Friday, May 23, 2008

Freediving - Breathlessly Deep on a Deep Breath

This past weekend I had the opportunity to participate in a sport that is quickly gaining popularity among today's athletes, and is truly without parallel in the sporting world. I'm talking about freediving, which is the sport of underwater breath-hold diving, used in spearfishing, snorkeling, underwater photography, or pure recreation.

The sport involves a basic contradiction: athletic activity usually involves high consumption of oxygen, while diving underwater necessarily requires conservation of oxygen, for lack of a scuba tank. Finding the balance between these opposing factors is part of what makes the sport so fascinating. In fact, taking the course felt like becoming a superhero; all these amazing abilties to hold my breath, to dive deeper than I ever thought possible, considering that I had been barely able to touch the bottom of my grandparents' swimming pool growing up.

Unlike most any other sport, the pace of record-breaking in freediving is actually accelerating. Of sixteen competitive categories recognized by the sport (eight men's, eight women's), thirteen have seen new world records in the past year alone.

I had signed up for a four-day intermediate-level course with Performance Freediving Inc., run by Kirk Krack and Mandy-Rae Cruickshank, both world-class freedivers. Mandy has held several world records, and it's no exaggeration to say that she gives dolphins a run for their money. Also assisting was Craig Gentry, a member of the USA national freediving team.

The course was hosted by Malibu Divers, a scuba outfit I've dived with extensively. The owner, Carter, was kind enough to arrange the course, and another Malibu Divers regular, Matt, joined me for the four-day training session. Matt have never really free-dived before, so the sport was totally new to him; I've had some amount of experience with breath-hold diving while snorkeling, but never any formal training.

Day 1: Apnea

The course began with several hours of classwork: learning the physiology and safety aspects of the sport. Learning about the Mammalian Diving Reflex; why hyperventilation is counterproductive; the signs and symptoms of hypoxia and blackout; rescue techniques for emergencies; proper breathing techniques to slow your metabolism; and how to build up your CO2 tolerance and maximize breath-hold time.



Later in the afternoon we headed over to the Pepperdine swimming pool, where we slithered into our custom form-fitting wetsuits (an awkward endeavor, requiring several dollops of hair-conditioner to expedite the way), ultra-low-profile freediving masks, rubber weight belts, and extra-long fins. An hour of rescue drills, how to handle an unconscious or semi-conscious diver, how to protect the airway, how to make someone start breathing again. Matt and I took turns rescuing each other in simulated situations, until we got the hang of it.

Then it was over to the shallow end, for static apnea (breath-holding). Two minutes of controlled breathing (quick inhale, hold for two seconds, slow exhale for ten seconds, hold two seconds, repeat), followed by a one-minute breath-hold. Piece of cake. Then a three-minute breathe-up, followed by five "purges" (deep inhale, four-second deep exhale), and a two-minute breath-hold. Easy. Then a four-minute breathe-up, five purges, and a three-minute breath-hold. I had done this before, so I didn't have much difficulty, but some of my classmates were starting to struggle. Finally, a five-minute breathe-up, five purges, and a four-minute-max breath-hold. I was completely in the zone, and spent the first few minutes nearly asleep, eyes closed, just floating. Periodically Matt would give me two taps, and I'd signal that I was still doing fine. As four minutes approached, I started to feel a slight urge to breathe, but didn't want to up yet. I heard Craig say: "You're making this look way too easy; go for 4:15." As that time approached, I slowly planted my feet, grabbed the edge of the pool, and at 4:20 lifted my head out of the water. Six quick breaths, an "okay" signal, and within a few seconds I felt completely back to normal. According to Kirk, this breath-hold time theoretically corresponds to over a 200-foot dive (taking exertion into account), so I was stoked! My personal bests are 5:30 for breath-holding and a 60-foot dive, so I was eager to get into the ocean and put my training into practice.

Day 2: Heat

Alas, the ocean would have to wait one more day. Day 2 consisted of more classroom and pool training, focusing on stretching exercises and negative compression, getting used to the feeling of 100 feet of water compressing your lungs and chest. The standard training maneuver: bend over and exhale as much air as you can, then stand up straight and suck in your diaphragm, compressing your chest and lungs. This typically triggers an urge to breathe, even though you have plenty of oxygen; the stretching helps to overcome this reflex. It also helps diminish the residual lung volume, making more air available for equalization during a deep dive. The second training maneuver was to breathe all the way out, then sink to the bottom of the 16-foot pool, simulating the chest compression of a 200-foot dive. We learned to use our throat muscles to make "grouper call" sounds, using the throat as a piston to force bits of remaining air up from our lungs, enabling equalization at depth. An odd and uncomfortable sensation at first, but increasingly more comfortable as we got used to it.

