Foes Agree on Plan to Clean Bay off Santa Monica

A $67-million plan to clean up and protect Santa Monica Bay, one of the nation’s most troubled coastal resources, was unveiled Wednesday by an unusual coalition of elected officials, government experts, scientists, industries and environmentalists.

In a landmark program borne of consensus and billed as politically practical, 73 steps to heal the bay are recommended by 1999--from stemming pollution flowing through storm drains and creating a citizen “gutter patrol” to restoration of the Ballona Wetlands.

The planning effort, which lasted five years and cost $5 million, sprang from an unprecedented alliance between warring factions brought together by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1988. But the real work begins now to ensure the “action plan” won’t be followed by years of inaction.

“As we’ve all seen far too often, you can have the best plan in the world, but if there is no teeth in implementation and compliance, the actions won’t get implemented,” said Mark Gold, staff scientist of the environmental group Heal the Bay and one of 50 committee members. “Everybody’s biggest fear is that we have this . . . document that just sits on a shelf and gathers dust.”

In all, 250 steps were outlined in the plan, but the 73 were designated priorities. If all the steps suggested were followed, the cost would exceed $134 million--a figure the committee did not include in the report released Wednesday.

But achieving even the 73 priorities would cost $67 million and test the ingenuity of government, businesses and environmentalists. While $30 million can be raised through existing grants and loans and perhaps private fund raising, the rest remains a shortfall, according to the plan.

Filling the $37-million gap will be “very tough” because of the state’s ongoing recession, acknowledged Catherine Tyrrell, director of the project. She said the committee hopes that Congress, as it debates reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, or the state Legislature will be generous with grants.

“Given the economic climate, some group is likely to be very opposed to most of these ideas,” Tyrrell said. “It’s going to take a lot of work and hearing from the public on what they think is important and how the plan can be implemented. There is no easy fix. It may be that everybody is going to have to contribute a little bit.”

The massive estuary faces virtually every type of ecological threat imaginable. It is one of Southern California’s most popular resources for swimming, boating and surfing, drawing 4 million visitors a year to its more than 50 miles of beaches stretching from Ventura County to the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

The restoration plan focuses on cleaning up 19 “pollutants of concern,” some that threaten swimmers and surfers and others that contaminate fish and other aquatic life.

“Although it may look healthy, the bay’s condition is influenced by more than just what happens in its waters or along its shores. The bay is also affected by what happens in the 414-square-mile watershed that drains into it,” the report says.

The brunt of the cleanup proposals focus on an estimated $42 million to control pollution--not from industrial plants or sewage, but from the millions of people who live in the vast watershed that drains into the bay. Urban runoff, the mix of oil, garden chemicals, grease and other debris that flows from neighborhoods, is considered the primary problem.

Public debate over the 2-inch-thick report will begin tonight at a town hall meeting from 5 to 8 p.m. at the Westchester Municipal Building at 7166 W. Manchester Ave. Two public hearings will be held June 2, and all comments are due June 15 before the plan becomes final.

Tyrrell said the plan’s strength is that it combines “the collective wisdom” of all types of key players involved with the bay, from politicians to scientists to business representatives.

“When folks first got together they were sort of staring each other down around the table and most people thought it certainly couldn’t work,” she said. “But over time, people realized it ultimately is less costly, and action happens a lot sooner than if we wait 20 years for a lawsuit to get settled.”

David Kay, who represents Southern California Edison on the committee, said in a statement that the power company “will continue to support (the plan) through its implementation,” saying “it makes sense” from an environmental as well as a business standpoint.

But Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), a longtime supporter of cleaning the bay, said he is skeptical because Chevron USA, Edison and sewage treatment plant operators played a major role in choosing the priorities. He has asked for a Senate committee hearing to analyze the plan.

“I’ve been concerned about whether we’re spending a lot of money for a rather ineffectual plan, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise,” Hayden said.

