Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 6

On April 22nd, the South Coast Communities vote on whether to be annexed into Carpinteria Sanitary District, a necessary step for the proposed septic-to-sewer conversion project. Proponents of the project recently submitted the following statement. I am reprinting it here, followed by my comments:

Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure U2008

The residents of Rincon Point and other South Coast Beach Communities do NOT oppose Measure U2008. On October 16, 2007 an overwhelming majority of homeowners in all four communities voted in favor of septic to sewer conversion and agreed to pay for this long overdue project. To say a collective annexation prevents each community from making its own decision is false – each community has already decided in favor of public sewers, and annexation to CSD is simply one step in the process.

A multi-year CEQA process analyzed "project risks" and "environmental hazards" over and over again. The opponents failed to make their case through ten years of opposition and frivolous lawsuits.

Here are the facts:
• The Pacific Ocean at Rincon Point is listed by EPA as a 303(d) impaired water body for fecal coliform;
• A DNA investigation of Rincon Lagoon has shown the major source of fecal coliform to be human;
• Routine beach testing shows Rincon Beach to be one of the most contaminated beaches in Santa Barbara County;
• Public sewers are environmentally superior to aged, leaking septic systems in sandy soils with high groundwater;
• CSD has an outstanding record of environmental compliance and continues to invest in infrastructure improvements as needed and required.

County Health and Environmental officials endorse this project, as do the Boards of Supervisors of both Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. The State Water Resources Control Board approved a $2.1 million grant for this project through its Clean Beaches Initiative. Where in all this is the "betrayal of public trust"?

Signed:

Hillary Hauser, Executive Director, Heal the Ocean
Scott Bull, Director, Santa Barbara Surfrider
Debbie Trauntvein, President, Santa Barbara Surf Club
Jim DeArkland, Rincon resident
Lachlan Hough, President, Sandyland Cove Homeowners Association

Now, let's go through this point by point:

The residents of Rincon Point and other South Coast Beach Communities do NOT oppose Measure U2008.

The upcoming vote is to determine who is opposed. It is presumptuous and circular reasoning on the part of the proponents to assert the outcome in advance.

"On October 16, 2007 an overwhelming majority of homeowners in all four communities voted in favor of septic to sewer conversion and agreed to pay for this long overdue project."

The vote at Rincon was 57% to 43%. If just five of the Yes votes at Rincon had been different, the outcome would have split evenly. These numbers are far from "overwhelming." In fact, the Ventura half of Rincon Point voted against the sewer, and at least some of the Yes voters have since changed their minds and now oppose the project.

To say a collective annexation prevents each community from making its own decision is false

In a recent protest, out of 147 voters in the four communities, 83 protests were received. 30 of these protests were invalidated for various reasons, but of the 53 valid protests, it stands to reason that a large proportion were from Rincon. This suggests that a majority of Rincon voters currently oppose the sewer project. As voters have become aware that their original stance may have been tainted by ignorance or misinformation, or perhaps by intimidation, it is important that their voices now be heard. It's true that a majority of homeowners in the other communities are in favor of the sewer; naturally, it costs them half as much, and the logistical and environmental factors are different. But if the current consensus at Rincon is that the sewer is bad, then this should not be overruled by other communities' votes. If the upcoming vote fails, the project is still likely to proceed in those communities. Rincon should not be held hostage by this gerrymandered consolidation of unconnected voting regions.

Here are the facts: • The Pacific Ocean at Rincon Point is listed by EPA as a 303(d) impaired water body for fecal coliform;"

Approximately 100 sites on that list are impaired for fecal coliform, suggesting that this is a widespread problem up and down the coast, likely caused by sewage outfalls; not septic sources. The source of the pollution at Rincon is listed as "Unknown." Note that Rincon Creek and Lagoon are NOT 303(d) impaired for coliform bacteria, suggesting they are not the source of the problem.

• A DNA investigation of Rincon Lagoon has shown the major source of fecal coliform to be human;

On the contrary; 80% of the coliform samples were linked to non-human species. More to the point, the total pollution level was extremely slight, cleaner than swimming-pool standards; if the collected samples had been milk, it would be considered safe to drink. For more information, the DNA study is here. And for the record, milk standards are here: maximum 10 coliform per milliliter. Even the dirtiest samples taken at Rincon Point were at least twice this clean.

• Routine beach testing shows Rincon Beach to be one of the most contaminated beaches in Santa Barbara County;

Just the opposite is true. This chart shows pollution exceedances for several Santa Barbara County beaches. In 2007, Rincon Beach experienced ZERO exceedances, making it the cleanest beach on the coast. Even in 2000, when the samples were taken at the creek mouth, Rincon was no more polluted than Leadbetter or Hammonds (both of which are on sewer), and considerably cleaner than many other beaches along the coast. Each year since 2000, Rincon Beach has tested cleaner than average among Santa Barbara County beaches. The only real pollution spikes (1998 and 1999) correspond to massive sewage spills by Carpinteria Sanitary District. Heal The Bay's 2006-2007 Beach Report Card speaks for itself: Rincon Beach at Rincon Creek received straight A's.

• Public sewers are environmentally superior to aged, leaking septic systems in sandy soils with high groundwater;

This is a straw man argument; not one of the septic systems at Rincon has been shown to be failing. And even if one or two of them are, by all means let's fix them, for a tiny fraction of the cost, complexity and environmental impact of the proposed sewer.

• CSD has an outstanding record of environmental compliance and continues to invest in infrastructure improvements as needed and required.

Between 1997 and 2002, Carpinteria Sanitary District was responsible for 31 sewage spills, 17 of them into the ocean. These spills could easily account for the anecdotal surfer illnesses later blamed on Rincon septics. In mid-2004, Carpinteria Sanitary District raised its rates 28% for existing customers, claiming the money would be used to "relocat[e] a pipeline away from eroding coastal bluffs.The pipeline is in danger of collapse with serious environmental consequences." But now, three and a half years later, this dangerous pipeline remains untouched. This is far from an exemplary record of investment or compliance. Sewers are not the answer.

County Health and Environmental officials endorse this project, as do the Boards of Supervisors of both Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.

These organizations likely endorse the project because it is politically expedient to do so, and because it costs them nothing. Understandably, it's politically difficult for such organizations to oppose environmental-sounding projects. And what's more, they may not have done the proper research to fully understand both sides of this complex issue. A Surfrider representative expressed to me that their organization would probably still support the project even if the cost were ten times greater (a ludicrous $880,000.00 per homeowner!); of course, it's not their money. But whatever happened to the moral imperative of using funds and resources wisely?? In the case of the sewer project, our money would probably be better spent by following the raccoons around with little plastic baggies.

Where in all this is the "betrayal of public trust"?

The blatant misrepresentation of scientific data, subversion of truth, and political maneuvering in the proponents' statements are an egregious betrayal of public trust. Ironically, nowhere has this been shown more clearly than the document in which this statement was contained.

I welcome your comments.