Upland Update: Proposed Regional Stormwater Permit Could Cost Upland Nearly $390 Million

One of the most significant regulatory issues currently facing the City of Upland has received very little public attention, despite the potential to impact the City's finances for decades.

The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board is considering adoption of a new Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit that would substantially expand the stormwater management requirements for cities throughout portions of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The proposed permit would replace three existing permits with a single regional permit governing how local agencies manage stormwater, reduce pollution, inspect businesses, monitor waterways, construct new infrastructure, and demonstrate ongoing environmental compliance.

Although protecting water quality is an important responsibility shared by every community, complying with increasingly complex environmental regulations carries a significant financial cost.

Representing Upland Before the Water Board

On July 24, I testified before the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board on behalf of the City of Upland regarding the proposed permit.

During my testimony, I emphasized the importance of protecting our environment while also ensuring that state regulatory agencies fully consider the financial realities facing local governments. Cities like Upland are already working to address aging infrastructure, maintain public safety, repair roads, preserve parks, and balance limited budgets. Every new state or federal mandate requires local governments to devote additional staff time and financial resources that must come from somewhere.

The Board did not adopt the permit during the July hearing. Instead, members received testimony from cities, counties, environmental organizations, and other stakeholders. Staff may make additional revisions before the Board considers final adoption at its scheduled August 21 meeting.

What Does This Permit Actually Do?

While the permit is hundreds of pages long, its purpose is straightforward: require cities to do more to prevent pollutants from entering local waterways.

If adopted, the permit would require local governments to expand or continue numerous activities, including:

• Increased stormwater monitoring and water quality testing.

• More inspections of industrial, commercial, restaurant, and construction sites.

• Expanded pollution prevention programs.

• Additional trash capture requirements.

• More extensive public education and outreach.

• Enhanced employee training.

• New development and redevelopment stormwater requirements.

• Additional reporting, documentation, and program evaluations.

• Ongoing monitoring to demonstrate regulatory compliance.

Many of these programs already exist today. However, the proposed permit expands both the scope and complexity of these responsibilities, increasing the amount of work local governments must perform to remain in compliance.

Independent Economic Analysis Estimates Major Financial Impacts

To better understand the potential financial consequences, San Bernardino County retained Beacon Economics to independently evaluate the revised permit.

Their July 2026 update concluded that the revisions made by the Water Board did not materially reduce the permit's largest cost drivers. While some flexibility was added for roadway projects and certain administrative requirements, the report found that the overall fiscal impacts remain largely unchanged from the original proposal. The largest anticipated costs continue to stem from the permit's proposed numeric water quality limitations.

The report estimates that implementation of the proposed permit could cost participating San Bernardino County agencies between $10.69 billion and $10.88 billion over the next twenty years.

What Could This Mean for Upland?

Using the cost allocation methodology developed by the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, Beacon Economics estimates that Upland's share of those costs would total approximately $382.5 million to $389.4 million over a twenty-year period.

That estimate includes:

• Capital improvements: approximately $259 million to $264 million

• Annual operations and maintenance: approximately $6.2 million to $6.3 million every year

• Twenty-year operations and maintenance costs: approximately $123 million to $126 million

• Total estimated twenty-year cost: $382.5 million to $389.4 million

To put those figures into perspective, Beacon Economics compared estimated implementation costs against each participating city's General Fund budget.

For Upland, the report concluded:

• Total capital costs equal approximately 411% to 418% of the City's annual General Fund.

• One year of ongoing operating costs equals approximately 9.8% to 10.0% of the General Fund.

• Even if capital projects were spread over five years, the combined annual burden would still equal approximately 92% to 94% of Upland's annual General Fund budget.

While these figures are estimates—not guaranteed expenditures—they illustrate the scale of the financial obligations local governments could face if implementation ultimately requires the level of investment assumed in the analysis.

Potential Effects Beyond City Government

The report also notes that the proposed permit could affect private development.

One illustrative case study estimated that compliance with the proposed stormwater requirements could add approximately $764,000 to the cost of constructing a 29-home subdivision—about $26,300 per home—before considering future maintenance costs. The report emphasizes this is an example rather than a prediction for every project, but it demonstrates how additional regulatory requirements could increase the cost of future housing.

Why This Matters

Environmental protection and clean waterways are goals that everyone supports. The challenge is ensuring that new regulations are both effective and financially achievable.

Every additional dollar spent complying with state and federal mandates is a dollar that cannot be used for repairing streets, maintaining parks, replacing aging infrastructure, supporting public safety, improving recreational facilities, or addressing other local priorities.

Upland already faces significant long-term infrastructure needs and structural fiscal challenges. As your representative, I believe it is important that state agencies fully understand the cumulative financial impact these mandates can have on cities before imposing additional requirements.

I will continue working to ensure that Upland protects our environment while also advocating for practical, achievable regulations that recognize the financial realities facing local governments.

Disclaimer: The Upland Update is an independent community resource and is not affiliated with the City of Upland. This is my personal initiative to keep residents and businesses informed about key issues, city developments, and community events that impact our daily lives. My goal is to ensure you have clear, transparent, and timely information to stay engaged and involved in shaping Upland’s future.

James Breitling

(909) 342-2523

info@theuplandupdate.com

© 2025. All rights reserved.