|
Call for greater accountability and major reform at the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services.
This agency is charged with protecting the public health of everyone in Los Angeles County.
The agency has failed to adequately protect the health of millions of swimmers. The health department
ignored over a year’s worth of beach monitoring data, failing to even notify the public of beach pollution at any of the 14 new beaches monitored under the Santa Monica Bay beach bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load requirements. The health department never informed beach cities of the extent of their water quality problems, never posted the beaches and never released media advisories warning the public of potential health risks. Also, the health department never completed source identification or sanitary survey efforts at any of these beaches. In fact, we are unaware if they completed sanitary surveys on any polluted beaches in Los Angeles county.
The health department also has a history of failing to proactively respond to raw sewage spills. The health department did not respond immediately to the massive Manhattan Beach spill by monitoring beach water quality; instead relying on the discharger (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts) to monitor the impacts of the spill. Manhattan Beach was opened prematurely, despite Heal the Bay’s request to refrain from reopening the beach until the sand was proven to be fecal bacteria or pathogen free. The sand proved to be extremely contaminated with fecal bacteria from the 2 million gallon raw sewage spill. Two months later, although they received late notice from the city of Los Angeles, the health department failed to close any Santa Monica Bay beaches although the city of Los Angeles spilled an estimated 20,000 gallons of raw sewage to Ballona Creek.
Finally, the health department’s record on monitoring and managing septic systems and on-site wastewater treatment systems continues to be inadequate. The health department does not require water quality performance standards for on-site systems, has no regular monitoring program, and has opposed State and Heal the Bay efforts to require tougher standards for systems directly adjacent or tributary to fecal bacteria and nutrient impaired waters. Regulatory compliance issues seem to focus almost exclusively on sewage daylighting issues. The health department does not even have maps of the locations and types of all on-site systems in the county.
All of these issues are critical to environmental public health. The public has the right to be informed in a timely manner on these issues, so they can make smart health risk management decisions. Heal the Bay requests that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors calls for a blue ribbon task force to provide recommendations for providing better public health protection to beachgoers from the Office of Environmental Health. Members of the task force should include beach cities, appropriate senior county staff, and members of the public.
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board should ensure compliance with the requirements of
the Santa Monica Bay Beach bacteria TMDL.
Every beach from Ventura County line south to Palos Verdes must meet state beach bacteria
health standards 100% of the time by July 15th, 2006. The 100% compliance requirement is for
the AB411 time period from April 1st to October 31st. That means that all beaches must be safe
for swimming on all days for the seven months from April to October. Based on this year’s Beach Report Card, it is clear that numerous beaches along Santa Monica Bay will not comply with the beach bacteria TMDL requirements for summer dry weather. Clearly, more needs to be done by appropriate public agencies to better protect the health of the more than 50 million visitors to Santa Monica Bay beaches. Heal the Bay urges the Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure compliance with the TMDL requirements as soon as possible after the July 15th deadline.
The City of Malibu should create a watershed management utility as soon as possible.
Currently, the entire city has a $16 million a year budget; a paltry amount for a city with such tremendous wealth and truly extraordinary coastal resources. A watershed management utility funded by Malibu residents would provide drinking water, prevent and reduce runoff pollution, and manage wastewater in the city. The utility would have the steady revenue necessary to manage these difficult water resource issues. The revenue could fund regular on-site wastewater treatment system inspections and monitoring, pay for a small wastewater reclamation and reuse system in the civic center and additional structural projects to reduce polluted runoff. Until Malibu generates an independent source of revenue to manage water supply and water quality issues, the city will continue to have chronic beach and creek water quality problems.
All Beaches should be monitored at Point Zero.
Los Angeles County is one of the first in the state to modify their monitoring program to collect samples directly in front of flowing storm drains and creeks. This change was as a result of the Santa Monica Bay beach bacteria TMDL. Children play directly in front of stormdrains and some kids even play in the runoff filled ponds and lagoons. Monitoring at “point zero” is the most protective way to ensure the health risks to swimmers are minimized.
Continue Advocating for Year-Round Postings at Beaches with Flowing Storm Drains.
In Southern California, there is little consistency among counties monitoring storm drain impacted beaches on where to collect a sample, when to post a warning sign, and where to post the warning sign. For example, counties will collect water samples from the wave wash (where the creek, river, or storm drain meet the ocean water) to as far as 83 yards from the drain, and anywhere in between. State regulations require posting a beach when a water sample exceeds the single sample standard. The State gives local health departments discretion to post a beach if the 30-day geometric mean standard is exceeded. Using both the single sample and 30-day geometric mean standards are far more protective of public health than using one standard. For example,
the counties of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles and the City of Long Beach will only
post a beach if there is a single sample exceedance; the County of Orange will post a beach on
either a single sample or 30-day geometric mean exceedance; and the County of San Diego will
initially only post a beach on a single sample exceedance but will continue that posting if subsequent
sampling causes an exceedance of either the single sample or 30-day geometric mean standard.
Where to post the warning sign is subject to the location of sample collection and
therefore highly variable.
