From Mountain to Beach, It’s Time to Target Pollution

Pollution at our beaches--highlighted by the now-regular testing of the water for bacteria--should not surprise anyone. In my engineering-based opinion, this situation needs to be looked at from the mountaintop down and all the problems resolved from the ocean up.

The article, “Watershed Event: New EPA Program Will Target the County’s Small but Significant Polluters,” Jan. 31, dealt with pollution problems of local beaches and waterways caused by urban runoff. Yet the urban runoff system is functioning exactly as designed. All commercial and residential irrigation and rain runoff flow into a storm drain network, which leads to the beach via streams, creeks, rivers or man-made underground tunnels.

Let’s face it: The ocean is treated as the final destination septic tank, fed by homes, businesses, farms and shopping centers. The main design emphasis has always been on flood control, and the easiest and least expensive solution to flooding is to drain it to the beach. This system is overloaded and obviously defective.

Based on population growth projections, the pollution problem will only get worse.

Maybe it’s time to start treating urban runoff the same way commercial effluent or waste water is treated. The Jan. 31 article referred to this approach, but it would be easier to “design it into” new commercial or residential projects, such as Ahmanson Ranch. Retrofitting the existing sources would obviously cost a fortune. And, as the article suggests, funding is always a problem. But designing it into new projects should be mandatory.

The good news is that tourism and coastal real estate could be adversely affected by the pollution, leading to powerful lobbying to highlight and correct the problem. In a sense, the affluent of the beach communities must deal with the effluent of the people without the ocean views.

In the Jan. 31 article, Vicki Musgrove, manager of storm water quality for Ventura County, says one “alternative is to put a treatment plant at the end of every storm drain, clear to the ocean, and we can’t afford to do that. You have to work as close to the source . . . as possible.”

This attitude seems rather closed-minded. In conjunction with tackling the pollution sources, the end-of-pipe problem must be addressed. Contrary to Ms. Musgrove’s view, we can’t afford not to do this.

One plan of corrective action could include treating the “pipelines” (creeks, rivers, etc.) the same way we treat or monitor sewer pipes coming from factories. The Environmental Protection Agency monitors commercial effluent / discharge and will quickly shut off the water to a commercial facility if it violates discharge standards. I suggest a series of parallel, reverse-flow pipes that would pump effluent back uphill and inland, to a central treatment facility. When the runoff water quality dropped below “acceptable” limits, the flow would be diverted and treated.

Would this approach be expensive? Very expensive. But look at--and smell--the alternatives.

Would it be feasible? Consider the California Aqueduct, the cost involved and where we would be without that today.

The days of merely extending the pipes farther out into the ocean are over (although that’s still a good idea, if the water is treated first).

The underlying goals of all these studies are good: cleaning up the beaches, etc. But we should all keep in mind that the oceans’ ability to sustain life is declining and the smaller the aquarium the less forgiving of pollution.

The warning signs are here.

Maybe we should do more to protect endangered species of salmon. After all, they are smart enough to know that the farther upstream you go, the cleaner the water.