Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt 7
This began as a response to a poster's comment, but has expanded to deserve its own its own blog entry. So here is the anonymous comment in full, followed by my response.
Anonymous said...:
Dear Anonymous:
First of all, Rincon Point Foundation is not myself. But I thank you for your comments, and would like to respond to your points.
You're correct that 0.06 mile of Rincon Beach is 303(d) listed for Fecal + Total Coliform. However: the source of pollution remains listed as "Unknown." Keep in mind, Rincon represents only about one ten-thousandth of the total California beachfront that is 303(d) impaired; to clean up the entire coast at this price point would bankrupt Bill Gates, even presuming the sewer would help at all. If our goal is to improve the environment, this amount of money is far better spent somewhere else, beginning by identifying and fixing any problematic septics. A scorched-earth attempt to sewer all of Rincon just to keep half a teaspoon of fecal coliform out of the creek is ludicrous overkill, to say the least.
From the DNA study, approximately 80% of the DNA matches came from non-human species. The fact that none of those other species individually came in above 20% is irrelevant; your argument is like saying that most people alive today were born in 2007. (Think about it.) You also overlook the bigger picture, which is that the study found only trace amounts of pollution during the testing period; the ocean and lagoon water met all recreational standards for water quality. Significantly, only on a single day of the study (the very last day) did the human DNA tallies spike, suggesting a fault in the data or collection methods, or at least demanding some alternate explanation. Gradual septic leakage would not cause a spike like this, but a dirty diaper would. As the author of the DNA study states: "One human with an infection can contaminate an entire beach. It doesn’t take much if the bather has a highly contagious illness. Babies at the beach are like bacteria tea bags." Also, it stands to reason that a background level of pollution from septics (if any) would be relatively constant; the spikes that result in beach closures (due to increased creek flow) are likely to contain a higher proportion of animal bacteria, due to increased runoff from the watershed, yet this has not been explicitly tested for. The sewer will do nothing to reduce animal pollution; even in the original DNA study, the fecal traces from ducks + dogs outnumbered those of humans. Good luck teaching mallards to use indoor lavatories.
On fecal coliform and pathogens, here's what the DNA report says: "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... 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... As indicated above, the presence of E.coli alone does not address pathogenicity per se... Sterilization of the creek, via removal of all fecal coliform bacteria would devastate the ecosystem of the creek. Some level of nonpathogenic coliform is essential to preserving creek biota."
From the Questa study, page 5-7, regarding Septic failures: "The areas reporting the lowest number and rate of failures were Rincon Point, Orcutt area, Ballard, Painted Cave, and Mission Canyon. " Table 5-1 of the Questa report shows that for the period 1983 - 2002, Rincon Point septic systems had zero cases of surfacing effluent, zero incidents of deliberate public discharge, zero incidents of deliberate sink drain discharge, zero plumbing problems causing backup or surfacing, zero reports of suspicious orders, and two false alarms; complaints that turned out not to be septic-related. Table 5-2, likewise, shows zero septic failures at Rincon. The Questa study states: "No direct link between septic systems and beach closures has yet been established." So with all due respect, I'm not sure what you're inhaling, but I doubt it's from a failing septic.
Now, granted, Rincon may not be best-case for Septic. It is incumbent on us to inspect and upgrade our onsite systems now and then, as problems arise. However, Rincon is not best-case for sewer, either! The Questa report glosses over the excessive costs, complexities, and environmental impacts and risks of the sewer, and treats it as a black-box miracle solution. It is not. On top of the $88,000 per household for sewering our streets, PLUS $500+ per year for service, PLUS inevitable re-assessments when the project runs over budget, we are dealing with the installation and maintenance of an inordinately complicated and mickey-moused piece of infrastructure, that by the Sanitary District's own admission has NOTHING TO DO WITH WATER QUALITY. We all want cleaner water, but it is our duty to tackle the problem in a way that's both meaningful and cost-effective. The sewer is a crushingly misguided boondoggle that will only allow further mansionization of the Point, and increase our net footprint on the environment. For the record, Beach Club Road residents concur unanimously. It's no coincidence (to my knowledge) that all the surfers who live at Rincon, who have the most to actually gain from improved water quality, have done their homework and unanimously concluded that, regardless of the question, the sewer is not the answer.
I look forward to your comments.
-Ben
Anonymous said...:
Bensciousness, I am sure you will want your readers to know the real truth of what is going on at Rincon, and to know that the recent (April 4, 2008) letter by Rincon Point Foundation is full of errors.
The RPF lettersays:
"The Pacific Ocean at Rincon Point is currently 303(d) listed for "Indicator Bacteria." Your fans need to go to http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/final/r3_final303dlist.pdf
and look at page 17. It does not say "indicator bacteria." It says the pollutant/stressor is Fecal Coliform and Total Coliform. the Pacific Ocean at Point Rincon (mouth of Rincon Creek) ARE 303(d) listed.
