Water board bans discharges at Crystal Cove

Alex Coolman

A regional water board slapped a cease-and-desist order on the Irvine

Co. and two state agencies Thursday, demanding they stop discharges of

urban runoff at Crystal Cove State Park Beach.

The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board voted unanimously

to pass the order, sounding a decisive note in an environmental argument

that has been lengthy and confusing.

“The words [of the relevant law] are clear from our point of view,”

said Ted Cobb, a lawyer for the board. “I think we chose the proper

vehicle” for dealing with runoff at the beach.

Under the order, the Irvine Co. will have one year to stop all

discharges entering the beach at Crystal Cove through three pipes.

The state Department of Parks and Recreation and the state Department

of Transportation, which are also named in the order, will have two years

to deal with discharges from septic systems and highway runoff in the

area.

Left off the order at the last minute was the Laguna Beach School

District. Mark Smythe, chief of the regional board’s storm water unit,

said runoff from the school district did not reach the ocean in a

sufficiently direct way to be considered under the order.

Michael Stockstill, a spokesman for the Irvine Co., said the developer

plans to comply with the order as soon as possible and is unlikely to

appeal the decision.

But he expressed concern about the board’s action, arguing that

Thursday’s approach to environmental law could cause problems if applied

widely across the state.

At issue is the board’s interpretation of a 1972 state law and how it

defines “waste.”

Crystal Cove is one of California’s 34 “areas of special biological

significance” -- coastal zones that are given special protection under

the law.

That law prohibits the discharge of “waste” into special areas. But

whether the term “waste” refers only to sewage or whether it applies more

broadly to any sort of storm runoff or urban flows is a major point of

contention.

“What the regional board is doing in terms of the way they’re

interpreting the law is a departure from their past practice,” Stockstill

said. “In fact, as far as we know, it’s the first time it’s been done.”

But Smythe argued to the board that the language of the law was both

strict and unequivocal in its prohibition of dumping runoff into state

“special areas.”

Paul Singarella, an attorney representing the Irvine Co., disagreed

just as strongly. The 1972 law applies only to treated sewage, he argued,

adding that any broad interpretation of the law should be dealt with

through statewide rule-making rather than through a regional hearing.

“[A ban on runoff] has never before been required,” Singarella said.

“A storm water prohibition obviously could have far-reaching

consequences.”

The regional board in September referred the issue to the state level

for guidance, but the state water board declined to comment.

In the absence of such input, the regional board acted while knowing

that its judgment was bound to infuriate at least one of the sides in the

debate.

“The answer [to the question of interpretation] will come when someone

in this audience doesn’t like what this board does and takes it to the

state level,” Cobb told the audience at the hearing.