A $67-million plan to clean up and protect Santa Monica Bay, one of the nation's most troubled coastal resources, was unveiled Wednesday by an unusual coalition of elected officials, government experts, scientists, industries and environmentalists.
In a landmark program borne of consensus and billed as politically practical, 73 steps to heal the bay are recommended by 1999--from stemming pollution flowing through storm drains and creating a citizen "gutter patrol" to restoration of the Ballona Wetlands.
The planning effort, which lasted five years and cost $5 million, sprang from an unprecedented alliance between warring factions brought together by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1988. But the real work begins now to ensure the "action plan" won't be followed by years of inaction.
"As we've all seen far too often, you can have the best plan in the world, but if there is no teeth in implementation and compliance, the actions won't get implemented," said Mark Gold, staff scientist of the environmental group Heal the Bay and one of 50 committee members. "Everybody's biggest fear is that we have this . . . document that just sits on a shelf and gathers dust."
In all, 250 steps were outlined in the plan, but the 73 were designated priorities. If all the steps suggested were followed, the cost would exceed $134 million--a figure the committee did not include in the report released Wednesday.
But achieving even the 73 priorities would cost $67 million and test the ingenuity of government, businesses and environmentalists. While $30 million can be raised through existing grants and loans and perhaps private fund raising, the rest remains a shortfall, according to the plan.
Filling the $37-million gap will be "very tough" because of the state's ongoing recession, acknowledged Catherine Tyrrell, director of the project. She said the committee hopes that Congress, as it debates reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, or the state Legislature will be generous with grants.
"Given the economic climate, some group is likely to be very opposed to most of these ideas," Tyrrell said. "It's going to take a lot of work and hearing from the public on what they think is important and how the plan can be implemented. There is no easy fix. It may be that everybody is going to have to contribute a little bit."
The massive estuary faces virtually every type of ecological threat imaginable. It is one of Southern California's most popular resources for swimming, boating and surfing, drawing 4 million visitors a year to its more than 50 miles of beaches stretching from Ventura County to the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
The restoration plan focuses on cleaning up 19 "pollutants of concern," some that threaten swimmers and surfers and others that contaminate fish and other aquatic life.
"Although it may look healthy, the bay's condition is influenced by more than just what happens in its waters or along its shores. The bay is also affected by what happens in the 414-square-mile watershed that drains into it," the report says.
The brunt of the cleanup proposals focus on an estimated $42 million to control pollution--not from industrial plants or sewage, but from the millions of people who live in the vast watershed that drains into the bay. Urban runoff, the mix of oil, garden chemicals, grease and other debris that flows from neighborhoods, is considered the primary problem.
Public debate over the 2-inch-thick report will begin tonight at a town hall meeting from 5 to 8 p.m. at the Westchester Municipal Building at 7166 W. Manchester Ave. Two public hearings will be held June 2, and all comments are due June 15 before the plan becomes final.
Tyrrell said the plan's strength is that it combines "the collective wisdom" of all types of key players involved with the bay, from politicians to scientists to business representatives.
"When folks first got together they were sort of staring each other down around the table and most people thought it certainly couldn't work," she said. "But over time, people realized it ultimately is less costly, and action happens a lot sooner than if we wait 20 years for a lawsuit to get settled."
David Kay, who represents Southern California Edison on the committee, said in a statement that the power company "will continue to support (the plan) through its implementation," saying "it makes sense" from an environmental as well as a business standpoint.
But Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), a longtime supporter of cleaning the bay, said he is skeptical because Chevron USA, Edison and sewage treatment plant operators played a major role in choosing the priorities. He has asked for a Senate committee hearing to analyze the plan.
"I've been concerned about whether we're spending a lot of money for a rather ineffectual plan, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise," Hayden said.