Gold, of Santa Monica-based Heal the Bay, said he is pleased with the proposals, but noted they are voluntary, so success hinges on whether local and state government develop aggressive programs to tackle urban runoff.

The report’s authors said the priorities were based on real risk rather than those the public may perceive as important. For example, proposals to spend $3 million to build two rehabilitation centers for marine mammals and birds harmed by oil spills did not make the top list.

“There’s not a lot of money out there, so we wanted to be very practical about choosing the absolutely essential things,” Tyrrell said.

Many of the proposals outlined in the plan will be funded through existing resources, so they are not counted in the cost estimates. After 15 years of opposition, Los Angeles County recently agreed to spend $400 million to enhance treatment at its Carson sewage plant, which goes a long way toward reducing bacteria that threatens swimmers. Los Angeles’ Hyperion sewage treatment plant also is undergoing a $1.1-billion renovation.

Other problems, however, are more insidious, particularly ocean sediments laced with 200 tons of the pesticide DDT, which still is contaminating fish and the rest of the bay’s food chain two decades after it was banned.

Surveys show much of the public believes swimming at the bay’s 22 public beaches is unsafe. However, many health experts say the threat comes only after rains, when large volumes of runoff elevate bacteria levels.

A primary aim of the plan is to find and remove sources of those human pathogens from storm drains before they reach the bay.

Specifically, it proposes to divert runoff that flows into the bay during dry weather into treatment plants. Another priority proposal includes boosting the state’s inspection program to search for illegal sewage connections into storm drains.

Another is to develop a better scientific way to measure the health risk of swimming in the surf zone and revise public health standards to “accurately inform the public of where it may be safe to swim, and where it may be not, and why,” according to the report.

The plan also proposes measures to protect the aquatic plants and wildlife that depend on the bay. Priority proposals include restoring 260 acres of Ballona Wetlands--one of the last and largest marshes remaining in Los Angeles County--and hiring additional wildlife wardens at the bay.

When it comes to fish consumption, panel members contended that current research is good and that the threat poses less risk than swimming and loss of wetlands. Informing fishermen of health advisories was the only proposal rated a priority.

Picking what pollution sources to target was the most controversial part of the planning. Months of debate centered on how much to focus on high-profile sources of pollution, including Chevron’s El Segundo refinery, the two sewage treatment plants and a now-defunct Montrose chemical plant in Torrance.

A majority finally agreed that much of the pollution from those sources already is being controlled by regulations and lawsuits. “Those other fights have already been won,” said Gold. “What has been really lax is control of urban and storm runoff.”

Fixing Santa Monica Bay

Santa Monica Bay, one of the nation’s most coastal areas, faces myriad problems. Urban runoff, industrial pollution, sewage and other sources of contamination pose a health risk to swimmers and harm marine life. A coalition of government, scientists, industries and environmentalists unveiled a five-year plan that includes 250 steps--73 considered priorities. The estimated cost of just those steps is $67 million. Some key proposals are:

* Hiring and training city and county workers to manage a program to control urban runoff. Cost: $8.9 million

* Educating people in how to prevent polluted runoff from their own homes and neighborhoods. Cost: $6.2 million

* Developing ways to determine the risk to swimmers and revise public health standards. Cost: $1.8 million

* Developing an inspection system to catch illegal sewage connections into storm drains. Cost: $1 million

* Adopting and enforcing local ordinances to address storm water and urban runoff, control of erosion and limit pollution from businesses. Cost: $8.9 million

* Hiring more wildlife protection officers along the bay. Cost: $1.6 million

* Restoring Ballona wetlands and providing long-term management. Cost: $5 million

* Developing a restoration plan for Malibu Lagoon primarily to protect wildlife habitats from runoff. Cost: $2 million

* Enhancing efforts to restore El Segundo Dunes and create a habitat preserve. Cost: $500,000

Source: Santa Monica Bay restoration plan