Sewer on PCH: Updates and crucial next steps
By By Danny Smith, Malibu Rebuild Task Force · Sun Jul 19 2026
One of the key drivers of recovery for beachfront homes affected by the Palisades Fire is the potential new PCH wastewater line. Such a line will reduce rebuild costs for beachfront owners, many of whom had septic systems irreparably damaged by the fire. Yet more homeowners ripped out functioning septic systems based on early, bad guidance from the city. As a result, out of 300-some lost homes on the beach, hundreds could be in need of a new sanitary system. In the absence of a sewer line, they will be required to install advanced septic tanks and construct new seawalls at extraordinary individual cost (with correlated damage to public beaches). At this juncture, crucial work needs to be done by the city working in concert with the regional water board, which I will address here. But first, a few updates, details and timelines.
Recently the Public Works Department has shared updated information on the sewer project. Preliminary design work has been completed, and an assessment engineer has been contracted to design the assessment district, which will finance the project alongside potential funding assistance from the county and/or other grants. The proposed line will be limited to the beachfront Palisades burn scar, starting at Carbon Beach Terrace at the west and making its final connection to the LA sanitary line at Coastline Drive.
The city has estimated an average assessment amount of $300,000. Assessments for such a project are typically based on 1) a property’s contributions to wastewater flow, and 2) the benefits a property derives from the improvements. If the assessment district follows the structure of the Civic Center Phase 2 district, wastewater contributions will be determined by bedroom count (e.g., a four-bedroom house will face a higher assessment amount than a three-bedroom house). This sum of $300,000 will be weighed against the cost of new advanced septic and seawall construction, for which the city has provided us a range of costs from $625,000 to $1.525 million depending on parcel size and other factors. Early data points we’ve seen support the higher end of that range.
Frequently an assessment district will allow for a one-time payment amount within 30 days of district formation that is lower than the total assessed amount, as no financing fees are included. Absent a one-time payment, the total assessment amount is paid in annual installments over a period of 30 years and collected on the property tax bill. This should be considered an additional factor in favor of a sewer assessment. Not only does septic/seawall construction cost substantially more, these amounts must be paid upfront (during construction) while a sewer assessment is likely to be payable over time (a $300,000 average assessment would come out to a $10,000 annual payment over a 30-year timeframe).
The ultimate viability of this project comes down to a majority of affected homeowners approving the formation of an assessment district. When the assessment ballots are eventually mailed out to property owners (fall 2026 at the earliest), the YES/NO vote will be based not only on the financial considerations outlined above, but also other, practical matters. Chief among them being how to live in a house that is constructed prior to a sewer line materializing. The city has presented a sewer construction timeline of 2027-2030. Our first beachfront rebuilds will be completed in 2027, with another batch likely in 2028. This subset of homeowners will face a 2-3 year gap before a potential sewer hookup is available and will need an interim or bridge solution in order to occupy their homes.
This is where the regional water board enters the picture. As of this writing, the water board will not entertain discussions of interim septic solutions until they see a “commitment” from Malibu on moving forward with a sewer. Not only has that been the party line for over a year now despite ongoing momentum, that “commitment” was recently redefined as a “financial commitment.” In other words, a successful assessment district vote. Thus, in their infinite wisdom, the water board has created a Catch-22. They expect homeowners to vote yes on an assessment, while by their own actions they have created the conditions for a no vote to prevail. Who could possibly vote yes without having any clarity on what their day-to-day lives will look like in the intervening years before a sewer line is ready? The water board’s dream of removing septic systems from a large portion of the beachfront is on the verge of reality, yet their own recalcitrance risks it all.
With this in mind, the water board must come to the bargaining table immediately to provide framework conditionalapproval for interim septic systems. Frankly, this should have happened months ago, and we now find ourselves behind the eight ball. Each newly issued permit with accompanying advance onsite wastewater treatment system (AOWTS) and seawall likely solidifies a new NO vote. Some could still vote yes, considering the quality-of-life benefits and property value increases that a sewer line would inevitably bring. However, most won’t be keen to spend another $300,000 after already spending $1.5 million to install their own, private AOWTS systems.
To be clear, none of the interim solutions heretofore bandied about are ideal. These include sealed tanks within garages or other above-grade areas on a parcel (such tanks would require frequent pumping) or systems shared between multiple neighbors as proposed by community members like Rob McLeod. In my estimation, there is an additional, silver-bullet solution that should be on the table: Return the systems to the state they were in on Jan. 6, 2025. No upgrades. No new seawalls. In-kind replacements conditionally approved for a period of five years or the point of first sewer connection availability, whichever comes first.
This will require an agreement in principle between the city and the water board, followed by a new MOU or an addendum to the LAMP agreement specifying carveouts for something like a Palisades Fire PCH overlay district. Permit the one-time, in-kind replacement of septic systems, exclude such replacements from additional shoreline protection requirements, and wait for the new sewer line’s arrival. The gears of government are lumbering, and perhaps the salt air of Malibu adds an additional layer of rust, but common ground and common sense can still win the day.
Using in-kind systems as a temporary solution is fair, it is environmentally sound, and it will effectuate the water board’s ultimate goals. “In-kind” suggests equal efficiency, but in actuality, brand-new tanks and dispersal systems would be assuredly more effective than the decades-old systems they would be replacing. Unless one wants to make the argument that the systems in place on Jan. 6, 2025, were posing an imminent danger to the public — which surely they weren’t as, absent the Palisades Fire, the water board had sanctioned their continued use — then there is no reason they cannot be utilized again. If the water board is serious about its goals of improving water quality for the public, then they will do everything in their power to encourage and support the implementation of a sewer system — including approving in-kind tank replacements as a bridge solution to secure a YES assessment vote.
I have been at odds with the water board in the past, and I certainly will continue that opposition at each and every future moment when they overstep, but at the present and on this issue, all goals are aligned. Let us hope now the city and the water board work together with due haste to see those goals materialize for the better of the public, for the better of affected homeowners, and for the better of Malibu.