The task of making sure clean water flows into California's storm drains has never come easy, or cheap.

While county and city officials acknowledge the need to try to control the runoff that eventually winds up in our local waterways and beaches, they don't want to pay through the nose to do it.

Last month, the fight to strike a balance between environmental and fiscal responsibility came to a head during a meeting of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board in which the discussion was aimed at updating the permit regulating stormwater runoff in Ventura County.

After hearing 11 hours of testimony from city and county representatives, the board voted 5-1 to approve an agreement brokered by co-permittees—the county and all 10 cities—and the environmental advocates.

And while the finalized permit is far less stringent than the one the board originally proposed in 2006, the requirements still place a financial burden on cities already struggling to keep their budgets in check.

"We got an effective and workable permit that is still quite expensive," said Jeff Pratt, Ventura County director of public works. "We're looking at a permit that is way up in the multimillion dollars countywide."

The permit, which must be renewed every five years, deals with the discharge of water from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, or MS4, within the county's Watershed Protection District. MS4 includes runoff from agricultural land, commercial and residential developments, and other sources that flow into the arroyo and, eventually, to the ocean.

For Simi alone, the cost of compliance with the new permit is $2.6 million.

City Manager Mike Sedell attended the May 7 MS4 hearing and said Simi Valley's top priority was protecting taxpayers from "runaway costs," but also balancing environmental concerns.

When the water board proposed a draft permit in 2006 that would have made Ventura County's regulations the most rigorous in the nation, Sedell and other city managers in the county banded together to fight back.

The cost of compliance under that draft permit would have been almost $600 per household per year, Sedell said. With about 40,000 households in Simi, the permit would have cost the city $24 million.

"That's something this city can't afford," he said. "The cities were extremely concerned. City managers began looking at alternatives for a permit with requirements that would not be as onerous to cities but also satisfy environmental groups."

In 2007, Pratt, Sedell and two other city managers reached out to a pair of environmental groups that had stakes in the outcome of the permit: the Natural Resources Defense Council and Heal the Bay.

The parties held a series of meetings over the next yearanda-half and ironed out an agreement that was submitted to the board.

"We found some common ground that we felt wasn't an ideal permit . . . but it was kind of a give on both sides, something we could live with," Sedell said. "It still provides a great deal of what the environmental community originally envisioned."

In February, at about the same time the agreement was reached, the water board issued its final draft permit in advance of the May hearing. But after communicating with the involved parties, the board decided to support the negotiated agreement and incorporate its language into the draft permit.

The Building Industry Association, which was not asked to take part in the private negotiations, was unhappy with the final permit because it requires developers to capture and retain nearly all of the stormwater on their property. Both new and redevelopment projects are regulated.

Developers criticized the cost, because in order to prevent runoff they're required to build more costly permeable surfaces and water retention systems, Sedell said.

Because of its longstanding relationship with the development community, the city tried to consider developer concerns during the negotiations. But Sedell admitted the city managers' first priority was protecting taxpayers.

As approved, the permit reduced the cost of compliance from the initial $600 per household per year to $65.

Though the cities and county were able to reduce the cost of compliance, the new permit will still have a dramatic fiscal impact, as the $65 cost per household nearly doubles the current cost.

"Government doesn't have extra money," Pratt said. "It's one more major demand on limited budget resources."