The RPF letter says "The DNA investigation of Rincon Lagoon showed that the majority of coliform DNA matches (for which only trace amounts were found, all non-pathogenic) were NOT from human sources/species."
If your fans go to the DNA report itself they'll find this statement is not true. Go directly to the chart on page 21 - it's very clear:
http://www.healtheocean.org/articles/dna_report/index.htm
that big, high purple column represents the number of DNA matches made for HUMAN bacteria, and anyone reading the report will see specific discussion on pathogens. Human fecal material IS pathogenic, saying otherwise does not make it true.
The RPF letter says "Routine beach testing throughout Santa Barbara County demonstrates that Rincon is NOT one of the most contaminated beaches..."
That's because RPF is looking in the wrong place. Ventura County Environmental Health tests Rincon, not Santa Barbara County. Go to: http://ventura.org/rma/envhealth/programs/ocean/log.htm , and check out 2008, 2007 and 2006. You will find Rincon posted with warnings in 2008 for 16 days already (three days in January, 13 days between January and February); in 2007, Rincon beach was posted in May and July, and in 2006, Rincon was posted with warnings 11 times during the year - February, April, May, July, August, September, October. Heal the Bay has given Rincon 'BEACH BUMMER' status for 2006-2007. To see Heal the Bay's denouncement of water quality conditions at Rincon, go to: http://www.healthebay.org/brc/annual/2007/counties/ve/analysis.asp
(The "Beach Bummer" for Rincon will be very noticeable in upper right corner of screen.)
Rincon Point Foundation says "the Questa study shows there are NOT failing septc systems in the area." Your fans should go directly to the Questa study, see the chart on p. 158; summary on page 162, and they'll see the above statement is also not true: http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2B27EA-CE1C-4829-966F-D4D7468BE52D/0/WaterQualityReportSepticSystemSurveyforSBCounty.pdf
I'm sure you don't want to be spreading misinformation. The above documents and charts are the real deal. How RPF makes up the stuff it says is mystifying.
Dear Anonymous:
First of all, Rincon Point Foundation is not myself. But I thank you for your comments, and would like to respond to your points.
You're correct that 0.06 mile of Rincon Beach is 303(d) listed for Fecal + Total Coliform. However: the source of pollution remains listed as "Unknown." Keep in mind, Rincon represents only about one ten-thousandth of the total California beachfront that is 303(d) impaired; to clean up the entire coast at this price point would bankrupt Bill Gates, even presuming the sewer would help at all. If our goal is to improve the environment, this amount of money is far better spent somewhere else, beginning by identifying and fixing any problematic septics. A scorched-earth attempt to sewer all of Rincon just to keep half a teaspoon of fecal coliform out of the creek is ludicrous overkill, to say the least.
From the DNA study, approximately 80% of the DNA matches came from non-human species. The fact that none of those other species individually came in above 20% is irrelevant; your argument is like saying that most people alive today were born in 2007. (Think about it.) You also overlook the bigger picture, which is that the study found only trace amounts of pollution during the testing period; the ocean and lagoon water met all recreational standards for water quality. Significantly, only on a single day of the study (the very last day) did the human DNA tallies spike, suggesting a fault in the data or collection methods, or at least demanding some alternate explanation. Gradual septic leakage would not cause a spike like this, but a dirty diaper would. As the author of the DNA study states: "One human with an infection can contaminate an entire beach. It doesn’t take much if the bather has a highly contagious illness. Babies at the beach are like bacteria tea bags." Also, it stands to reason that a background level of pollution from septics (if any) would be relatively constant; the spikes that result in beach closures (due to increased creek flow) are likely to contain a higher proportion of animal bacteria, due to increased runoff from the watershed, yet this has not been explicitly tested for. The sewer will do nothing to reduce animal pollution; even in the original DNA study, the fecal traces from ducks + dogs outnumbered those of humans. Good luck teaching mallards to use indoor lavatories.
On fecal coliform and pathogens, here's what the DNA report says: "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... 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... As indicated above, the presence of E.coli alone does not address pathogenicity per se... Sterilization of the creek, via removal of all fecal coliform bacteria would devastate the ecosystem of the creek. Some level of nonpathogenic coliform is essential to preserving creek biota."