Unfortunately, this day found us in the middle of a heat wave, wearing thick wetsuits in a heated pool with the sun straight overhead, and pretty soon we were suffering from the heat. (I hadn't gotten much sleep the night before, either.) After more rescue practice, we headed over to the shallow end for another static-apnea attempt. I wasn't feeling nearly as good as the day before, possibly fighting off a cold, but I gamely went through the preparation exercises: a five-minute facial immersion to stimulate the diving reflex and slow the metabolism, then a three-minute breathe-up, and a two-minute breath-hold. Comfortable, but not effortless. Then a four-minute breathe-up, and a three-minute breath-hold. The day before this had been trivial, but this time I was starting to overheat; I felt the urge to breathe around 2:45, and knew I was nowhere near my best performance. Finally, a five-minute breathe-up, and a maximum breath-hold attempt. I started feeling the CO2 buildup in my lungs around 3:30, and by four minutes I was struggling. My diaphragm started going into periodic involuntary contractions, a typical and expected symptom of extended breath-holds; uncomfortable, but not painful. I also got a bit self-conscious, since I had never done this in front of anyone before. By 4:30 the contractions were getting intense, and I was losing my willpower, so I stood up. Six quick breaths, ok signal, but I was feeling pretty wiped out.

Astoundingly, one of our classmates was a 60-year-old spearfisherman and triathlete, who managed to pull out a six-minute breath-hold, approaching the elite level. He came up smiling, to cheers and applause. Another classmate made 4:45 but blacked out momentarily on surfacing, definitely making the highlights reel. Within seconds he was fine; competitive freedivers regularly lose consciousness, with no persistent ill effects. (Note: I have little desire to become a competitive freediver; I'm doing this for recreation!)

After the pool session we raced down to Long Beach to catch the Catalina ferry, making it by minutes. An uneventful crossing, a big spaghetti dinner, and a good night's sleep to prepare for the next day!

Day 3: Depth

Woke up early, bright and sunny, and went off to eat a light breakfast. Sixteen of us in a kitschy Catalina pancake house, all ordering oatmeal with raisins and no coffee, all added up to a very confused server. An hour later, we walked up to Casino Point, and swam out a couple hundred yards to the dive floats, in 100 feet of water. I was still feeling a bit out of sorts, but the sun was out, the surface water temperature about 66 degrees, and I felt comfortable enough in the water. I floated at the surface, letting my black wetsuit soak up the sun's rays.

After a five-minute facial immersion to kick-start the dive reflex, we took turns pullling ourselves down a line, hanging underwater until we felt the urge to breathe, then coming up. We started at 5 meters, then went to 10, 15, and 20 meters. A wicked thermocline at 50 feet dropped the water temperature to 55 shivering degrees, but I wasn't down there that long. With the dive reflex, even at 60 feet with my lungs compressed, I felt totally fine; staying underwater for a minute and a half on each dive. Then we went through some rescue scenarios, learned the techniques for finning up and down instead of pulling on the line, and headed back to shore for lunch and a rest.

Later in the afternoon, back out for more diving. After some preparatory dives, the line was lowered to 80 feet, and after a breathe-up I started back down. Kick hard down to 33 feet, then softer down to 66 feet, then drift deeper as negative buoyancy kicks in.The difference between 60 and 80 feet was night and day; I felt serious compression on my lungs, and had difficulty finding air to equalize, using the grouper-call technique to get air. Yet I never felt out of breath, and hung on the line for several seconds at 80 feet acclimatizing to the pressure, before slowly swimming back up, streamlined with hands overhead. Drop hands at 33 feet, exhale halfway at six feet, then on hitting the surface, take a deep breath and hold for three seconds; breathe out and in quickly; hold three seconds; out and in, hold. Then three quick breaths to blow off the last CO2, and an okay signal.

