Thousand Oaks Hit With $2.1-Million Fine Over Spill

State regulators on Friday slapped the city with a $2.1-million fine--believed to be the largest of its kind in California history--for a massive sewage spill that closed 29 miles of beaches in February.

“The fact is, this spill was totally avoidable,” said Dennis Dickerson, executive officer of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. “It did not have to happen. The city simply could have acted to upgrade the [sewer] line.”

Without assigning blame to individuals, Dickerson meted out the punishment for a spill that occurred when El Nino-driven rains washed out a sewer main, sending 86 million gallons of untreated waste gushing down the Arroyo Conejo toward the sea. Thousand Oaks has the option of paying the entire fine to a state water fund or dedicating $1.6 million of it for local projects, such as cleaning up the Calleguas Creek watershed.

Under state rules, Thousand Oaks officials can pay the fine or plead their case at a hearing before the nine-member regional board, set for June 15 in Simi Valley.

On Friday, City Atty. Mark Sellers said the city will fight the penalty for the spill, which he has previously described as an “act of God” caused by record-shattering rains, which also scuttled repair attempts for 11 days following the Feb. 3 break.

“The city acted very responsibly, with great expense and effort to repair this unexpected break as quickly as possible in order to minimize the amount of the escaping waste water,” Sellers said.

“We were obviously hit by a natural disaster, and the amount of the fine is excessive, unprecedented and unjustified. The city will appeal.”

He said the fine amounted to nearly two-thirds of the annual cost to operate the Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant.

But regional board officials believe the spill was avoidable because the line had broken twice previously and had long been scheduled for repair.

Environmentalists--who often criticize the board as lax in punishing those who pollute the waterways of Los Angeles and Ventura counties--hailed the large fine Friday.

“It’s about time the regional board sent a strong message that major spills that threaten public health and imperil our water quality will not be tolerated in the Los Angeles region,” said Mark Gold, executive director of Heal the Bay, an environmental group. “The $2.1 million definitely sends that message.”

The amount of the fine is substantially more than the regional board has ever collected in a single year, let alone a single spill. Over the past year or so, the regional board’s top management has been revamped, a new executive officer has been hired and a three-person enforcement section has been created.

As a result of the spill, beaches in Los Angeles and Ventura counties were closed for as long as 23 days because of health risks. Also, dozens of acres of cilantro, bok choy and kale had to be plowed under after potentially dangerous sewage washed from the arroyo over the crops. The effect of the spill on the sensitive Mugu Lagoon, home to several threatened and endangered species, and to ground water supplies is not yet known.

The amount of the fine was determined by tallying the economic losses from beach closures and by determining the benefits Thousand Oaks derived by not quickly replacing the line.

The reasons for the penalty, known as an administrative civil liability, are spelled out in a 14-page document sent to city officials late Friday.

Supporting their conclusion that the spill was avoidable, state regulators cite:

* Two previous spills, of 800,000 and 12 million gallons, in different parts of the same pipeline.

* The inherently risky topography of the craggy, narrow ravine surrounding the main.

* Numerous internal city memos, dating back a decade, stressing the need to upgrade the pipelines.

Although Thousand Oaks leaders disagree with the sanction, fighting it could prove a risky proposition.

According to the California Water Code, the appointed regional board members can uphold the fine recommended by its staff members--or reduce it.

The arbiters also have the option of increasing penalties, as the city of Los Angeles learned in January. That’s when board members increased a fine from $35,000 to $150,000 for two spills that released 150,000 gallons of waste in 1997.

Under state law, the maximum possible penalty for a spill of Thousand Oaks’ magnitude is $860 million.

Regional board decisions can be appealed to the state Water Resources Control Board and then appealed in the courts.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest [administrative civil liability] ever issued by a regional board,” said Fran Vitulli, spokeswoman for the state Water Resources Control Board. “The biggest [fine] previously was $830,000 for a sewer spill issued against the city of San Diego in February 1996.”

The fine is the first tangible punishment Thousand Oaks has incurred since the spill. Already, the city has rung up $400,000 in legal expenses for the federal probe, which is continuing.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles declined to say how--if at all--the state sanction would affect the federal investigation. In their citation, state regulators omitted the answer to the most pressing question for the city: Who was to blame?

“We’re not interested in ascribing blame to any particular individual,” Dickerson said. “This complaint is levied against the city--there’s a certain collective responsibility there.”

Depending on political allegiances, some observers blame the spill on Councilwomen Linda Parks and Elois Zeanah, whose no votes on rate hikes held up a proposed $75-million sewer plant upgrade for two years. The upgrade was endorsed in its original form last summer.

But Parks and Zeanah, and their backers, contend the ruptured pipeline had been scheduled for repair about a decade before the spill occurred. They believe replacement of vulnerable pipelines was tacked onto what they say was an unnecessarily expensive upgrade to pressure them.

While no culpability was assigned for the spill, Dickerson in an interview singled out Public Works Director Don Nelson for praise.

“Don Nelson was clearly conscientious,” Dickerson said. “He forewarned of this eventuality. He really took the appropriate measures to address the problem. He simply wasn’t listened to.”

If the city agrees to the fine, it would not necessarily have to make a lump-sum payment. The regional board gave the city options: Pay the entire fine by July 15, or pay $500,000 over five years and use the remaining money to fund a local environmental project. Thousand Oaks could pick the environmental project, provided the regional board endorses the plan. If the lump-sum option were chosen, the money would be sent to a state cleanup fund that could be used anywhere in California.

“We’re not interested in increasing the state coffers in Sacramento,” said Wendy Phillips, the regional board’s enforcement chief. “We’d really like to see the city invest in a project that will benefit the local community.”

Possible projects include a plan to ensure discharges into Calleguas Creek meet state and federal standards and a proposal to clean brackish ground water in Thousand Oaks so it can be blended with imported water for general use.

The man spearheading the creek project, Donald R. Kendall, said he was shocked at the size of the fine, given last winter’s torrential rains.

“But we would certainly hope that the state wouldn’t grab that money,” said Kendall, general manager of the Calleguas Municipal Water District. “The region would be better served by supporting this watershed project . . . .”