Who Should Clean Up Malibu Lagoon? That’s the Question

When Malibu Lagoon was restored in 1983, environmentalists breathed sighs of relief that one of the most important ecological refuges in Southern California had been brought back to life.

But since then, a series of pollution problems have plagued the sand bar-enclosed lagoon, including the appearance in recent weeks of a mysterious dirty brown foam, the exact cause of which is not known, and persistent problems with high levels of bacteria in the placid waters.

Now, residents, surfers and swimmers, whose complaints about pollution led to the lagoon’s closure to swimmers in 1985, have begun to ask who is in charge of cleaning up the state park and wildlife refuge.

“Nobody’s really doing anything about that lagoon,” said Tom Pratte, executive vice president of the Surfrider Foundation, which represents Southern California surfers.

“Whenever we’ve had a problem out there, the agencies who are supposed to be in charge just pass the buck from one to another, and the buck never stops. I’d like to know who’s in charge.”

The answer, according to state and local agencies that have various roles in monitoring the lagoon, is apparently nobody.

‘Not a Simple Answer’

“Who is in charge of cleaning it up is not a simple answer,” said Nelson Wong, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control District.

“We control the permits that restrict and monitor waste water at the source--like the Tapia sewage treatment plant just up the creek from the lagoon,” Wong said.

“But the water Tapia is discharging into the lagoon is pretty clean--it gets state-of-the-art treatment.”

“It’s not clear who’s in charge of cleaning it up,” agreed Paul Rose of the National Park Service, who has tested pollution levels in the lagoon under a contract with the U.S. Geological Survey.

“But biologically it’s an extremely important resource along the coast, because there just aren’t enough places like this,” Rose said. “You have birds, shrimp, many coastal creatures who need the lagoon and use it extensively.”

Bud Getty, superintendent of state parks for the area, said he is at a loss about resolving the lagoon’s pollution woes.

“The lagoon is polluted very badly at times, and that’s why we breach it--cut a channel for it and it goes whoosh into the ocean,” Getty said. “But the silt builds back up and the brackish water sits there and collects more problems. We’re concerned that it’s unhealthful for swimming and that’s why we’ve posted signs.”

Wants to See Solution

Though not in the business of environmental cleanup, Getty said the state Department of Parks and Recreation wants to see the problems solved.

“I’d like to identify the sources of pollution and go after them one by one, but I just don’t know if that’s feasible or who could do it,” Getty said.

However, state and local agencies do not agree on how big the problem is.

“We have made three or four visits to Malibu Lagoon and found algae growth because of all the nutrients in the lagoon,” said Mike Sowby of the regional board. “The place isn’t really polluted; it’s a naturally occurring problem.”

Sowby said runoff from upstream causes the same problem at the lagoon as has been reported recently in local storm drains.

“You have the exact same problem in all the storm drains, but it compounds behind the sand at Malibu Lagoon,” he said. “But I wouldn’t consider it polluted by any stretch of the imagination.”

Even if the agencies did agree that the lagoon should be cleaned up, they would face a major obstacle in trying to find the cause of persistent bacterial contamination there.

Norm Groom, of the county Department of Health Services, said the levels of coliform bacteria inside the lagoon are generally so much higher than the 1,000 parts per 100 milliliters considered safe in swimming waters, “that it’s useless to even test in there--it blows all the tubes, so to speak.”

Instead, Groom said, the county tests the surf in front of the lagoon and has not detected readings above safe levels.

Causes of Bacteria

The droppings from thousands of birds who use the refuge, combined with runoff from homes, businesses and farms located on more than 75 square miles of watershed upstream from the lagoon, are often cited as the causes of the bacterial levels.

But Malibu residents have blamed the Tapia sewage treatment plant upstream, which is operated by the county’s Las Virgenes sewage treatment district.

However, Tapia spokesman Bill Ruff said, “No way are we adding to pollution. What we get is already pretty light stuff . . . then we give it tertiary (three-stage) treatment and it meets state drinking water standards.” County and state officials wonder whether septic tank leach fields that serve homes in Malibu Colony, several businesses, a grocery store and government buildings at the Malibu Civic Center could be leaking their wastes into the lagoon.

Wong, of the regional board, said the state has no proof that septic tank leaching fields located near the lagoon are causing the trouble, although he said it is “a very real possibility.”

“If the leaching area for septic tanks occasionally is flooded by the lagoon, that of course could contribute to algae bloom, and that could explain the brown foam problem,” Wong said.

But Peter Brand, project manager for the state Coastal Conservancy in Sacramento, which spearheads many coastal cleanup efforts, said he doubts that any single source--such as local septic tanks--could cause the pollution problems.

Brand said that because there are so many sources feeding into the lagoon, he would not expect the county’s proposed multimillion-dollar sewage system--to be built throughout Malibu--to solve the lagoon’s environmental problems.

“My guess is that the proposed sewage system will not clean it up,” Brand said. “When you have a non-point source like that, where it cannot be traced to an individual site and is created by so many factors, that is a very tough thing to tackle.”

Not Involved in Issue

Brand said his agency has not become involved in the lagoon issue, but because of the complexity of the problem, “we could indeed become involved, and are very curious about what is happening down there.”

Meanwhile, surfers who frequent Surfrider Beach adjacent to the lagoon have continued to report ear infections and other illnesses after going in the water, said Tom Pratte, the surfing spokesman.

Pratte said he has asked many times that the various agencies test the lagoon not for coliform bacteria but for viruses, which currently are not tested in the lagoon or in the nearby surf.

(Such viral testing has recently been promoted by the federal Environmental Protection Agency in the wake of several studies showing that coliform testing does not protect swimmers from contracting viral diseases.)

“There are something like 100 kinds of viruses that you can pick up in water and they aren’t being tested,” Pratte said. “Those are the things that make us sick and give us infections.”

Pratte also questioned whether the brown foam problem, which has cropped up on several beaches in Southern California during the past year, has been adequately investigated.

“If we see these things on the beach and we don’t know what they are, we ought to try to do our best to find out,” Pratte said. “God, isn’t Malibu beach the second best-known beach in the world next to Waikiki? We should be watching out for it.”