Cleaning Up Rincon Point?

The New York Times recently published an article regarding the ongoing Septic vs. Sewer controversy at Rincon Point, a premier surf break in Southern California, and nexus to a small community of 72 homes. Now don't get me wrong, I'm the first to admit that sewer systems are not the most appealing coffee-break conversation, but I actually care deeply about this issue, because I live there -- and most importantly, because I surf there!

In the interest of full disclosure, I am the President of the Rincon Point Property Owners Association, a volunteer board that consists of a handful of community-conscious homeowners and residents. I should make it clear that the Association has no official position on the septic vs. sewer issue, and that these are my own personal opinions.

                

Now, the setup: In 1999, Heal the Ocean director Hillary Hauser commissioned a DNA study of the Rincon Point Watershed, to determine the extent of bacterial contamination in the lagoon and creek mouth, and to identify its most likely sources. On the ostensible basis of that study, the Rincon Point community will soon be voting on whether to hook up the Point to a large-scale sewer system, or whether to remain on septic. Here are a few relevant excerpts from that study:

"Recreation 1” bathing standards found in the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan indicate that waters that are used for recreational purposes where full body contact (swimming, surfing, and wading) is likely, should have levels of fecal coliform below 400 mpn (or cfu’s). Only one water sample of the 150 collected tested at a level above 400 cfu’s.

Translation: The Rincon Point Lagoon already meets swimming-pool standards for cleanliness.

                

Unfortunately, the limitations inherent with this particular scientific method and application in this setting does little to identify pathogens, or measure any significant infectious levels (doses) within the watershed. E.coli is a coliform bacterium that has many subspecies; the majority are hosts of normal intestinal flora. Only a few, such as E. coli 0157:H7 have been found to be pathogenic. However, while not specifically a component of the workplan, Dr. Samadpour did examine each of the species matches to determine if the E.coli isolates were pathogenic E.coli 0157:H7. Dr. Samadpour reported that no E.coli 0157:H7 was present in the isolates tested from the Lower Rincon Creek Watershed.

Translation: No known pathogenic bacteria were found in the Rincon Point Lagoon or creek mouth.

                

Although the majority of species matches were due to wild animal population, 46% of the species matches were attributed to domestic animal sources (which includes human sources). The observance of domestic animal waste in the watershed, especially in the lagoon and surfzone area, suggests that source reduction strategies should initially be targeted in these areas.

Translation: Most of the bacterial DNA matches were from non-human sources. Therefore, even if a sewer system were to remove every trace of human bacteria from the lagoon, the total (already low) level of contamination would not be significantly reduced. Moreover, our initial attention should be focused, not on septic tanks or sewers, but merely on cleaning up after our pets!

                

And yet, here we are, eight years later, on the verge of committing over $88,000 per homeowner (!) to hook up to an elaborate sewer line, that may not even be warranted in the first place. To put this in perspective, this project is MORE expensive, on a per-household basis, than Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens' infamous (and rightly-lampooned) $398 million Bridge to Nowhere.

Furthermore, the New York Times article states that sewage from Carpinteria Sanitary District is pumped 1000 feet offshore, but they neglect to mention that the sewage outfall is in only 27 feet of water, easily accessible with a mask and flippers. That's barely deeper than some college swimming pools, so it is hardly out of sight, let alone out of mind (and more to the point, out of the surf zone), and is a fish you'd hardly want to see!

                

In a telling and ironic twist, Heal the Ocean is now pushing for an environmental study of such sewer outfalls, a bona fide admission that sewage disposal is no panacea, as it would have Rincon residents believe. From Heal the Ocean's Spring 2007 Newsletter:

There are more than 37 direct-to-ocean sewage outfalls discharging into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California. Of these wastewater treatment facilities, at least 13, or 35% of them, are discharging treated sewage effluent into particularly shallow waters, 40 feet or less, where there may be a high probability of contact between treated sewage and people recreating in the water. More than 21 million gallons per day of sewage goes into the ocean off California daily in less than 40 feet of water, at distances less than a mile from the shore.

Now, there's no dispute that we all want cleaner water, and a cleaner ocean. And some homeowners understandably look forward to expanding their lots, or building bigger homes; it's undeniable that staying with septic might complicate the permitting process for such projects. But spending $7 million to hook up all of Rincon Point with a massive sewer infrastructure, when the scientific case for it is dubious at best (and harmful at worst), is an appalling misallocation of funds and resources. Five percent of that money should easily cover any possible septic repairs or upgrades that might be required to achieve an equivalent water-quality result. The initial Rincon Point DNA study was a thoughtful and appropriate exercise, but I fear that its benign tale is now being misconstrued to wag a very, very large dog.

One final thought, and then the vote will be up to the community: If Rincon Creek is so polluted... why is a barefoot Hillary Hauser stepping in it?