Memos Warned of Old Sewer Line’s Risk

In a series of bluntly worded memos dating to 1995, city administrators warned their elected bosses that replacing an aged sewer line that burst nine days ago was “increasingly critical” and required “immediate attention.”

The 30-inch-diameter sewer line leading to the Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant split in heavy rains Feb. 3, and will have gushed about 54 million gallons of raw sewage into the Arroyo Conejo by this morning.

Citing a city attorney’s warning that the city could face legal risks, Thousand Oaks officials declined to discuss in detail whether the spill--which has closed almost 30 miles of beaches--could have been prevented, or who, if anyone, was to blame.

But the memorandums, released by the Thousand Oaks city manager’s office late Wednesday, set out a chronology of warnings unheeded while city officials for two years debated the size, cost and funding sources of a proposed $75-million sewer plant upgrade.

One document, dated Nov. 21, 1995, uses bold typeface and all capital letters to illustrate its point. “THE CITY MUST ACT TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH AND SAFETY by replacing waste water lines in the canyons that could, if they break, release raw waste water into the stream,” said the memo, written by Public Works Director Don Nelson. “Such releases can cause destructive impacts of the flora and fauna of the canyons and downstream wetlands.”

The documents also said that raising sewer fees for residents--the major issue in the sewer debate--was vital to obtain the money needed to replace the vulnerable line.

“The warnings were there loud and clear,” said City Councilwoman Judy Lazar, who consistently voted to raise fees on developers and residents to pay for the sewer plant upgrade. “I don’t need a revision of history to say the warnings were there.”

However, two city leaders reached late Wednesday countered that the memorandums released--if not revisionist--leave out some crucial information.

Replacing the sewer main predates skirmishes about the upgrade--it was first listed as a city project in 1987--and should have been done long ago, said Councilwoman Elois Zeanah.

“This has been a council priority for 10 years,” said Zeanah, who backed a delay in raising residents’ sewer fees because she believed the proposed upgrade was too lavish. “We directed that the work be done and funded through developer connection fees. Yet it wasn’t done, and the council was never asked to roll over the work to the following years. . . . We trusted our staff to follow direction.”

In large part, the documents must speak for themselves.

*

Under advice from the city attorney, Thousand Oaks administrators kept mum on the events leading up to the Feb. 3 spill, preferring to rely on documents already in the public record.

Nelson, who wrote many of the memos, declined to comment Wednesday, citing the city attorney’s advice.

The city attorney suggested that elected leaders focus on fixing the break--not pointing fingers--on Tuesday after the state Regional Water Quality Control Board instructed Thousand Oaks to clean up the mess or risk fines of up to $5,000 a day.

“My advice is to not talk about this issue so that people don’t get caught up in rhetoric, emotion and allegations without the facts,” said City Atty. Mark Sellers on Wednesday. “There is no use getting caught up in the debate until we know all the facts and where all the land mines are.”

With a welcome break in the weather Wednesday, engineers and city staff members worked on repairing the burst line and estimated they could be done by Saturday. An emergency repair of the pipeline gave way Friday when rains arrived before concrete could properly set.

*

In a memo dated Jan. 9, 1996, Sellers warned his bosses that there were significant legal risks associated with delaying the sewer plant upgrade and replacement of the pipelines. The city, he said, could be slapped with environmental cleanup orders and damage claims should a line break and harm property downstream.

One resident called Sellers’ advice to officials to keep quiet “a gag order.”

“I think the city should be forthright and allow the council members to speak,” said Debbie Gregory. “I don’t think it’s a good idea to prevent people from telling the truth.”

Even before the spill, the sewer debate had made headlines.

Documents and news accounts indicate the council members were well aware of the risks as far back as 10 years ago. In fact, the sewer line that ruptured had broken elsewhere in 1989--releasing 800,000 gallons of sewage--and again in 1995, when it unleashed about 12 million gallons of effluent.

Records show that plans to fix the sewer line predate the debate over upgrading the treatment plant. They also indicate that although a council minority resisted efforts to complete the sewer plant upgrade as soon as possible, the dissenters did attempt to get the faulty pipeline replaced. But city staffers say that at that point, funding for the pipeline hinged on the bigger project.

Replacing the line was first proposed in 1987, years before any of the current council members were elected. It was scheduled for completion between 1989 and 1992.

In a previous interview with The Times, Public Works Director Nelson said the project became a top funding priority in the 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal years, as the council fought its sewer wars over the proposed upgrade.

*

“It has never been a line in peril or jeopardy,” Nelson said last week. “It’s been a line we knew we had to replace. If we thought a failure was imminent, we would have taken immediate action to correct it.”

Some residents and council members have suggested that the pipeline was not replaced earlier because of a $1.3-million loan made from a waste water fund to the city Redevelopment Agency that was used to help build the Civic Arts Plaza.

However, Nelson said the loan “was completely irrelevant.”

The loaned money always could have been borrowed back, he said. What’s more, it would not nearly have covered the cost of replacing the components needed to work in tandem with the pipeline.

“There wasn’t any funding because the council was deliberating the increases in connection fees that were needed to pay for the program,” Nelson said.

The increased fees, finally approved last summer after a two-year stalemate, would have generated the income necessary to float bonds to pay for sewer improvements, he said last week.

Mayor Mike Markey believes that tells the whole story.

“I didn’t do anything wrong--I voted yes to upgrade the waste water plant, that’s all I can tell you,” he said.

However, the records released Wednesday leave out important details, contends former Councilwoman Jaime Zukowski, who sat on the panel when the proposed $75-million sewer upgrade was introduced in 1995. Along with Zeanah, Zukowski voted against raising sewer rates for residents--which requires a four-fifths vote--unless the expansion was scaled back.

Borrowing money from the waste water funds meant that “the needed work was held in abeyance until this larger expansion plan was approved,” said Zukowski, who now lives in Colorado. “We repeatedly asked to divide the issue” of replacing the sewer mains from the overall upgrade.

*

In December 1996, Councilwoman Linda Parks--who was elected to replace Zukowski--paired with Zeanah and Lazar in voting to borrow funds to replace the sewer main and an antiquated component of the sewer system known as a digester, while the debates over the upgrade raged on.

However, there was only enough money to pay for one part of the project, city staff members say, and the digester was in worse shape.

“Money, no doubt about it, was taken from the waste water funds that would have gone to the lines,” said Parks. “The money was there and it didn’t get spent on the sewer lines. To me, that’s the issue.”

The part of the line that broke was scheduled to be replaced this summer at a cost of $4.5 million. The second half of the line is scheduled to be replaced the following summer for $4 million.

Although both lines would have been replaced by now had a rate increase been approved earlier, it is impossible to say whether new pipelines--buried deeper than the existing ones--could have averted the huge spill, officials say. The new pipeline will be buried deeper than the existing line, which has been exposed to the elements by erosion from the creek bed it crosses.

“The construction project that is scheduled for this summer would have lowered and replaced this particular section of sewer line, so it would not be expected that there would be a problem or break,” said consulting engineer Richard L. Bardin. “It is very, very unlikely that there would have been a problem, but there are no guarantees.”

Folmar is a Times staff writer; Heie is a Times correspondent.