Still feeling good, I decided to attempt a 100-foot dive. Breathe-up, take a huge breath, and dive down. Strong kicks to 33 feet, soft kicks to 66, then drift down. I was able to equalize to about 90 feet, then stretched to reach the plate at the bottom of the line. Tap, turn, kick back up. And up. And up. And up. Whew! My dive watch read 95 feet; over 50% deeper than my personal best. After a ten-minute break, I tried one more time, and reached 96 feet. Then a few more rescue exercises, and we called it a day.

Day 4: Cold

Woke up with a slight fever; probably the same cold I'd been fighting all week. Low-energy, and not enough time to eat a proper breakfast; half a power bar, collected my stuff together, and we walked out to the dock to catch the King Neptune, a dive boat that would carry us out to the deep water site. 15 minute boat trip, then we slithered into our cold wetsuits, donned the gear, and jumped in the water. I was still feeling under the weather, but really didn't want to miss the opportunity. The weather itself was also under the weather; cloudy and cold, with some wind blowing. We started with the five-minute facial immersion, lowering our metabolism; within a few minutes, I was shivering. I should have been smart and headed back to the boat; more on that soon.

We went through the pull-downs to 5 meters, 10 meters, 15 meters, 20 meters, and my shivering was getting intense. The boat was 200 feet away, and no one else was swimming back, so I didn't want to be the first to wimp out. As this was my last opportunity to try a deep dive, and I really wanted to see 100 feet on my watch, I tried to pull myself down the line. Got to 91 feet, couldn't equalize, felt out of breath, so I came back up. Rested a bit, and my shivering began to subside. (Bad sign.) Figured I'd try one last time: Kicked down to 33 feet, 66 feet, drifted down, and got within a few feet of the bottom plate: my watch read 97 feet, but I was already out of breath. The kick back up felt interminable; never any panic, but a long, long swim. Reached the surface, shivered my way through a few last rescues, then we swam back to the boat. By this time I was seriously hypothermic; perhaps 94 degrees core temperature by my best guess, but it didn't occur to me to worry about it.

So we got back on the boat, got out of our wetsuits, and went to the on-boat shower to rinse off. Hot shower. Really, really bad idea. As I discovered afterward, a hot shower is perhaps the worst possible thing I could have done with hypothermia. The heat stimulates the circulation in the limbs, which makes the cold blood stream straight back to the heart and lungs, lowering the core temperature even more. After a few minutes, I started to feel a very peculiar sensation, like my chest and lungs were shivering. I checked my heartbeat, and it was erratic; fluttering randomly between 60 and 120 beats per minute in a chaotic dance. Otherwise I still felt okay, so it didn't seem like an emergency; I just tried to stay warm, and although I was very tired, I didn't feel dangerously bad. The arrhythmia persisted for over an hour, but finally subsided after we ate a hot lunch and walked over to the ferry.

In hindsight, there were several contributing factors, all preventable. I woke up with a fever; that alone should have kept me out of the water. My electrolytes were imbalanced from no breakfast, which can aggravate arrhythmia. After an hour in the water, I was probably a bit dehydrated. And I let myself get way too cold, which is really the wrong time to do strenuous exercise and breath-holding. And finally, the hot shower triggered the further drop in core temperature and resulting arrhythmia.

I'm planning to get an EKG test to be safe; I don't anticipate anything out of the ordinary, but I've never had one before, so it's long overdue. Besides, I'll need a doctor's note to get clearance for the advanced freediving course in Kona this August, which I'm very much looking forward to. I also look forward to writing a blog entry that focuses less on medical mishaps, and more on the beauty of freediving!

Update: Clean bill of health, EKG normal, all systems go. Excellent!

Update 2: Turns out the arrhythmia was nothing but Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia, which is a perfectly normal occurrence, and actually A Good Thing. From the article: "In humans, the magnitude of the RSA increases with physical conditioning and self-induced, relaxed breathing. RSA becomes less prominent with age, diabetes and cardiovascular disease."

And here is a Class Video !

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 8

Rincon Votes Down Sewer -- But Overruled By Three Other Communities!!

The sewer annexation vote has now been certified in the four communities, and the final tally comes to 73 for, 67 against. A sad day for Rincon, considering that the Rincon precinct (including parts of Sand Point Road) actually voted against the sewer, 58 to 48! Since Sand Point is generally in support of the sewer, this suggests that the opposition at Rincon is stronger still. Yet the gerrymandering of all four communities together has flipped the tables against us, and obtaining justice will be an uphill fight.

