Tapia claims local pollution caused by septic systems and storm drain runoff, while the Surfrider Foundation says the water treatment facility is the source of bacterial pollution that causes local beaches to close.
By Reeve T. Schley/Special to The Malibu Times
The annual Surfrider Foundation State of the Beach Report, released last week, showed no marked improvement in water quality for Malibu-typically with some of the most polluted beaches in Los Angeles Count-and erosion of Malibu beaches due to sea walls.
While cases of pinkeye, giardiasis, hepatitis, and ear and lung infections abound, officials continue to deflect responsibility for the high bacterial counts in the fetid waters.
According to the report, between January and April 2002 there were 102 postings on Los Angeles County beaches resulting in 1,043 days of beach closures. (Each day a beach is closed counts as one beach closure.) In 2001, there were 263 postings in Los Angeles County resulting in 1,200 days of closed beaches.
The unusually high counts of fecal coliform and bacteria are blamed on urban runoff, septic systems, and for Malibu, the Tapia Water Treatment Facility located at the head of Malibu Creek.
Of the three sources of pollution, Surfrider names Tapia as the biggest culprit.
“The point we are trying to make is that Tapia is the largest contributor. When we get to the issue of septics, it is a more dispersed issue,” said Jeff Duclos, co-chair of the Malibu chapter of Surfrider.
Duclos describes the Malibu Lagoon as a “toxic stew,” which eventually breaches into the surf zone, makes its way to the Malibu Pier, where it swirls and sits. Runoff from Tapia, Duclos says, is what causes the lagoon to breach.
Tapia officials, however, vehemently deny any allegation that the plant is responsible for polluting Surfrider Beach. They said the plant does not release any water into Malibu Creek between April 15 and Nov. 15, and the water that is released is tertiary treated, producing a high level of sewage sanitization.
“Since ’98 the effort has been to focus on keeping that water out of the creek. The only time water enters the creek is when there is rainfall,” said John Mundy, director of facilities and operations for the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District. “Since ’98 Tapia has had zero effect on the lagoon, the ocean or the creek.”
Mundy also said that Tapia has never been responsible for a breach of Malibu Lagoon.
Yet, Duclos said during heavy rains or “storm events,” Tapia is allowed to discharge water into the creek, which is a major contributor to the pollution in the lagoon.
In an article entitled “Dialing in on a Discharger” in the current edition of Surfrider’s magazine “Making Waves,” Duclos cites 28 illegal releases from the plant since ’98. These releases included raw sewage, treated or reclaimed water, and sludge.
One of the releases, he says, in October of 1998, was as big as 59.5 million gallons.
Of a possible $595 million that Tapia and the Water District could have been fined for the spill, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) levied a $117,000 fine. Tapia appealed the fine and eventually paid only $20,000.
“For some reason Tapia gets a free ride,” Duclos said. “The Regional Board rarely acts aggressively toward Tapia and fines them for violations. If they do, Tapia appeals the fine.”
Experts also question the quality of water that is released legally from the plant. Grant Neie, environmental analysis for Surfrider, points to a UCLA study of Malibu Creek in May of 2000, which found cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia (“Beaver Fever”), hepatitis B, and coxsackie in the water released from the plant-pathogens that cause diarrhea, heart infections and rashes.
Yet, what the study did not find in Tapia’s treated water, are fecal coliform and bacteria that cause local beaches to close. Instead, coliforms appeared much farther down the watershed, a fact that supports Tapia’s claim that “storm drains and other outlets,” such as septic systems, are the main cause of pollution in the lagoon and ocean.
Heal The Bay, which released their own report annual report on May 23, named storm drain runoff “as the largest source of pollution to local beaches.”
Between April and October of 2001, Surfrider Beach scored an A when the weather was dry and an F when the weather was wet, on the Bay’s annual report card. (Storm runoff is often contaminated with motor oil, animal waste, pesticides, yard waste and trash.)
In 2000, in a study it ordered the city to conduct, the RWQCB placed the blame of high fecal coliform and other bacteria squarely on Malibu’s septic tanks.
The regional board estimates there are 10,000 people who rely on about 6,000 septic tanks in Malibu. Many of which are old and built too close to the streambed and ocean. Other tanks, especially in the low-lying commercial district and Malibu Colony, are located too close to the water table, which flows into the lagoon. And, tanks sometimes flood out during storms, dumping their contents straight into the ocean.
Besides concerns about water quality, the Surfrider report showed a continued erosion of Malibu beaches. It named the proliferation of jetties and sea walls, some of which protect septic tanks, as the major cause. Nearly 45 percent of Malibu beaches are armored or protected from the ocean by rock, concrete, timber or steel walls.
“Seawalls and similar structures displace sand beaches, cause erosion by disrupting the natural flow of sand,” said Chad Nelson, environmental director of Surfrider and the author of the report. “Unless something is done, California’s golden sandy beaches will eventually be eroded down to nothing.”
But the amount to which beach erosion can be blamed on seawalls is also highly debated.
David Weiss, structural engineer and builder of seawalls, said there is no evidence that seawalls cause beach erosion and the majority of the walls are too far away from the surf to have any effect.
“Right now there are eroding beaches, stable beaches and beaches actually getting wider,” Weiss said. ‘None of this is happening because of seawalls. These are forces beyond the scope of seawalls.”