Bad things can happen when the limitations of water quality testing are not understood, and instead are oversimplified and incorporated as dogma, and even worse, into law. One current example explored now is a $100 million plus lawsuit against the City of Malibu by Baykeeper and NRDC. They are suing for an alleged lack of treatment to remove pollutants from rain water and runoff draining into the ocean from Malibu Creek and also from the ASBS (Areas of Special Biological Significance) from Latigo to Trancas beaches.
So far, decision makers behind the lawsuit appear to be taking extreme positions, perhaps part negotiation and publicity seeking techniques. Unless this changes, it is unlikely that good science-based public policies and expenditures will result.
Scientific studies on a site-specific basis are supposed to underpin State and Regional Water Quality Boards determinations. Malibu’s creeks and shoreline waters are supposed to be designated either healthy or impaired by real not hypothetical risks and conditions.
An easy case for impairments to biological water quality is Malibu Lagoon where die-off of invertebrates and fish occurs with low oxygen levels and toxic pH changes, etc. Studies in the Lagoon show a complex web of excess nutrients, water stagnation, and secondary algae overgrowth and death. Remedies are proposed by the State Park Service and others. The City of Malibu has developed Legacy Park among other things to help remove nutrients, sediment, and bacteria. But those efforts alone will likely be ineffective given the fact that runoff from the 112 square mile watershed will continue to bring down nutrients. It has already been shown that the fine sediments in the lagoon capture and store bacteria and nutrients. The lawsuit does not really deal with this complexity of man-made and natural nutrient inputs from birds and lagoon sediments.
As to public health risks, FIB (Fecal Indicator Bacteria) have been misused to set goals and regulations and now have become the basis for lawsuits. Current source studies of high FIB counts in Malibu lagoon and beaches have shown that the bacteria is not from human septic systems, but rather are likely from other sources such as birds, animals and soils. Even kelp and natural sand bacteria have been shown to yield high FIB counts in ocean water.
What about chemical and related water quality conditions from Latigo to Trancas beaches? To my knowledge, there have been no epidemic deaths of mammals, birds and invertebrates attributed to man-made pollutants. There have been a few reports of die-offs from the red tide or marine viruses or other widespread natural causes.
Regardless, the City of Malibu, Caltrans and LA County have begun runoff water prevention and treatment for Pacific Coast Highway, our local roads and communities. Potentially harmful pollutants named in the lawsuit include cadmium, copper, zinc and aluminum; these can come from natural sources and manmade sources such as car and truck exhaust, car brakes, automotive fluid leaks, algaecides, pesticides and erosion from metal hardware. But again the detection methods used so far are for screening purposes do not yield cause and effect relationships.
The requisite science-based studies have not been conducted to actually demonstrate adverse impacts from these purported chemicals in Malibu. The costs to the City of Malibu and others of helping to develop source and disease or impact specific tests for water run-off bacteria and chemicals are worthwhile. Otherwise, the City of Malibu, like others, can be placed in the untenable position of spending millions of dollars eradicating relatively harmless natural source bacteria, minerals, and even “excessive” dissolved oxygen and organic solids from leaves. This is not an effective use of the citizen tax dollars.
Overly simplistic regulations without site specific source detection lead to lawsuits. Millions of dollars have been wasted here on attorneys’ fees, staff costs and even a $5 million grant for Legacy Park was lost due to a previous dismissed lawsuit. These monies could have been used to implement more accurate monitoring, source identification and water quality improvements. A settlement, or even better yet, withdrawal of the lawsuit is overdue. We need to move out of the courtroom and into science-based solutions that can lead to effective use of funding.
By Jeff Harris, MD, MPH