CA Elections Code, Section 14251:
"Any doubt in the interpretation of the law shall be resolved in favor of the challenged voter."


Importantly: note that were it not for eleven No votes thrown out under dubious circumstances, we would have outright won the election. At least one of these registrations was thrown out based on sworn testimony from the pro-sewer side that was pathetically, flabbergastingly false; the voter in question was never contacted to verify these allegations, and there was no time or opportunity for appeal. (I would provide details, but the circumstances are fairly personal.) I will just observe that the CA Elections Code has been flagrantly violated in this election, in both letter and spirit. Truly sickening; politics at its worst.

Finally, I will point your attention to a recent article in the SB Daily Sound. Here are some excerpts:
Santa Barbara beaches made the grade in Heal the Bay’s annual Beach Report Card released Wednesday, ranking as some of the cleanest places to take a dip along the state’s coastline.
During the dry, beach-going months, water quality at all 20 locations tested weekly from the Guadalupe Dunes to Rincon earned very good or excellent rankings, according to the report.
Santa Barbara beaches with the most issues during the rainy season include Arroyo Burro Beach, East Beach at Mission Creek and Carpinteria State Beach. Those locations have the largest and most urbanized waterways spilling into them, Brummett said, lending to water quality issues.
East Beach near Mission Creek earned an “F” rating during the wet season. Arroyo Burro Beach, Goleta Beach and Carpinteria State Beach are among those with “C” ratings during rainy periods.
Health officials also closed two local beaches following sewage spills in the past year, something Brummett said is a rare occurrence.
So remind me again why Rincon needs a $7 million sewer system?

Friday, April 18, 2008

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 7.5



Sewage leak shuts Coast Highway in Laguna Beach

Is this really what we want for Rincon??

'Nuff said.

Monday, April 7, 2008

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...:

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

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

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.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 5

50% Protest Vote Achieved! (But will LAFCO acknowledge it?)

The Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) recently held a protest vote which gave residents of the four communities the opportunity to block their annexation into the Carpinteria sewer district. If 50% of registered voters protested, the annexation would be stopped, and the sewer project would be killed. A protest by at least 25% of registered voters would bring the annexation to a confirmation yes-or-no vote.

Based on information from a Jan. 11 letter from LAFCO to Carpinteria Sanitary District, 83 protests were received out of 166 potential voters, or exactly 50%. However, thirty of these protests were declared invalid, for the following reasons:

a. Eighteen protests invalid because, according to LAFCO, the signers were not registered to vote. (65 / 148)
b. Ten protests invalid because they were signed before the individuals registered to vote. (55 / 148)
c. One protest invalid because it was allegedly not signed. (54 / 148)
d. One protest invalid because the signer was registered at an address outside the proposal area. (53 / 147)

Thus, LAFCO determined that the final tally was 53 protests out of 147 registered voters, or 36%. In any event, this is more than enough to bring the protest to a confirmation vote, which will take place in the next few months.

However, most if not all of the thirty invalidations are suspect. The cutoff date for the protest was December 3rd, yet word is that LAFCO arbitrarily decided to throw out the protests of anyone who registered to vote after November 30! This potentially accounts for the eighteen invalid protests in (a), as well as the protest in (d).The ten protests in [b] were improperly invalidated due to an obvious misreading of Government Code Section 57051, which states: "All signatures without a date or bearing a date prior to the date of publication of the notice shall be disregarded for purposes of ascertaining the value of any written protests." Nowhere does it state that individuals must be registered to vote before signing the protest. Finally, the single supposedly unsigned protest in [c] could be counted if it the individual's name was handwritten, which could arguably be considered a signature. (Admittedly, this is legal speculation.)

LAFCO is holding a hearing on Thursday, February 7, where we'll try to get more information. More on this situation as it develops.

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 4

Will Raw Milk Soon Be Banned in California?

Foodies are up in arms over new legislation that sets tighter cleanliness standards for unpasteurized milk. The new standards (not more than 10 coliform per milliliter) stand to make the production of raw milk in California "very, very difficult, if not impossible," according to Mark McAfee, managing partner of Organic Pastures Dairy in Fresno, which produces the bulk of California's raw milk.

