Dear Ms. Ray
I recently received a copy of your letter (dated Sept. 11, 2000) to my client, the City Council of the City of Malibu, relating to the above-referenced permit. Frankly, given the fact that you are well aware that this office serves as special counsel to the city vis-a-vis such permit, I was rather disappointed that you did not send me a courtesy copy. But be that as it may, let me at least respond to three (3) of the points raised by your correspondence.
First, I must respectfully disagree with your contention that “Pepperdine University does not participate in the ‘illegal dumping of wastewater.’ ” There is indeed a strong evidentiary basis for drawing an opposite conclusion, at least with respect to 395 days during the water years 1994/1995 through 1998/1999 (and no doubt last year as well). As you know, the current NPDES Permit (Order No. 94-027) provides that emergency discharges may only occur when the holding capacity of the university’s two (2) storage reservoirs has been exceeded. As I pointed out in my correspondence of Aug. 21, 2000 to Winnie D. Jesena, the Chief of the Los Angeles Coastal Watershed Unit of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (a courtesy copy of which was also sent to you), it is submitted that such storage capacity was never exceeded during the foregoing water years, because the true lake storage capacity was, and still is, 12.4 million gallons, a figure determined more than 15 years ago by Pepperdine’s own consulting engineers, based upon an “as built” evaluation of the lakes. Since neither lake was ever filled to its maximum “wet weather” holding capacity, each day of discharge may very well construed as “illegal,” because it was violative of the parameters of the emergency discharge permit.
Your letter to the city is also disingenuous in another respect, i.e. implying that the current permit, and the findings underlying same, are simply a renewal of the entitlement that has been “in place for a number of years.” This fails to point out that the present order contains an express finding that the campus storage reservoirs provide a wet weather holding capacity of 12.4 million gallons. The university now claims that the maximum wet weather capacity is only 8 million gallons, and seeks to have the finding for the permit revised accordingly. This new posture stand in stark contrast to Pepperdine’s affirmative representations to the county and the RWQCB over the past 17 years that the holding capacity was the higher figure.
Last, but not least, let me indicate that the undersigned and other representatives of the city are certainly anxious to attend the “information session” that you were mentioning at the second to the last paragraph of your letter. Learning more about the storage reservoirs has been a high priority of this office since the beginning of this year, and we welcome the university’s willingness to now put the facts on the table.
Law Offices of G. Greg Aftergood