The safety of septic systems on which Malibu relies will be put to the test by a new plan recently approved by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project.
The work plan, prepared for the city by Stone Environmental, Inc., will assess risks associated with septic systems and on-site wastewater treatment plants in the coastal zone.
The city is strongly committed to on-site treatment over the huge, centrally located sewage facilities, such as Hyperion, favored by Los Angeles County officials. Some say Malibu incorporated primarily to thwart impending county installation of sewers, which residents feared would have opened the way for more intense development.
Previous city councils have opposed various proposed studies that would have pinpointed failing systems, fearing that some property owners might be unfairly targeted and could be held liable for damages from pollution.
While some residents have feared mandatory testing, others have already installed newly designed secondary treatment systems willingly, because they say they are concerned about the environment. Although more expensive initially than the old systems approved by the county, these on-site treatment plants may prove to be cost effective in the long run by eliminating frequent pumping and relocation of leach fields.
The risk assessment, which includes one year of water quality sampling in the Civic Center and areas adjacent to lower Malibu Creek and Lagoon, is expected to begin next month and be completed by April 2003.
“We’re trying to reach out to the community and get their cooperation to obtain information regarding general and specific wastewater discharge requirements,” said Vic Peterson, Malibu Environmental and Building Safety official and the project’s director.
“Placing of the monitoring wells will be directed by the contract professionals, city geologists and Stone’s field experts,” Peterson said. “We have to seek permission to place equipment on private property.”
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) contends it has a right to order property owners to provide this information, Peterson said. “We want to make the cure fits the disease. We’re not designing a one-size-fits-all cure for a disease that maybe doesn’t exist. If there’s a risk, we want to fix it. But we don’t want people to spend a lot of money fixing something that may not be broken. Once trouble spots are identified, we would notify the property owners and work with them on remedies.”
What has not yet been established is whether property owners are solely responsible for the cost of upgrading failing systems, or if the cost may be billed to tenants. And there has not been any mention of whether there will be financial assistance in upgrading or replacing systems.
Work will not begin until all agreements are signed by participating agencies and the city has grant funding approval.
“The City Council will have to approve a resolution to accept funding,” Peterson said. “Some of the costs of the work plan preparation were reimbursed through the department’s operating budget. The city must make a matching contribution of the entire grant fund [about $96,000] toward implementation. This money has already been budgeted.”
Hydraulic studies on groundwater in the Civic Center area were already done in conjunction with monitoring storm drains that empty into the creek and lagoon. City Engineer Rick Morgan directed that project, which resulted in ozonation treatment of runoff from storm drains.
“This was an entirely different study,” Peterson said. “However, some of the goals are the same.”
Quarterly reports – summaries of all data collected, maps and illustrations of water table configurations, solute concentrations and loading rates for surface water bodies – are to be submitted to Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project. The organization, housed in the same downtown building as the RWQCB, has state employees and some federal and state funding, but is not involved with enforcement.
“We work with all the entities in the watershed that may have an impact on the bay,” said Steve Groner, the organization’s director. “These stakeholders are the cities, the polluters, the water and sanitation districts, and environmental organizations like Heal the Bay, BayKeeper and Surfrider.” The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation is it nonprofit fundraising arm.
The majority of ocean pollution in Santa Monica Bay has been blamed on urban runoff through the county’s storm drains: motor oil, fertilizer, pesticides, paint and animal feces all contribute to the toxic soup that causes frequent beach closures during the rainy season. It is not clear whether this new study will address the issue of breaching the sand berm to lower the water table and relieve pressure on septic systems at the edge of the lagoon. The Tapia Water Reclamation Facility, upstream in Malibu Canyon, is restricted to releasing unsold treated effluent into Malibu Creek when the sand berm is naturally breached during the winter months. (Treated effluent is usually sold for irrigation purposes).
Two informational workshops are planned, the first for September. Robert Rubin, of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Elizabeth James, of EPA Region 9 have been invited to participate.