Water Quality Symposium Emphasizes Tension Between Science and Regulation

BY BILL KOENEKER

A beach lifeguard steps down from his stand, walks to the water’s edge and takes a sample of seawater from his hand-held device. Within a short time, the lifeguard posts the results of his water quality testing on his stand and beachgoers are alerted to any possibility of whether the water they are entering is clean or polluted.
That was one of the scenarios painted at last week’s water quality symposium sponsored by the City of Malibu, where scientists, experts and water quality regulators all gathered to hear the latest on the science of water quality and how such research can contribute to how regulators oversee the growing number of policies and laws to ensure clean water for all.
The idea, said Malibu Councilmember John Sibert “is to get folks in the same room and find out what they are doing and what they know or don’t know.” The afternoon session, according to Sibert was devoted to “how do we get to the outcomes and not just the processes.”
Stephen Weisberg, who is the executive director of the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, an agency described as a research entity that serves as the interface between science and water quality management, said the goal of same day water testing is not science fiction, but a near reality.
Currently, ocean users find out about bacterial contamination of water hours, days or sometimes weeks after the incident may have occurred and/or is continuing.
Weisberg said that while microbial measurement technologies in Southern California are some of the best in the nation, the problem still remains—the results lag by 24 to 96 hours. “The solution? Results in two hours by measuring DNA and utilizing molecular technologies,” he said.
He noted the new methods, which he predicted might be in place by 2012, offer faster methods, new indicators and source indicators.
“We are going to get to the point of putting instruments at the lifeguard stands,” he added.
Another method currently under testing is mooring testing equipment in the water and streaming web information from instruments anchored to the ocean floor. The installation can also be mounted on piers.
Weisberg indicated the new methods can measure much more, such as determining a human source or other sources such as from birds, dogs or horses or other animals such as cows. “What is the source? What is the pathogen? It can be more site specific,” he added.
The more precise the information, the more details are needed by researchers and regulators.
Other research discussed at the morning session included what kinds of information is being gathered to assist in such specificity.
Eric Stein, who is the principal scientist at the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, where he is the head of the watershed department, talked about how his research grew out of discussions about Malibu Creek, a highly polluted or “impaired stream.”
Those talks developed into a regional project to determine what the baseline is for water quality for streams.
“What is the appropriate level of constituents? What is the background water quality of these streams throughout Southern California? Are pathogens consistent across the region? Is there a difference? Why?” Stein said those were some of the questions he hoped to answer.
The scientist explained how the study was conducted throughout Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties by taking water samples of over a dozen clean streams.
The criteria were those that had little or no development or human impacts in the watershed to see what the water quality looked like throughout the year
The conclusions reached were there was a certain amount of bacteria in natural streams, but research determined it was non-human.
There were seasonal effects. The bacteria was higher in the summer. Was it because of warmer stream temperatures or activity around the stream? “We don’t know,” he added, but another conclusion was reached, the background level of bacteria seemed to be consistent across Southern California.
Two other researchers presented material that in effect highlighted the tough choices regulators have to make and how some assumptions.
Randal Orton, who heads up the resource conservation unit at Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, which operates a sewage treatment plant along Malibu Creek, offered observations that there is a geological influence on the water quality of Malibu Creek. He showed attendees maps of the geological formations within the Malibu Creek watershed and noted one of the larger deposits is called the Monterey formation, the same strata that is oil bearing in Southern California, except within the Malibu Creek watershed the formation has no geological structure to capture the oil.
Orton said using Heal the Bay research, he found there is phosphorus in the various soil types and formations of rock in the watershed. “It is like a large bag of fertilizer at the head of the watershed,” he said. He pointed to sulphur springs in Ahmanson Ranch and other areas just north of the 101 freeway. He said there is also selenium in the water, but there is no known human source. “There is a close coincidence with geology and water quality,” he said, adding that Cold Creek, usually pointed out as one of the most pristine in the Santa Monica Mountains, is brackish.
The LVMWD spokesperson contended there is high level of phosphorus in the background level of streams in the watershed. There are also heavy metals present, according to Orton.
Another researcher talked in detail about how he measures the physical movement of water. John Izbicki, who works for the United States Geological Survey, said, “When we understand the movement of water, we understand the movement of bacteria.”
He went on to explain how he uses radioisotopes to follow water movement and discussed how his research is conducted. “We look at DNA. We look at DNA specific to humans,” he added.
While his research applied to a sewage line in Santa Barbara, Izbicki elaborated on how he needed to measure the tides and groundwater movement.
Dick Otis, the president of Otis Environmental Consultants, talked about septic systems versus sewage plants and what is appropriate for different communities.
The second half of the symposium was a panel discussion, including both researchers and regulators talking about how the science is implemented into regulation.
“This is what we now know. How can we apply this to regulation?” asked Sibert.
“[That is] the biggest challenge,” answered Weisberg. “Different fecal sources pose different threats to humans. The science is not as advanced.”
“We need to rethink past testing,” added Orton.
Jonathan Bishop, who heads up the State Water Resources Control Board said, “We have moved from generalized testing, easier to cite, easier to comply. The new technology for testing, involves more monitoring, more testing, but government is moving to less regulations because of finances.”
Sibert asked the panelists, “How much do we need to know?”
Otis said we don’t want to be paralyzed by what we don’t know. “Best management practices need to protect resources, if it can't maybe we need prohibition. We have to find where best to spend money,” he said.
Randal added, “There are costs in filling the knowledge gap. If the consequences mean to cities to implement something.”
Sibert asked, “Are we too focused on Total Minimum Daily Loads?”
Bishop answered in the affirmative. “There are ways to get to the endpoint, create a matrix of impacts. We can’t spend forever doing science. The integration of chemicals and stressors shows up on the resources,” he added.
Panelists, taking advantage of the opportunity to exchange ideas, continued to discuss new theories and potential solutions for several more hours.