Public Forum

0
215

NIMYBY-ism in Malibu?

Public activism is the energy that can drive and sustain any political issue, cause or commitment. If elected officials learn nothing else in public life, they become flawlessly versed in this reality. I ought to know. During my tenure as a member of the Long Beach City Council, I met literally thousands of people in public meetings and private gatherings and their passion about even arcane details always amazed and impressed me. It should make all politicians stop, think and consider the almost innumerable ramifications of the actions they take. Like most things having to do with politics, however, even this healthy activism has a darker side-the tendency of some political activists to engage in shrill, hypocritical and, it needs to be said, dishonest behavior to achieve a political end. Case in point: The small seaside city of Malibu known for its stunning coastline and bountiful beaches has been found to be a significant polluter of the Pacific Ocean, not to mention the dry land of the city itself.

No one questions that Malibu is quite the scenic seaside place, but it has also a curiously provincial attitude about its own need to be green. A recent Los Angeles Times article raised quite a stink about this new finding, which, for anyone who spends quality time in Malibu, is a rather old story. The fact is, Malibu has been, in practice, one of the least environmentally friendly regions in Southern California. Waiting for the punch line? The joke practically writes itself. What causes this? Malibu’s homes may look pretty sensational on the outside but, like any residence, each needs a place to store and dispose of its waste. And Malibu, home to the most chic, modern and trendy of seemingly everything, is using the good old reliable and antiquated septic tank.

The article also stated that in Malibu, talk of septic tanks, leach pits and the ubiquitous foul stench known as the Malibu smell is hardly new. After rainstorms, officials often must post signs on Malibu beaches urging swimmers and surfers to steer clear because of health dangers. Local officials also are beginning to realize that the septic tanks are depositing pollutants into the oak-shaded creeks that tumble down to Santa Monica Bay, tainting Surfrider Beach and other famous beaches.

The results of all this are predictably growing stronger by the year. Knowing this, it should seem somewhat surprising that Malibu would become ground zero for the latest environmental cause celebre, that is, total opposition to a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility 17 miles off of the coast of Oxnard. Rather than ranting about a safer and more environmentally sensible offshore solution to our State’s energy problems, perhaps Malibu should concentrate on cleaning up its own act first?

The question at hand should be this: Shall a LNG floating storage and re-gasification unit (FSRU) be located in Federal waters offshore of Malibu? Instead, the question from Malibu activists sounds more like: Are you for the end of the world? Or are you against it? The LNG would be delivered by tanker off shore to the FSRU, re-gasified, and delivered onshore via two new 21-mile long, 24-inch diameter natural gas pipelines laid on the ocean floor. The pipelines would come onshore at Ormond Beach near Oxnard, Ventura County, and would ultimately be connected with existing Southern California intrastate pipelines.

As many Long Beach residents recall, I strongly opposed the installation of a LNG facility at the Port of Long Beach. I simply believed that the facility and the Port just would not make a good marriage. The Port is too busy and too important to be slowed down by the numerous security needs of an LNG facility, not to mention the enormous danger posed to downtown residents and businesses.

In opposing the idea, I did not ignore the stark reality that California’s system of energy generation, transmission and delivery is imperfect. With more than half the state’s electricity derived from clean-burning natural gas, and supplies at best inconsistent and increasingly expensive, the case for integrating LNG into the energy equation cannot be dismissed.

Malibu activists, however, do not agree, dismissing the issue out of hand. And for reasons that smack of classic NIMBY-ism (Not in My Back Yard) they volunteer Long Beach as an alternative site for any possible LNG terminal. This is a convenient hypocrisy. If the idea is so hazardous to Malibu’s health and security, why is it okay for Long Beach? No matter our differences, nothing is accomplished when two sides of an important issue cannot communicate beyond shallow name-calling and selfish provincialism.

For a region that makes no shortage of high-pitched pronouncements on how everyone else should live a more environmentally conscious lifestyle, it should come as a fairly humbling blow to be exposed as a persistent polluter. And yet, Malibu’s public leaders and celebrity residents show no signs of slowing down the pace of scolding the rest of Southern California.

Frank Colonna

Former member, Long Beach City Council