Heal the Bay recommends permanently posting warning signs along the entire length of beach
adjacent to flowing storm drains where water quality may fail to meet the State health standards for
both the single sample and 30-day geometric mean. This recommendation is based on the results of
the Storm Drain Plume Dispersion study Heal the Bay completed with the Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project, and represents a change from the current posting protocol implemented
by health agencies. The study investigated how the dispersion of fecal bacteria discharged
from storm drains into Santa Monica Bay is affected by ocean and discharge conditions. The results
of this study demonstrate that the length of beach unsafe for swimming is beach-specific depending
on numerous factors including local beach topography, and can vary over the course of a few hours.
The study results also indicate that exceedances of the health standards can occur along the beach at
distances much greater than the distance covered by monitoring stations routinely sampled by local
health agencies. Based on these results, Heal the Bay believes the protocol typically used by County
health agencies for posting warning signs may not be adequately notifying swimmers of potential
health risks around freshwater outlets in Southern California.
We have the following three sequential recommendations to improve the current system of warning the beach-going public that water quality may exceed State health standards:
- The beach adjacent to a polluted storm drain or freshwater outlet should be posted with warning signs over the entire length of beach where water quality is affected by the plume of fecal bacteria discharging from the drain.
- Since the length of beach where water quality may be impacted by high fecal bacteria levels is beach-specific, we recommend this length be determined by completing multiple sampling events at multiple locations around the drain under varying oceanographic conditions.
- Routine monitoring should be conducted to make sure the length of beach impacted by the drain is posted with warning signs so that swimmers can identify which portion of the beach may not be safe for swimming. Under the current system, signs may be posted only directly in front of a drain, even though unsafe water quality conditions may persist 100 yards or more from the drain.
Advocate for increased funding for California’s shoreline monitoring program from EPA’s BEACH program.
State allotments are based on three criteria: the length of the beach season, the amount of beach miles, and estimated beachgoers. Although California received one of the largest grants for this program, the allotment criteria used by EPA has two shortcomings that have prevented California from receiving additional funds to cover the cost of monitoring. The first problem with the allotment methodology is the lack of criteria for strength of monitoring program or public notification. EPA does not provide an incentive or disincentive to move states beyond baseline water quality monitoring and public notification program. For example, states may monitor for only one fecal indicator or may choose to not notify the public about water quality exceedances in a timely manner, yet those states will continue to receive full funding compared to states, such as California, which monitor for three fecal criteria, and notify the public immediately of any water quality exceedances. The EPA needs to provide greater proportional funding to those states that implement the aforementioned model program in order to provide an incentive for improving public health protection. The second problem with the allotment methodology is that it is inherently subjective, and the EPA has no mechanism to confirm that its methodology is truly ensuring funds are going to the most appropriate states. Because these shortcomings have yet to be addressed by EPA, many of California’s coastal counties receive less money to implement water quality monitoring programs. This means that counties have to reduce the number of locations sampled or reduce the time-period of coverage.
Continue Advocating for the implementation of a Statewide Comprehensive Stormwater Monitoring Program (SB72).
SB72 (2001 Kuehl) (Cal. Water Code Section 13383.5) was sponsored by Heal the Bay. This law standardizes stormwater monitoring. A uniform and comprehensive monitoring program is critical to the success of the State’s stormwater programs. Currently, every county or municipality covered under the municipal stormwater permit requirements has different monitoring programs. This is the reason why a status and trends analysis of stormwater in the state cannot be completed. The data are not comparable from permittee program to permittee program, and often not even from year to year. SB72 also clarifies what information to consider when determining which constituents should be monitored in municipal runoff. This law set clear and specific minimum requirements for municipalities and industries for sampling:
- Standardized methods for collection of storm water samples;
- Standardized methods for analysis of storm water samples;
- Requirement that sample analysis be completed by a state certified laboratory;
- Standardized reporting format;
- Standard Quality Assurance and Quality Control programs;
- Minimum detection limits.
Cal. Water Code Section 13383.5 required that the above requirements be addressed by January, 2003, which was over three years ago. To date, a technical working group has only provided partial recommendations for the municipal stormwater program requirements of SB72, and the State has done nothing to set up a similar process for industrial stormwater. The SWRCB still has the opportunity to add SB72 standarization requirements in to the General Industrial Stormwater Permit, but the draft did not include meaningful requirements. Currently, the State has failed to comply with SB72 requirements.
The State Water Board must release final AB885 regulations.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is completing an Environmental Impact Report on the final draft AB885 regulations. The document should be completed and released this summer. The law required for the SWRCB to set final regulations for siting, monitoring and water treatment performance for California’s on-site water treatment systems (OWTS) by January of 2004. The regulatory process has been extremely controversial and incredibly slow. Lobbying efforts by county health departments and others led to a major weakening of the draft regulations. One of our greatest concerns is that the regulations do not require on-site system upgrades for all systems within 600 feet of fecal bacteria and nutrient impaired waters or tributaries upstream of the impaired waters. The draft regulations do not apply to tributaries that cause or contribute to fecal bacteria and/or nutrient impairment problems downstream. The draft regulations were also weakened in the area of monitoring and performance standards. Although these regulations would apply throughout the state, they will have special importance at California beaches and coastal watersheds that are impaired for fecal bacteria. Based on the SWRCB’s continual backsliding on the proposed regulations, Heal the Bay is extremely concerned that the last five years of negotiations and debate on AB885 regulations will not result in improved water quality and reduced public health risks.
