City officials last week urged the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board to reconsider new proposed standards on stormwater runoff they argue would be impossible for Malibu and other affected cities to meet.
The requirements, which were proposed in June 2012 and have not yet been approved, concern revisions to the L.A. County stormwater system permit, which covers Malibu and 83 other cities on or near the Santa Monica Bay. Originally granted in 2001, the permit is scheduled for reissue this year.
A contentious issue for Malibu is the bacteria counts allowed for the 109-square mile Malibu Creek watershed that must stay under certain limits for stormwater pollution called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL).
The regional water board wrote in last June’s resolution that its “goal in establishing the Malibu Bacteria TMDL was to reduce the risk of illness associated with swimming in waters contaminated with human sewage and other sources of bacteria,” citing studies that correlate bacteria levels in the water with adverse health effects like gastroenteritis.
Under the current permit, TMDLs for only two types of substances must be met. Under the new proposed permit, rules could add requirements for as many as 32 different types of substances, according to Heather Maloney, chair of the LA Permit Group, which would sharply increase the testing, treating, monitoring and reporting required of permitees.
Malibu Mayor Lou La Monte and City Manager Jim Thorsen both spoke before the board, arguing that Malibu had demonstrated good faith in addressing water quality issues, but that it was being held responsible for pollution that derived elsewhere in the Malibu Creek watershed.
La Monte expressed concern that the wording in the new permit leaves Malibu vulnerable to lawsuits.
“The language in the proposed regulations would still encourage third party lawsuits based on requirements that could be impossible for [Malibu] to meet,” said La Monte. “The permit must say that if a city is complying in good faith, implementing best management practices and identifying additional measures to resolve any issues, then the city is in compliance. Some [pollution is] out of the city’s control and doesn’t even come from stormwater. The city shouldn’t be vulnerable to lawsuits while it assesses a problem and identifies the solution.”
Thorsen said Malibu had demonstrated its commitment to clean water by spending $70 million on clean water projects and permit compliance over the past decade.
Thorsen asked the board to extend the time for permit review, set realistic time frames for meeting new permit requirements and identifying the costs of compliance.
Like La Monte, he also asked to change the permit language in order to limit Malibu’s exposure to future lawsuits, and recommended the permit recognize natural sources of pollution and exclude them from measurement.
Five Malibu residents, including Wendi Werner and Mary Stanley, also attended the Board meeting hoping to make public comments; but were told there wouldn’t be enough time available for them to speak.
Stanley said in a telephone interview that she’s come to believe that some nonprofit environmental organizations sue Malibu as part of a successful strategy to increase donations and get free publicity, making the city a target for these groups.
Therefore, if the regional water board sets water quality standards that no municipality could reasonably meet, the threat of lawsuits over noncompliance never goes away, Stanley argued.
The regional water board expects to adopt a revised tentative order sometime in November 2012 based on the input received from various municipalities.