From the Questa study, page 5-7, regarding Septic failures: "The areas reporting the lowest number and rate of failures were Rincon Point, Orcutt area, Ballard, Painted Cave, and Mission Canyon. " Table 5-1 of the Questa report shows that for the period 1983 - 2002, Rincon Point septic systems had zero cases of surfacing effluent, zero incidents of deliberate public discharge, zero incidents of deliberate sink drain discharge, zero plumbing problems causing backup or surfacing, zero reports of suspicious orders, and two false alarms; complaints that turned out not to be septic-related. Table 5-2, likewise, shows zero septic failures at Rincon. The Questa study states: "No direct link between septic systems and beach closures has yet been established." So with all due respect, I'm not sure what you're inhaling, but I doubt it's from a failing septic.
Now, granted, Rincon may not be best-case for Septic. It is incumbent on us to inspect and upgrade our onsite systems now and then, as problems arise. However, Rincon is not best-case for sewer, either! The Questa report glosses over the excessive costs, complexities, and environmental impacts and risks of the sewer, and treats it as a black-box miracle solution. It is not. On top of the $88,000 per household for sewering our streets, PLUS $500+ per year for service, PLUS inevitable re-assessments when the project runs over budget, we are dealing with the installation and maintenance of an inordinately complicated and mickey-moused piece of infrastructure, that by the Sanitary District's own admission has NOTHING TO DO WITH WATER QUALITY. We all want cleaner water, but it is our duty to tackle the problem in a way that's both meaningful and cost-effective. The sewer is a crushingly misguided boondoggle that will only allow further mansionization of the Point, and increase our net footprint on the environment. For the record, Beach Club Road residents concur unanimously. It's no coincidence (to my knowledge) that all the surfers who live at Rincon, who have the most to actually gain from improved water quality, have done their homework and unanimously concluded that, regardless of the question, the sewer is not the answer.
I look forward to your comments.
-Ben
posted by Ben Weiss at
12:54 AM
3 Comments:
Bensciousness: please can you state page and paragraph in the DNA study that says "As the author of the DNA study states: "One human with an infection can contaminate an entire beach. It doesn’t take much if the bather has a highly contagious illness. Babies at the beach are like bacteria tea bags." (source:
This statement does not exist in the DNA study - it was made up by that east coast "scientist" who came in as guest of Rincon Point Foundation, and when we asked for her sources she wouldn't give it to us.
Interesting to note your choice of uotes from the DNA study. Why didn't you quote this one: "TYhe fact that human species matches were the most prevalent identified source and were also present in water samples from each sampling date indicate a potential for increased public health risk associated with recreational water contact.
And while we're at it, you might want to go to the Regional Water Quality Control Board website http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ and read the Proposed Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Resolution No. R3-2008-00005, Revising Criteria for Onsite Wastewater Systems. It could be that you and your neighbors might not want to find yourselves down the road without help for getting the septic system situation cleared up down there.
PS Beach Club Road unanimously stayed out of the sewer project because of all the fighting that broke out in Rincon, courtesy of RPF and friends. Did you ask them?
Dear anonymous:
The "bacteria tea bags" statement was made by Dr. Mansour Samadpour at the University of Washington; presumably, the same Dr. Mansour Samadpour at the University of Washington who authored the DNA study. (You would have seen that for yourself, if you had followed the hyperlink in my post and not had your blinders on.) The fact that Dr. Laura Orlando (your "east coast 'scientist'") made essentially the same obervation as the author of the DNA study, just emphasizes that she is not the quack you make her out to be.
You quote from the DNA report: "The fact that human species matches were the most prevalent identified source and were also present in water samples from each sampling date indicate a potential for increased public health risk associated with recreational water contact." Yet, the study concludes that it sufffers from an "Inability to address potential public health risk based on findings." Such ambivalent and contradictory statements littered throughout the report should cast doubt on the hard conclusions that you are trying to draw from it, particularly on whether the sewer is an appropriate solution.
Also, I just re-read the Regional Water Quality Control Board document you mention, but I don't see anything scary in there. The document states: "For properties that are clearly suitable for conventional onsite systems, the proposed amendment will have little or no economic consequences. For properties that may not be suitable for conventional onsite systems (e.g. inadequate separation to a watercourse), the proposed amendment may require an advanced onsite system to mitigate for poor site conditions. At a small percentage of undeveloped properties where site conditions are very poor for an onsite system, the property may no longer be suitable for an onsite system and a community sewer connection may be required." (Emphasis mine.) Well, since there are no "undeveloped properties" at Rincon, it looks like we won't be forced on sewer after all... Thanks so much for clearing that up for us. You had me worried for a fraction of a second.
Finally, you're saying Beach Club Road stayed out of the project because of the fighting at Rincon? Strange, that isn't among the four perfectly legitimate reasons they listed for turning down the sewer... And in any case, you'd imagine they'd have come down aligned with the side that had the more valid argument. Funny; they did.
-Ben
Feel the love, inspire the peace, get 'er cleaned up! Love the environment, love each other, come on now : )
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home