Saturday, May 11, 2013

411 Response to the EPA's Concern About the Malibu Creek Watershed


   You would think that because Malibu residents are at the receiving end of a vast aquatic exhaust pipe of the Malibu Creek watershed that Malibu residents and ocean enthusiasts would want to promote better water quality from upstream sources of pollution. Those who opposed the Lagoon Restoration all pointed upstream demanding that the upper watershed was a priority to clean up first, but it appears now that those who wanted an impaired Lagoon to remain impaired do not want to promote measures to clean up the upper watershed. Will Malibu continue to have this twisted elitist reputation as discharge violators through antiquated septic systems that pollute our waterways and ocean? Continue their obstruction to improve impaired and dysfunctional wetlands known to be a health hazard to surfers and wildlife? Could it now be possible that some may even want to keep human sourced contaminants flowing down to our beaches? You would think that we want clean water to surf, swim and boogie in but Andy Lyon, Wendi Werner and other obstructionist now appear to be siding with discharge violators and Tapia with their desire to remain irresponsible for their part in the degradation of the Malibu Creek watershed. Why are some Malibu Residents fighting for dirty water? Sour Grapes?
With more and more residents emitting twice as much pollution in the upper watershed, not to mention record numbers of visitors coming to Malibu leaving their human waste in our ground water, efforts to prevent the steady drip of an environmental disaster needs to be stepped up. Below is the recent exchange on PATCH regarding this topic and once again, the vocal minority taking over the thread ( actually every thread ) using bully tactics and fake profiles to lead the community away from the real issue: CLEAN WATER.


Concerns Arise Over EPA's Push to Restore Malibu Creek Watershed

A standing-room-only crowd opposes the expensive clean up that the federal government says is required by law.
PHOTOS (3)
David Pederson of LVMWD addresses the standing-room only crowd, including those standing behind him.
Cindy Lin, of the US EPA, presents her findings.
EPA presentation
VIDEOS (1)
Tensions ran high last week at a workshop where a standing-room-only crowd voiced strong opposition to the proposed restoration of the Malibu Creek Watershed that the federal government says is required.
The meeting, conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was hosted by the Las Virgenes-Triunfo Joint Powers Authority in the council chambes of Agoura Hills City Hall.
Cindy Lin of the EPA presented findings as to why the Malibu Creek Watershed is considered "impaired water" and why it must be restored.
Under the federal Clean Water Act, states are required to develop pollution reduction plans for waters that are impaired by pollutants. Such plans are called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and must be approved by the EPA.
However, local agencies such as the Las Virgenes-Triunfo JPA have expressed concerns over the EPA's findings and the high cost of compliance, sentiments echoed by many of the people in the audience.
Lin explained that once a body of water is cited as "impaired," new pollution reduction plans must be implemented.
The problems were identified, according to Lin, as sedimentation and benthic macroinvertibrates. A recent press release stated:
Benthic communities are aquatic organisms like clams and shellfish that live at the bottom of these water bodies. Protecting these communities is critical for the estuarine and stream ecosystem as it provides the necessary food for birds and other animal life in Malibu Creek.
David Pedersen, general manager for the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, said the JPA's concerns included "inadequate evidence" and exorbitant costs of compliance, "estimated to be $307 million in capital and $23.5 million annually for [operation and maintenance]."
"The natural characteristics of the watershed have largely been dismissed," he said.
Other speakers represented Heal the Bay, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, the County of Los Angeles and the County of Ventura.
During the presentations, there were frequent outbursts from audience members wanting answers regarding research specifications.
Neil Ticktin, an outspoken local resident and proprietor of the website Westlake Revelations, called upon Lin during the Q & A session to be sure of her facts.
"You use words like 'we think,' 'we believe.' ... Before you go and spend one to two years of my kid's college tuition to go do this, you'd better know....'" he said.
As it stands now, Lin said she will take the communities' concerns back to the EPA to be recorded for consideration, and that nothing is written in stone.
Outside City Hall, Agoura Hills resident Carol Spinner expressed her own concerns.
"If we are so unique here, why aren't we taking our time that this is done right," she said. "This is a huge burden on a very small part of California."

