In his now-classic World War II novel, best-selling author Joseph Heller described the dilemma of a bombardier named Yossarian -- caught in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation we have come to call a Catch-22.

Yossarian's dilemma and his frustration have come to mind lately, as we have become involved in a regulatory process aimed at improving water quality in Malibu Creek. Like Heller's hero, we understand this is a complex issue, with no easy solutions.

Specifically, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board wants to reduce algae growth in Malibu Creek. Algae is not harmful to humans, but it can be unsightly and -- in excessive quantities -- can endanger the health of aquatic life. Algae is not just a local issue. From Lake Washington in Seattle, to Lake Champlain on the border of New York State, to California's crown jewel, Lake Tahoe, algae has become a challenge.

Algae growth can be linked to a number of conditions -- among them sunlight, percentages of metals in water, temperature, water flow as well as nutrients. Sources of the nutrients algae feed on include residential and commercial septic systems, animal waste, lawn fertilizers, even aerial-born nutrients in smog from our freeways.

Another source is wastewater treatment facilities -- like our award-winning Tapia Water Reclamation Facility in Malibu Canyon, which is owned and operated by Triunfo Sanitation District and Las Virgenes Municipal Water District.

Where does Tapia get the nutrients" From all of us. Throughout the watershed, people work, recreate, shower, consume -- flush toilets, grind food through garbage disposals, and send rinse water from washing machines down the drain, with hardly a second thought.

Our customers send it to Tapia, which removes 86 percent of the nutrients through its extensive treatment. That's just part of the story. Tapia treats the wastewater it receives to meet strict California Department of Health standards so it can be safely used to irrigate golf courses, playgrounds, highway medians and other public spaces. You can even swim in it or use it to water livestock.

In its effort to reduce algae in Malibu Creek, the regional board is considering changes to the permit it issues for Tapia. One change is to include new limits for nutrients in Tapia's reclaimed water. These new limits have not been scientifically documented or state-approved.

Effectively, we will be faced with building facilities to meet standards that have yet to be adopted and that will not be able to achieve whatever nutrient limits are eventually established. The catch here is that such treatment processes are not linear. Facilities cannot just be expanded to provide additional levels of treatment. We would have to tear them down and start over -- all at the expense of ratepayers.

The regional board also will consider imposing nutrient standards during emergency discharges under conditions that are effectively beyond our control. These include unpredictable storm events, which increase the amount of water Tapia must process, or when there is a malfunction of plant equipment, or when we are required by the federal government to supplement creek water to protect the endangered steelhead trout.

The Catch-22 is that if these nutrient requirements are written into the new permit, ratepayers (that's you and I again) will be liable for punitive fines for violations we have no means to avoid unless $160 million in new facilities are constructed.

The most frustrating Catch-22 is the regional board's belief that the quickest solution to reduce algae is to "simply send" any surplus recycled water from Tapia miles away to the Los Angeles River, rather than to Malibu Creek.

Tapia has released recycled water to Malibu Creek for decades. Changing this has many negatives.

First, it disregards the benefits of releasing treated water from Tapia, which is certified safe to swim in and helps dilute bacteria and nutrients that come down Malibu Creek from upstream.

Second, "just" sending the water to the L.A. River would mean installing miles and miles of pipes and constructing pump stations to transport the reclaimed water from Malibu Canyon to the San Fernando Valley.

Third, there is no guarantee we could gain permission to send the water to the L.A. River -- we would need to secure the blessings of environmental groups that are supporting rehabilitation of the L.A. River.

Fourth, nutrient standards for the L.A. River may be changed to become as strict as those being proposed for the Malibu Creek Watershed.

As elected officials for government agencies that serve a majority of the residents in the Malibu Creek Watershed, we have worked hard to avoid the Catch-22 of latching on to apparent quick fixes that do not bring the desired result or, worse, cause additional problems; all the more critical given the associated price tag that could double or even triple sewer rates for our customers.

We believe the best way to avoid Catch-22s for the Malibu Creek Watershed is to develop realistic, proven and practical solutions that will result in improving the health of the entire watershed.

Residents and business owners have an opportunity to express their opinions Sept. 1 at Agoura Hills City Hall, at 11 a.m., when the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board will consider Tapia's permit and take testimony regarding the solutions it has proposed to control algae in Malibu Creek.

As those who will ultimately pay for the results, we hope you'll be there.

-- Charles Caspary is board president of the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District. Ron Stark is board chairman of the Triunfo Sanitation District. These two government agencies own and operate the Tapia Water Reclamation Facility, which provides wastewater treatment, recycled water and biosolids composting for some 85,000 residents of the Malibu Creek Watershed.