water Resources Control Board recently concluded in a report that limits for the amount of pollutants that can be discharged into runoff can be established for both construction and industrial sites throughout the entire state.
It’s the first step in what could be a years-long process of setting limits on pollution discharges into rivers, streams and bays statewide.
The issue is “definitely a big priority here,” said Steven Cox, director of risk management at the Newport Beach office of St. Louis-based McCarthy Building Cos., one of Orange County’s largest construction companies.
“In Orange County and San Diego, everything is paved now and there’s not a whole lot of land to build on, which makes more opportunities to pollute through runoff,” he said.
Cox, whose company uses a local engineering consultant to help navigate through the maze of regulations governing the amount of pollutants that can be discharged on local projects, said McCarthy ensures “rain goes in the drain” on construction sites.
When the water board finally crafts its final regulations, Cox said he’d be surprised if the fines weren’t hefty.
This is how regulators get everyone’s attention, he said.
Awareness about pollutants’ impact on the environment is gaining momentum and is driving up construction costs, Cox said.
McCarthy’s recent projects include the $129 million Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian’s Women’s Pavilion in Newport Beach and the $132 million St. Joseph Health System’s medical center in Orange.
The company grabbed a high-profile office project, the 20-40 Pacifica office towers being built for The Irvine Company in the Irvine Spectrum.
Numeric limits for discharges of some chemicals and trash already are in force for the Los Angeles River watershed and have been proposed for the San Gabriel River watershed.
Any state regulations would apply to discharges into all bodies of water from commercial and industrial sites, including the ocean.
The agency can be reached at www.waterboards.ca.gov.
Should Rebates Be Taxed?
In order to drum up consumer interest in their products, manufacturers often run special rebate promotions through retailers that sell their products.
They require the retailer to reduce the sale price of the product, and then rebate the retailer directly.
But, there’s a catch: In California, the store owner is taxed on both the discounted price and on the rebate received from the manufacturer.
That’s not to the liking of retailers, especially when they are required by contract with the manufacturer to reduce their selling price as part of a manufacturer’s promotion. It can complicate accounting and cash flow for the retailer.
Several years back, retail trade groups petitioned the state Board of Equalization to re-examine its rules regarding these manufacturer or “third-party” rebates. The board is now doing just that, putting forward four alternative proposals.
The key issue appears to center on whether the end customer is informed about the details of the rebate.
If the customer knows how much the store is receiving in a manufacturer’s rebate, then two of the proposals call for the entire amount to be taxed.
Otherwise, only the reduced sale price charged by the retailer is subject to sales tax, not the rebate from the manufacturer, since the customer only knows the final retail price that he or she is paying.
The other two proposals would keep the current law under which both the discounted retail sales price and the manufacturer’s rebate are subject to sales tax. Retailer groups and the California Taxpayers Association both oppose this concept.
The taxpayer’s advocacy group said in testimony that it’s not fair to pass on sales taxes to the consumer for a rebate they may know nothing about.
The Board of Equalization held an “interested parties” discussion on the issue a few weeks back and is set to issue a proposed ruling in November.
No More ‘Perc’
The state Air Resources Board this month scrapped a proposed rule to reduce the use of perchloroethylene, or “perc,” by dry cleaners and is instead pursuing an all-out ban on the cancer-causing chemical.
The decision to scrap the reduction proposal came after the board heard from environmental advocates and other air quality regulators that a ban was feasible.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District, which covers OC, already had enacted a ban on perc and state Air Resources Board members felt that would be a more appropriate course to pursue, a board spokesman said last week.
As a result, the initial hearing on the rule, originally set for July, has been pushed back indefinitely as staff works to develop a new rule.
Howard Fine is a staff writer with the Los Angeles Business Journal.