Tema Merback

As usual the government puts its big foot where it doesn't belong! Spending other people's money & wrapping its tentacles around the people until it squeezes the life out of them is its sole purpose!.
Reply

Andy Lyon

From: Lin.Cindy@epamail.epa.gov [Lin.Cindy@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 12:13 PM
To: Richard F. Ambrose; gold@ioes.ucla.edu; Shelley Luce
Subject: Allocations/Targets for Malibu Lagoon ( from Socal coastal estuaries)
Rich/Mark/Shelley:
As you know from our discussion last, it's hard to come up with targets or numeric goals
for Malibu Lagoon and the benthic community given we don't have real baseline data
and also no data from a reference site. But, at the end of the day, we still need to
include some goal.
Here's my idea- do a survey of all relevant southern CA coastal estuaries and see what
the species richness has been observed in past studies. My thinking is that as Malibu
Lagoon is restored and conditions improve, it is reasonable to expect greater species
richness. Instead of quibbling about the unknowns (i.e., which functional groups or taxa
should be in Malibu), we want to see more diversity in the Lagoon. Actually, based on TJ
estuary and Mugu Lagoon, there seems to clear evidence of decent benthic community
diversity in a coastal lagoon with good tidal flushing (Rich: you may remember this from
the 1995 Ambrose et al. Report for Malibu). The final goal or target would be to achieve
XX number of total taxa richness on an annual basis, perhaps over a 5 year average.

Andy Lyon

CONT:
This XX number would be based on the average of taxa richness observed across
applicable coastal estuaries.
So, I quickly had a survey of the estuaries and their taxa counts. Please see the
attached doc. Obviously some of the Bays and such would not be exactly comparable.
Rich: let me know which estuaries you think should absolutely be out. There are some
obvious ones and some have data that are not based on unimpacted areas. I just sent
the whole table thinking you'd like to look at everything.
Let me know your thoughts. Cindy
Shelley Luce <sluce@santamonicabay.org>
Friday, November 30, 2012 12:22 PM
Lin.Cindy@epamail.epa.gov; Ambrose, Richard F.; Gold, Mark
RE: Allocations/Targets for Malibu Lagoon ( from Socal coastal estuaries)
From:
Sent: To: Subject:
Wow, what a range. I don't know enough about the different locations - even type of
wetland - to understand why they are so different. I would love the low down from one of
you. I definitely don't know which are most similar nd possibly comparable to Malibu.
Shelley Luce, D.Env.
Executive Director
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission Pereira Annex MS:8160
1 LMU Drive, Loyola Marymount University Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-216-9827
www.santamonicabay.org
Comment_arrow

Andy Lyon

THIS FROM THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR DESTROYING THE MALIBU LAGOON !
"Wow, what a range. I don't know enough about the different locations - even type of
wetland - to understand why they are so different. I would love the low down from one of
you. I definitely don't know which are most similar nd possibly comparable to Malibu."
Shelley Luce, D.Env.
Executive Director
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission Pereira Annex MS:8160

Andy Lyon

NO REAL BASELINE DATA !!!
This is such a scam , and Fran Pavely is at Pepperdine today looking to get MORE WATER BONDS to pay for this crap.
WAKE UP !
Reply

Ed

Andy is right. I was at this workshop and was surprised more people from Malibu were not there considering we will be the most effected.
When asked how this was to be paid for the answer was, another water bond.
ALL science must be looked at, not just the hand picked science from Heal the Bay.
Reply

Ed

Everyone should write letters to the EPA.
Reply

Lenny Shaw

Tema, do the tentacles extend to the fire fighters who just put out the last fire? Or the police you call when you are in trouble? Or the road that enables you to get to your house without resorting to a covered wagon? Or which inspects your food???? You get the idea!!! ;)

Ed

Or State parks using money to rip out a lagoon using tens of millions of bond dollars that could have gone towards the fire and police dept. or the money that they want to spend taking down the dam (100 million ). Or the money that they want to use to rip out the watershed? Does this sound familiar , Lenny?
Comment_arrow

Ben Dover

Lenny's a teacher, living on the Teat, he will never understand the frustration from the private sector.

Lenny Shaw

Yeah. It sounds like the familiar cry of the local xenophobes of the BUbble! :)
Reply
Comment_arrow

hellwood

Lenny Straw Man,
You lurk and wait for a perfect time to argue and hate on anything "Malibu", even if you don't get the point of the argument.

1 comment:

  1. Actually Ed (from the patch Post ) , the money for the Clean Water Bond could not be used for fire or police as it would be illegal for the funds to go back into the general fund . Voter approved bond money must be used for its intended purposes.

    ReplyDelete