Obviously, this safety standard is for a food product intended for direct human consumption, so we shouldn't expect a recreational body of water to be held to the same high standard. And yet, if you look at the 1999 Rincon Watershed DNA Study, every single water sample would have passed the new raw-milk coliform test by a considerable margin. In other words, our lagoon and ocean water is safe enough to drink, let alone swim in! So, will someone please remind me again why we need an $88,000-per-household sewer system??

The Pipe To Nowhere

Anyhow, 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 pipeline remains untouched, and the cost of relocation has been silently passed along to Rincon homeowners as part of the proposed Septic to Sewer project. Is it any wonder that so many residents are strongly opposed to the project?

[UPDATE: Clarification -- The cost to Rincon homeowners is indirect, in that the Rincon line will initially be hooked up to the old decrepit bluffs pipeline, which must still be relocated in the future. If the pipeline had been relocated beforehand, the complexity of hooking up to it from Rincon would have been greatly reduced, and our expense considerably smaller. Specifically, City Planner comments indicated that locating the proposed line away from the bluff edge would not only facilitate relocation of the existing line, but would avoid impacts to biological resources on the Carpinteria Bluffs and reduce the environmental impacts of the project (FEIR Vol. II at page I - 51). Presumably, the eventual cost of relocation will be shouldered not only by Rincon homeowners but by all the sewer customers, even though it was represented that they had already paid for it through the 2004 rate increase. Carp San has tried but so far failed to to secure an additional grant to pay for this relocation. The FSEIR states: "The district has indicated that there is a goal to implement such a relocation project, however, this plan has not been scheduled or adequately financed to date." (FSEIR, page I-60.) This is in direct opposition to the statements used to justify their 28% rate increase in 2004.]

The Protest Vote

Speaking of which, on December 3rd, LAFCO held an official protest vote to oppose the annexation of Rincon Point into the Carpinteria Sanitary sewer district. Anyone registered to vote inside the four communities was given the option to protest the annexation, and if 50% of the registered voters protested, the annexation would be cancelled. If 25% protested, then the annexation would be brought to a subsequent yes-or-no vote.

In light of this protest, many part-time residents of Rincon realized that they were technically registered to vote at an address outside the Point. As a consequence, several of these residents decided to change their official voter address to Rincon Point, so that their protests would be counted. But since the only cutoff date specified in the LAFCO protest announcement was December 3rd, a substantial number of residents modified their voter registrations and filed their protests on the last day, not anticipating any problem. At a LAFCO hearing on December 6th, LAFCO's legal counsel confirmed the December 3rd cutoff date for registrations and protests.

But, out of nowhere, the word is that LAFCO is planning to throw out the protests of anyone who changed their voter registrations later than November 30, effectively disenfranchising all residents who updated their voting address on the day of the protest. Furthermore, Heal The Ocean has requested that the cutoff date be regressed all the way back to October 30 (the date the protest notice was mailed), which would disenfranchise even more voters! It's appalling to me that a nonprofit organization would resort to such blatantly anti-democratic tactics, but this is where we are. It also indicates that the protests easily reached at least the 25% level, and perhaps the 50% level, otherwise why would they fight so hard to retroactively change the cutoff date? More on this situation as it develops.

The State Grant

The Clean Beaches Initiative Grant #601 ostensibly allocates $2.1 million toward the Carpinteria sewer project, about half of which is targeted toward Rincon Point. From what I understand, Carp San will get reimbursed for 25% of their sewer-related expenses as they go along, but Rincon homeowners will not be reimbursed this 25% until the very end of the project, and only if the project comes in under budget! (Realistically, what are the odds?) The upshot is that Carp San will actually be in possession of funds totaling 125% of their projected cost of the project, with no mandate or incentive to return any of it to homeowners. The grant money, if it ever materializes, will essentially go into a slush fund with no public oversight. Slick.

Finally, here is a quote from the EPA on Septage, which is the waste product of septic systems that the pro-sewer folks seem to be so worried about:

"When properly managed, domestic septage is a resource. A valuable soil conditioner, septage contains nutrients that can reduce reliance on chemical fertilizers for agriculture. A good septage management program recognizes the potential benefits of septage and employs practices to maximize these benefits."

I welcome your comments.