Continue advocating for cleaning up California’s enclosed beaches.
On August 17th and 18th, 2005, over 100 water quality experts, beach managers, and regulators attended the Clean Beach Initiative (CBI) Enclosed Beach Symposium & Workshop, organized by Heal the Bay and UC Davis and funded by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) through their California Clean Beaches Initiative. Some of California’s most chronically polluted beaches are those located in enclosed bays. Ironically, enclosed beaches are also some of California’s most popular beaches because they offer warm, gentle waves and a plethora of amenities such as boating, playgrounds, and educational facilities. The workshop successfully brought together the State’s foremost water quality experts, enclosed beach managers and regulators to identify and evaluate the most promising solutions to the poor water quality problems at California’s enclosed beaches, with a focus on facilitating the funding of enclosed beach projects through the SWRCB’s CBI program.
Recommendations coming from the Clean Beach Initiative Enclosed Beach Symposium & Workshop:
- Improve the State’s funding process through the Clean Beach Initative so more Proposition 50 funding can be used for enclosed beach water quality improvement projects:
- Extend timelines to allow for adequate planning of complex projects
- Earmark a limited amount of funding for feasibility studies that are especially critical for enclosed beaches that require innovative projects because traditional mitigation approaches developed for open coastal beaches are not effective at these beaches
- Make allowances for adaptive management because innovative projects require flexible implementation
- Improve Communication between project proponents, the SWRCB and the Clean Beach Task Force (a technical advisory board) by creating a pre-proposal review, provide a mechanism for selected CBTF members (or other experts), to play an active liaison and advisory role on specific projects, increase communication methods such as starting, and increase communication opportunities through web pages, email list serves and periodic workshops and symposiums.
- Encourage applications for state funding from cities and counties that have responsibility for high priority beaches
- Promote scientific study in critical areas of uncertainty including the role of sediment and wrack on poor water quality, methods for improving water circulation at very shallow swimming depths, methods for measuring indicator bacteria rapidly, and improved protocols and methods for source identification.
Complete a Large Scale Epidemiology Study on swimmers in runoff contaminated waters using a wide variety of microbial indicators.
To date, there has still only been one large scale health effects study on swimmers near flowing stormdrains. Also, past health effects studies have largely focused on fecal bacteria indicators using slow, outdated methods rather than rapid methods and methods to detect human pathogens. A new study is needed that assesses the association between the densities of these new rapid indicators and viruses to the incidence of adverse health effects in swimmers.
Continue to encourage monitoring agencies to monitor water quality at popular beaches year-round (beyond the AB411 required dates of April-October).
Year-round monitoring provides winter beachgoers, oftentimes surfers who frequent the beach for winter swells, with important information about water quality. In California there is no set beach season. Surfers, swimmers, divers, wind-surfers, and kayakers use the water year-round, so all of these ocean enthusiasts have the right to know about water quality at their favorite beaches on a year-round basis.
Continue to advocate for the State to enforce Sanitary Survey Protocol requirements as established in AB538 and the California Ocean Plan.
In an effort to do more than just notify beachgoers of potential water quality problems at their favorite beaches per AB411, AB538 was passed to require sanitary surveys (source investigations) to be completed at those beaches where water quality problems persisted. The idea was to identify the sources causing beach water quality impairment, and implement necessary strategies to abate the pollution source. The requirement of a source investigation was not a new concept created by AB538 in 1999 — the Ocean Plan has required this procedure since 1988. Currently, the State does not enforce or require municipalities to implement these surveys when exceedances occur. The Ocean Plan states that “… if a shore station consistently exceeds a coliform objective or exceeds a geometric mean … the Regional Board shall require the appropriate agency to conduct a survey to determine if that agency’s discharge is the source of the contamination.” (State Water Resources Control Board Ocean Plan 1997)
AB538 states that source investigations shall be conducted “if bacteriological standards are exceeded in any three weeks of a four-week period, or, for areas where testing is done more than once a week, 75 percent of testing days that produce an exceedence of those standards.” Although there have been a number of source identification efforts for chronically polluted beaches throughout the state, many chronically polluted beaches have never been investigated. Examples of completed sanitary surveys are Mission Bay, Huntington Beach, Rincon, Campbell Cove, Baby Beach, Kiddie Beach, Malibu Lagoon, Santa Monica Canyon, Cabrillo Beach, Avalon, and a few other locations. However, source identification efforts are sorely needed at Santa Monica and Redondo Piers, Topanga Beach, Santa Ynez and Castlerock stormdrains, Escondido, Paradise Cove, Latigo and Solstice, Marie Canyon, Doheny, Pillar Point Harbor and Frenchman’s Creek in San Mateo County, Cowell Beach in Santa Cruz, and Baker Beach at Lobos Creek in the San Francisco area. Identifying sources of fecal bacteria pollution are critical before successful source abatement efforts can be undertaken.
|
