Debate Ensues over Sewer System ‘Costs’

• War of Numbers Underway before Key Nov. 5 Meeting

BY BILL KOENEKER

In what has become a public relations battle between Malibu city officials and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the city has released preliminary figures on how much it might cost residential property owners who have to hook up to a sewer system if the water board’s ban of septic systems is enacted.
Municipal officials issued a press release this week estimating homeowners would each have to pay $1000 per month to comply with the RWQCB’s order to hook up to a centralized plant.
The city says capital costs of providing a centralized wastewater system for the broader Civic Center area, as outlined by the regional board’s boundary maps, are estimated at $52 million.
A sparsely attended evening workshop two weeks ago, which surprised state officials, who had planned for a slew of protestors, apparently also surprised municipal officials, who expected critics to descend on the state agency.
Instead, the city released the news in the hopes of rallying the troops with the intention of kicking in a high gear PR campaign.
The scenario is shaping up unlike the 1980s when Los Angeles County’s campaign to sewer Malibu lead to thousands of protestors and incorporation.
City officials say the price tag prepared by the consulting firm RMC Water and Environment counters the RWQCB’s estimate of $16.7 million aired at the community workshops.
“We are deeply concerned that the regional board has not completed its due diligence and has not considered the overwhelming monthly cost to local homeowners and landowners,” said Mayor Andy Stern. “These are very significant costs and are certainly compounded as we experience an unprecedented economic crisis.”
The city, in its press release, said it figured the costs by estimating the septic prohibition’s boundaries would include 400-500 land parcels. Costs were estimated from capital costs of a centralized plant, including planning, engineering design, construction, construction management, administration and legal fees.
Land purchase costs were not included, which would inevitably drive the costs upwards.
Operations and maintenance of the system would be approximately $1.6 million per year, including power, chemicals, repair/ replacement, insurance and staff.
The city press release goes on to state the consultants estimate the monthly cost of the project would be about $420,000 or $5 million per year, assuming a capital cost of $52 million, annual costs of $1.6 million and a 20-year SRF loan at 2.7 percent.
What the city press release does not mention is that the RWQCB does not have the authority to require the city to build a centralized plant, it can only enact a prohibition. The choice of how to respond to a prohibition remains in the hands of the city.
That could involve alternatives besides a centralized plant, such as a step system, utilizing existing septic systems to reduce the infrastructure costs, hooking up to a centralized plant, such as Hyperion or Tapia, or providing another kind of wastewater system.
Municipal officials indicated the cost for commercial property owners will “vary greatly depending on size and use of the property, but it is anticipated it will be significantly higher than residential costs.”
City officials are still arguing, though the water board has already turned them down, that more time is needed before the board makes its decision.
“Emerging data and scientific studies are strongly supporting the long-held belief that cleaning up stormwater and urban runoff should be the highest priority for improving water quality and protecting public health—rather than banning existing septic systems,” the press release states.
“Five new studies on ocean water quality and bacteria levels are expected to be completed in the next six to nine months. These studies are anticipated to provide significant findings to help guide the city and regional board in a scientific and financially prudent manner to ensure all actions will improve water quality and protect the public’s health.”
The mayor said, “We believe the regional board should place the proposed prohibition on hold until it has all the information to be certain it achieves the goals we all share; protecting the public’s health and improving water quality.”